Precognition, is it real? If you examine the research that’s been published in this field, from peer-reviewed publications and controlled experiments, combined with the declassified literature from parapsychology programs from multiple governments around the world, the evidence for the ability of humans to accurately predict future events is overwhelming to the point where I am not sure why it would or could be considered ‘pseudoscience’. But given the current parameters of science, it’s understandable, and from this perspective, the evidence may not be ‘overwhelming,’ but you can decide that for yourself.
So what exactly is precognition? It’s essentially the ability to have a premonition of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known process.
The current parameters of science definitely need to be changed and adjusted, they allow for an observed phenomenon, although sometimes unexplainable, to be completely disregarded, no matter how many times it’s replicated or performed under controlled experiments. This is a result of scientific dogma, rules and laws of science that have been set in place and seem to stay there due to the fact that new concepts of reality simply disrupt belief systems. Take the concept of metaphysical realms for example, the implications and realizations of these realms, if confirmed, would result in a complete worldview paradigm shift and perhaps the disruption of multiple religious teachings. That being said, a lot of religion and ancient eastern philosophy does not argue against these realms but speak of them too.
“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
– Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)
When it comes to precognition, the new study recently published by scientists at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) examines multiple, scientifically controlled experiments that have yielded significant results. They examined multiple areas of research, multiple studies and meta-analysis showing how the scientific evidence for pre-cognition is measurable and continues to grow.
The authors are careful in their writing, pointing out the observed effects:
If positive empirical evidence continues to accumulate, especially if the methodological recommendations suggested by ourselves and others are followed, then a time may come when we are forced to think the unthinkable. Indeed, the implications of retrocausation are so remote from engrained ways of thinking that the first reaction to this line of research is that it must be flawed. The second reaction may be horror that it represents a previously unaccepted fact about reality. (source)
The authors provide further studies within this one for the reader’s consideration, so be sure to check them out. But the above point is great, perhaps it is our fear of such confirmations that holds us back?
Another interesting concept discussed in the study is time, as you cannot really have a discussion about pre-cognition without the concept of time. When you think about pre-cognition, as with most parapsychological areas of study, you also have to consider quantum physics, because these two disciplines are deeply related to each other. Studies conducted over the years in quantum physics alone has shown how human intention, and other factors associated with consciousness, can and do interact with our physical material reality.
When we talk about future events, and time, if we look at matter on a quantum scale, future events are represented as a wave of possibilities, and don’t really manifest as physical matter until we, the observer, click it into existence with our own consciousness. In 2007 (Science 315, 966, 2007), scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus and showed that their actions could retroactively change something which had already happened.