The Anatomy of a Precognitive Dream

[YAD]

The Anatomy of a Precognitive Dream. By Ian Wilson (2010) Public Domain No Copyrights. Definition A precognitive dream is a type of dream that comes true as a future event. It is also known as Déjà Rêvé (Art Funkhouser, Dr. Vernon Neppe).[1] It can bring about the same sensations associated with Déjà Vu such as the Déja Vu Aura, goose-bumps etc. Types of Precognitive Dreams Symbolic Precognitive Dream. Literal Precognitive Dream. 3rd Person Precognitive Dream. Lucid Precognitive Dream.[2] Symbolic Precognitive Dream Dream symbolism abstracts the precognitive information and generally is not realized up until the actual event. This can be a very difficult type of dream to identify as a type of precognitive dream, however certain symbols in the dream can match or greatly exaggerate the future event when it actualizes. The accuracy and quality of this type of dream should be considered of a low grade type of precognition. Literal Precognitive Dream From a first-person view, this type of precognitive dream in literal detail. What you sense, think and feel in the dream can actualize in the future-tense when the dream actualizes. This dream can bring about a Déjà Vu aura however linking the memory of the déjà to a dream is what classifies this type of dream as Déjà Rêvé. 3rd Person Precognitive Dream From a third-person vantage point, this type of precognitive dream can take on both symbolic and literal similarities however does not suggest that the information being observed will occur from a first-person point of view. Lucid Precognitive Dream A lucid dream is a dream where a person is awake and realizes that they are dreaming. This alert and awakened focus state also can emerge within the phenomena of precognitive dreams. This type of precognitive dream can have an even more pronounced déjà vu aura then a non-lucid precognitive dream. Robert Waggoner explains there are two types of lucid precognitive dreams: Active and Ambient.[4] In an active lucid precognitive dream, the dreamer actively tries to engage the precognitive dream, where in an ambient lucid dream the dreamer passively observes the dream remaining within the usual dream flow. History Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" a Sumerian Poem suggests precognitive dreams in tablet 1 where Gilgamesh dreams about the imminent arrival of two companions, or the ominous dream received by Enkidu on tablet 6. The "Epic of Gilgamesh" is one of considered one of the oldest works of literature and predates biblical text at approximately 2150BC and could be one of the earliest suggestions of precognitive dreams.[5] Aristotle published a paper entitled "On Prophesying by Dreams" [6]written in 350BC which questions with skepticism the validity of claims by those who say they have dreams of the future. He does not completely refute the notion of precognitive dreams, however understands that much of what is dreamed could be coincidence. It's clear that ancient Greeks subscribed to prophecy as evident in Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" where in Cassandra is granted the gift of prophecy by Apollo. The Greek God Morpheus resides in a land of Dreams somewhere in the Underworld where two gates exist, one that sends false dreams through the gate of ivory, and the other that sends prophetic dreams gate of horns. Theory Answers to why precognitive dreams occur may lie in quantum mechanics and the effects on consciousness. If future information exists, as suggested by people who claim to experience precognition, certain theories in Physics might apply, for example Hugh Everett many-worlds interpretation [6], which is an evolving theory stemming from Erwin Schrödinger's cat paradox [7]. In a quantum view of a many-world system, every possible past, present and future probability could theoretically exist as probability. We know through quantum superposition that a particle can exist in every possible state until observed. Physicists are just starting to understand quantum information, and if this information is non-linear and existing within an astronomical data-set, it is possible that the Universe has organized into a complex information system and data structure that had per-populated itself with a myriad of probability that may exist in an astronomical scale. Stuart Hameroff[8] proposes that the human brain is both a Neurocomputer and Quantum computer [9]. The link to the computational nature of the brain and how quantum mechanics may link to consciousness could explain that some type of entanglement and superposition affects human consciousness. Pemrose and Hameroff [10] have discerned that the brain uses coherent photons as part of the brain mechanics and is used to preform information processing. Photons contribute to what we view as consciousness, and consciousness itself may have quantum states that through time and research we can unravel. The Universe itself can be viewed as information that our brains must access and render into a model that we call subjective reality. A unique first-person vantage point within an objective dataset. Regardless of how objective reality is, it must always be subjectively experienced by a conscious observer. The nature of quantum mechanics is revealing through superposition that matter and energy could also be viewed as information. If we consider the Universe as an information system, then past/present/future could exist in every possible conceived state as probability and data. Digital Physics, first termed by Edward Fredkin [10] has emerged with serious considerations that Reality itself could be computative in nature, a Universal computer so to speak. This idea is supported by Tom Campbell "My Big Toe"[11], Brian Witworth "The Physical World as Virtual Reality"[12], Seth Lloyd "Programming the Universe"[13], Stephen Wolfram "Cellular Automata"[14], Max Tegmark "Mathematical universe hypothesis"[15] and the list goes on. In Brian Witworths work, there is a quote that seems to resonate with the nature of precognitive dreams, "This makes this world a recursive interface, that both sends to and receives from itself. If so, it is like no other information interface that we know." It is in this quote and within the nature of precognitive dreams that we may see the emergence of the recursive feedback in the form of probable reality in a dream, to the actualized reality when the dream comes true. It could be suggested that the precognitive dream itself is a form of reality per-programming within this recursive interface, and the actualization of the dream is the feedback within the greater system. How is this possible? What are the mechanics that drive this system and allows for non-linear, non-localized dreams to actualize into reality? At this point, we have theories and ideas evolving from those who understand and see a relationship between consciousness and reality. If we look again at physics, there is another anomaly that suggests the observe affects wave-function collapse: "Wave function, initially in a superposition of different eigenstates, appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the condensation of physical possibilities into a single occurrence, as seen by an observer." The observer effect brings about the measurement problem in Quantum Mechanics and stirs the debate if wave-function collapse occurs at all, however the Double-slit experiment[16] demonstrates wave / particle duality and further entangles the observer into the role of one who collapses wave function. This is an interesting enigma within science, it suggests a link between the observer and the observed. That deterministic probability is being actualized as the observer renders reality through the act of collapsing wave-function and probability. It seems like a stretch to the imagination but we are talking about precognitive dreams here. Dreaming for the most part is a passive experience where we project our thoughts, ideas and emotions into a virtual 3D world based on the principles of organized thought. At some point within this creative process of dreaming, certain dreams appear to qualify as "precognitive" in nature. A seeming unknown potential that does not become apparent to the dreamer, until the dream actualizes and the individual is left with the realization that what was once dreamed of, is now actual. Anatomy of a Precognitive Dream If we take for face value what a precognitive dream is, it is a type of dream that has future potential. In order for such a dream to come true, it must actualize into an event in physical reality. In the case of a literal precognitive dream, the dream is observed from a subjective vantage point, the physical event that the dream actualizes into must also be perceived from the same subjective vantage point. This suggests that reality exists in two states: A state by which a person can dream of a future event, and a state where this event actualizes into a physical event. It suggests there is a direct relationship between what is dreamed, and what is later experienced in reality. In a linear context, the precognitive dream pre-dates the physical event that it represents. In looking at the origin of the physical event. We have an answer to a Causality Dilemma known as, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" In the case of "What came first, the dream or reality", in the case of precognitive dreaming, the precognitive dream came first. Precognitive dreaming is in fact a paradox that exists within the subjective vantage point of certain observers who have had enough memory, awareness and perception during a certain dream that qualifies as a precognitive event. What also makes this unique is that people who often have precognitive dreams, have a varying degree of frequency, clarity and quality. It can range from one precognitive dream in their entire life, to many. Then there are those who do not have any precognitive dreams, they may not have first-person experience with this paradox to even begin accepting that such a phenomena is real and possible. For the most part, these people are skeptical of others who claim they have. It is up to you to decide what dreams you have had, that qualify as precognitive or not. You can only know through the process of actualization if a dream has any precognitive worth. A reason as to why this is, (Why some do and some don't) may have been answered by Tom Campbell who wrote the trilogy entitled, "My Big Toe"[11], where he describes the Psi Uncertainty Principle. The Psi Uncertainty Principle allows for individual growth in areas that may be construed as paranormal or spiritual, without affecting or having impact on others who are not ready to grow in certain areas. Precognitive dreams certainly fit within the described theory as something that affects individual growth more so then affecting many with any mass effect. Tom also suggests there is a metaphorical big computer (TBC) that organizes data into reality. This idea takes us back to digital physics and virtual reality theory however, precognitive dreams are providing some insight as to how the program is potentially written in the first place. In our causality dilemma, where we have a dream preceding physical reality, finding this dream / reality duality becomes very profound, the implications of what this entails may shift our entire physical paradigm into something more idealistic in nature. This becomes very apparent when we start to deconstruct dreaming into a more understandable system. At the heart of dreaming, there is one observable fact: Dreams are organized thought. Unlike physical reality where we have atoms, molecules and gravitational forces etc. Dreams are mind-generated thoughts organized into an experience that is similar to how we perceive our physical reality. When you are dreaming and see light, textures and objects, every aspect of the dream environment can be reduced back to thought that has taken on the role of creating many sensory states to render out the dream experience. There are no atoms, molecules or gravitational forces, everything is thought. Evidence that thought can form audible and visual patterns in our mind stem from self-evident exploration of your own thought process. Sub-vocalization of your voice occurs when you read. It is common to have an internal faint voice sounding out the words within your mind. This is an example of thought taking on the form of sound. Another example is imagining an image in your mind. If you imagine an apple or an orange, you might have a faint visual image in your mind of these objects. If you close your eyes, relax the images can become quite vivid and strong. Thought has the ability to mimic sensory states and dreaming is a prime example of sub-vocalization and visualization taken to the next level. All the five physical sense can be observed in dreams, and each of them are following the same principles of sub-vocalization. It is organized thought organized into non-verbal thought forms to render your ideas into a virtual reality experience within the dream state. If dreams are thoughts? How does this apply to a dream that has precognitive potential? It would certainly appear that all the information in a dream is organized thought, more specifically, your thoughts. If this is the case? How is it that something that starts as organize thought, later actualizes into a physical even in your waking reality? This is one of the most challenging questions that the paradox of precognitive dreaming presents. The nature of the experience suggests that the originating dream is the source of the soon to be actualized reality. Could our thoughts play a role in the organization of information that is later processed and made actual by Tom's metaphorical Big Computer? Are we in fact creating the precognitive dream in the same manner that we create all our dreams? The implications that stem from precognitive dreaming could change everything we thought we knew about our reality. Reality may in fact originate from the process of dreams. Dreams may in fact be a reality programing language that later renders into an experience when the dream actualizes and is made real. In the precognitive dream paradox, we know that Physical Reality appeared first in a dream, as organized thought. What makes it different when the dream actualizes? What makes it the same? What are the relationships between these to states by which we observe an experience of reality? I am not suggesting any answers, but it is hard to dismiss the role of thought within the original dreamed experience. The concept that thought creates reality is a very ancient idea. In the precognitive dream paradox, it may in fact have more merit then not. If we take Tom Campbell's work at face value and look at the possibility that the origins of the Universe and Reality stem from consciousness and matter originated out of how consciousness organized itself, then precognitive dreaming within consciousness space starts to provide potential evidence of a Universe that is founded on the ideas that consciousness creates. As some one who has experienced precognitive dreaming, another step up in this experience comes from lucid dreaming. Very few people have written about what lucid precognitive dreaming actually is. Robert Waggoner, the President of the International Association for the Study of Dreams wrote in his book, "Lucid Dreaming: The Gateway to the Inner Self" [17]that there is two types of lucid precognitive dreams: Ambient and Active. Ambient lucid precognitive dreams are where you be come awake and aware that you are dreaming. You go with the flow of the dream and when the dream actualizes and comes true, you have the self-evidence you need to affirm that you indeed were awake and conscious in a lucid precognitive dream. Active lucid precognitive dreams are where you engage the dream with action based on being lucid and awake. What action you took as a result of this decision making opportunity also actualizes when the dream comes true. Precognitive dreaming suggests that there is a relationship between dreams and reality; it offers first-person experience with this relationship to those who have precognitive dreams. It suggests that dreams might be a type of reality programming language; a means by which we all collectively are co-creating an objective reality through subjective paradigms using a system of organized thought. There is that saying, "Thought creates Reality". This is true for dreams; thought certainly creates dream realities. The real push is to see this working mechanically in real-life examples. It seems to me at least; precognitive dreaming presents this revelation. The implications for this if true; is staggering. Author Ian Wilson Blog | Facebook Group | Twitter References A. T. Funkhouser, Ph.D. (2001) "Perspectives - Vol. 6, No. 1 - Dreams and Deja Vu Linda Magallón The Lucid Dream Exchange (1994) "Lucid Precognitive Dreams" Robert Waggoner (2003) "Lucid Dreaming for Precognitive Information Wikipedia "Epic of Gilgamesh" Aristotle (350BC) "On Prophesying by Dreams" Hugh Evrett Many-Worlds Interpretation (wiki) Erwin Schrödinger's cat parodox (wiki) Stuart Hameroff Official Website Penrose-Hameroff (2007) The Brain is Both Neurocomputer and Quantum Computer Penrose-Hameroff (1998)Quantum Computation In Brain Microtubules? Tom Campbell (2005) "My Big Toe" Brian Witworth (2007) "The Physical World as Virtual Reality" Seth Lloyd "Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos" Stephen Wolfram (1982)"Cellular Automata as Simple Self-Organizing Systems" Max Tegmark "Mathematical universe hypothesis" Double-slit experiment (wiki) Robert Waggoner "Lucid Dreaming: The Gateway to the Inner Self"

[YAD]

I just wanted to add a footnote: Art Funkhouser contacted me and wanted to say he likes to reserve the term Déjà Rêvé for a dream remembered at the moment of the occurring Déjà experience and if the person remembers the dream clearly prior to the actualization; then it should be simply called a precognitive dream. It is a bit technical but in his line of research; he deals with a very broad range of "déjà experiences" so the need to be very technical and detailed is apparent. The other footnote is the use of the term "aura" as it has the unfortunant link to TLE so I want to emphasise for technical purposes that a precognitive dream aura is not at all the TLE or Migrane aura and a scientific classification to distinquish aura types is most likely needed and pending. He has also provided a link to a form for anyone interesting in submitting their Déjà experiences at: Déjà Vu Survey He als provided me a link with a lot of information about what Dr. Neppe and Dr. Funkhouser call "déjà experiences" at Welcome to the Déjà Experience Research Website

[topcat]

Very astute essay on the subject. I have done anecdotal experiments with precognitive dreams occurring just before waking and have found that, for me, the time between the dreamed event and the actual experience was consistently around 30-60 minutes. My only explanations are that in dreams there is some time dilation taking place or that emotionally packed brain events in waking life discharge backward in time to be perceived by the dreaming brain.

[shadowofwind]

Various comments in relation to the essay: My precognitive dreams would be what the essay would call symbolic. They are somewhat lucid, and sometimes strongly lucid. I may think actively about the dreams while they are occurring, and may ask questions, but they are 'ambient' in that I usually do not actively try to interfere. The dream commonly proceeds the event by a few hours, but the longest time difference was 12 years. The dreams are first person in that I experience the witness in the dream as being 'me'. However, they are third person in that the 'me' is often somebody else, or even a daemon of some sort. I think it would be misleading to call the 'symbolic' dream 'low grade'. The most essential content of the dream is subtle, having to do with causes and motives that can't be seen or heard in the dream. In that sense I am considerably more aware during these dreams than during my normal waking state, and the quality of information is for the most part better than I would get from a dream with literally accurate sights and sounds. I share the desire to try to reconcile precognitive dreams with current scientific models. Those models describe reality very well, as far as they go, so its good to be in harmony with them instead of against reason. However, precognitive dreams, while presumably somehow consistent with quantum theory, are considerably beyond what can be accounted for by it. There's a causality violation that isn't answered by the 'many worlds' assumption, and which would require an entire realm of new physics to explain. And I don't think we're going to get that new physics any time soon, because exploring it would require a degree of control over supernatural phenomena that we aren't anywhere close to having. (I see this as a limitation of science - it is willing to explore only what it can rigorously control. If a model can't make a testable prediction, with some degree of reliability, then according to scientific dogma the dynamic that the model represents doesn't exist. Even if some individual has enough control over their premonitions to overcome that, their power is not transferable to scientists, which would be another obstacle to scientific interest.) Physicists who attempt metaphysical or paranormal explanations using current theory are a small minority far out of the mainstream, and from where I stand its not because they're revolutionary thinkers not captive to the common scientific group-think. Their arguments are actually incoherent and largely nonsensical, as is apparent to other scientists who understand the meaning of the words that are being thrown around. As a point of possible clarification: the concept of an 'observer' in physics has nothing to do with the consciousness of an experimenter. The distinction that's being made is between a system that's being experimented on, and another system that is being used to experiment on it. For a physical object, all of its wave functions are always to some degree 'collapsed' from the standpoint of that object, whether anyone is present or not. Its also true though that there is a different ambiguity for someone not connected to that system. This is the point of the schrodinger cat example, and its why he picked a cat to illustrate the point instead of using something more 'wave-like' like an atom. From the standpoint of the cat, its either alive or dead the instant the lethal quantum coin flip occurs. The cat is only in an ambiguous state from the standpoint of anything not in sufficient physical contact with what is inside the box (physical contact including electromagnetic interaction, i.e., light). I speculate that the 'future' I have seen in dream is not a potential future of our own universe, but is the 'present' of another universe very, very similar to ours. That solves the causality problem I think, but isn't really an answer, since we understand almost nothing about how those other universes might be related to our universe. Note that these other universes aren't 'parallel' in the sense of having branched off of our universe at some point in our historic past. Your idea that the dream is part of what causes the future event in our world is somewhat new to me. It seems plausible to me and worth exploring. In my case, its not me that plans the dream though, apparently someone or something else that already has knowledge of the events concerned is involved. I have dreamed of events that have already been planned by someone else, outside of my experience or any conceivable knowledge. And I have dreamed of at least one event that no human being could have planned, though based on the dream the event was intentional, not just a matter of chance, and not just a matter of me dreaming it. I agree completely that thought is important somehow. I guess its obvious. As I experience it, thoughts are common to the different interrelated universes. Not all of the information in my dreams is my thoughts, apparently in contrast to a statement in the essay. Some of it is other people's thoughts. I also know for certain that my thoughts have appeared in other people's dreams.

[Philosopher8659]

I know of precognitive dreams, even precognition in the waking state, however, the bs in explaining them is very sad indeed. What I do is simply rely on the definition of sentience, the function of the mind. All you have done is made Occam an old man trying to sharpen that razor.

[silencer82]

I would like to share my conclusions and the solution with my investigations, which is concretised and simple, without a many current world theory. What happens in the brain is just relying on quantum entanglements: Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/...nphys2294.html Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 210403 (2013): Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted Our mind is mixed with our experience, fear, love, memory, knowledge etc. Together with them, in a phase of sleeping where you not use the brain actively for the real life, in some part they are "dancing" compositely on the mind where they can also be hierarchal depending on relevance, and some other part are interacting with entanglements with the future state of that mind. And then when their interactions are combined: with less entangled particles the compositions result a blurry precognitive dream, somehow no or less meaning that we could understand and allocate to future events, but the more particles or neurons interacting, the more clearly the dream can be, thus they can give us the information in a way clearly in advance, either as clear visions or symbolic. With such a new information, we are still able to change the future, as long as it depends on you. Here is my detailled article: http://jusuf.uni.me/science/dreams

[tP97]

There cannot be a thing as a precognitive dream as future is not certein , ie: there are infinite possiblities to be played out . If future isn't fixed then how can there be precognitive dreams?

[silencer82]

There cannot be a thing as a precognitive dream as future is not certein , ie: there are infinite possiblities to be played out . If future isn't fixed then how can there be precognitive dreams? you have the choice to change and make decisions as long as it depends on you. the quantum entanglements of the memory cells put a mirror in now and to the current future when the events happening. the memory cells are entangled back in now, thus we then have the precognitive dreams. you can replace the future with this new information when the decision is on you. and so you can create new future, with new interactions, displacing the future mirror. the future is from your point of view.

[shadowofwind]

What happens in the brain is just relying on quantum entanglements: Here is my detailled article: Precognitive dreams - Jusuf Capalar - homepage I think you're using the concept of entanglement as a sort of magic wand that 'explains' things because it involves non-locality, the selection of alternative realities, and is relatively difficult to understand. But I haven't seen anything about entanglement that allows outcomes that are not yet determined to be predicted or selected, even for very interactions involving just a couple of particles. Entanglement can't be used for faster than light communication for essentially the same reason. I think there's an additional problem besides that one. To reuse an analogy I've used before, suppose that I were able to recognize someone's face even when my back is to them. A person could say that this is "explained" by electromagnetics, because light is bouncing off of their face, and off of walls and other objects, and coming into my brain through my eyes. But this actually isn't an explanation unless at least one of those objects is smooth and shiny. There's no way to reconstruct a person's image from the reflection off of a shag carpet, even though all the information is there. So even if entanglement did connect us in a predictive way with future events, which in principle it can't as I understand it, I don't think it can account for our dream experiences. I'm not doubting the reality of your experiences, or your objectivity in describing them, I just saying that I think you haven't identified the mechanism.

[JoannaB]

There cannot be a thing as a precognitive dream as future is not certein , ie: there are infinite possiblities to be played out . If future isn't fixed then how can there be precognitive dreams? Nonetheless for those of us who do experience precognitive dreams the answer cannot be that it is impossible but rather we wish to know how it is possible, given that we experience them.

[silencer82]

I think you're using the concept of entanglement as a sort of magic wand that 'explains' things because it involves non-locality, the selection of alternative realities, and is relatively difficult to understand. But I haven't seen anything about entanglement that allows outcomes that are not yet determined to be predicted or selected, even for very interactions involving just a couple of particles. Entanglement can't be used for faster than light communication for essentially the same reason. Hi shadowofwind, thanks for your comment. I am not using the concept of entanglement for the selection of alternative realities. It also does not need a faster than light communication. What I mean is a different thing, a state of a particle is entangled simultaneously depending on interaction of other particle or later particle - in the brain as well. The same particles which create the perception, images, feelings etc.. I think there's an additional problem besides that one. To reuse an analogy I've used before, suppose that I were able to recognize someone's face even when my back is to them. A person could say that this is "explained" by electromagnetics, because light is bouncing off of their face, and off of walls and other objects, and coming into my brain through my eyes. But this actually isn't an explanation unless at least one of those objects is smooth and shiny. There's no way to reconstruct a person's image from the reflection off of a shag carpet, even though all the information is there. So even if entanglement did connect us in a predictive way with future events, which in principle it can't as I understand it, I don't think it can account for our dream experiences. You are thinking to a different way, you just need to reduce the observations for the mechanism to the neurons or memory cells, when the events normally would happen in the future and the cells interact and catch details. The same cells are invoked for the interactions, giving us the combinations as precognitive dreams in present. For example when you read this, you are catching this in your memory cells, and in a dream yesterday you could have "dreamed" of this when there were enough particles constellated.

[shadowofwind]

OK, though I still don't understand how that makes any sense. Have you tried soliciting feedback from a physicist who specializes in that area? I find that sometimes people will take the time to answer questions like that if approached in the right way, particularly if they have more time because they're already tenured. Here is an example of an experience that I think any precognition theory ought to be able to accommodate, because even though it may not seem like precognition I'm fairly confident its the same type of phenomena. I'm driving for hours, and at the instant the smell hits as my car passes over a dead skunk, and ad on the radio says "eww, what's that smell?" (I realize there's a possible fallacy where ten of thousands of possible things can happen to you in a day, so a few of them will seem quite improbable, but I think I eliminated that possibility through other means, and don't feel like rehashing it right now.) If the "eww what's that smell" had happened in my imagination a moment before, we'd call it a premonition. But whatever causes such premonitions can also cause events, and it doesn't have to arrange the events in a particular order. The dream premonition is just one kind of event, but its not as likely to draw a person's attention if the event precedes the dream, so we tend to notice it more when it can be interpreted as a premonition. I don't see how this kind of experience can be explained by entanglement. If your dream premonitions work the way mine used to, then you might be able to get this other kind of experience instead if you steer it in that direction. But maybe its not quite the same. For me it wasn't something I was causing, there was a muse involved. Now it has pretty much run its course, and has re-integrated itself back into the 'usual' way the world works for most people. I haven't had any obvious premonitions for a while now either. Here's another kind of example. My sister has a dream that contains a detail from a story I read the previous day. I never would have mentioned that part of the story had she not mentioned the dream. (In the story a white owl picks up a mouse and it bites his talon. In her dream she picks up a mouse and it bites her finger. A white owl has previously been established as a symbol for the muse that creates this kind of dream.) I don't see how entanglement fits this case very well either, though its less of a stretch than the skunk joke.

[silencer82]

Here's another kind of example. My sister has a dream that contains a detail from a story I read the previous day. I never would have mentioned that part of the story had she not mentioned the dream. (In the story a white owl picks up a mouse and it bites his talon. In her dream she picks up a mouse and it bites her finger. A white owl has previously been established as a symbol for the muse that creates this kind of dream.) I don't see how entanglement fits this case very well either, though its less of a stretch than the skunk joke. Let me explain it to you in this example. Fact is, you talked with her. Upon there those information were entangled in/to her dream. There is enough space in brain and enough neurons and particles that result such a constellation in the dream before. There is further enough time for shortly interact with entanglements where the brain encodes those as dreams for us. Even if they are secondary situations. This is what I mean here: Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 210403 (2013): Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any part of a quantum system that has finished evolving can be measured immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In addition, the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spacelike separation, but also to particles with timelike separation. In order to demonstrate these principles, we generated and fully characterized an entangled pair of photons that have never coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated photon pairs, we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other was created. The observed two-photon state demonstrates that entanglement can be shared between timelike separated quantum systems. © 2013 American Physical Society Your sister could have dreamed even more precise to generate your reading when you talked to her, but it was mixed with other thoughts, because no much more enough particles were to be entangled for this information. Also the relevance is sorted out from the brain. In other words, many particles in the brain "synchronize" themselves (present - future), giving us some information that we can measure or encode in advance, because of their shortly interacted constellations when we dream. We are using the same brain, same particles everywhere, the constellations of memory cells can just be configured according to the entanglements of future moments and future states of cells. - and this happens best, when we sleep, when the mind can "dance", and interact and give us the results as dreams.

[floatinghead]

Let me explain it to you in this example. Fact is, you talked with her. Upon there those information were entangled in/to her dream. There is enough space in brain and enough neurons and particles that result such a constellation in the dream before. There is further enough time for shortly interact with entanglements where the brain encodes those as dreams for us. Even if they are secondary situations. This is what I mean here: Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 210403 (2013): Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any part of a quantum system that has finished evolving can be measured immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In addition, the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spacelike separation, but also to particles with timelike separation. In order to demonstrate these principles, we generated and fully characterized an entangled pair of photons that have never coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated photon pairs, we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other was created. The observed two-photon state demonstrates that entanglement can be shared between timelike separated quantum systems. © 2013 American Physical Society Your sister could have dreamed even more precise to generate your reading when you talked to her, but it was mixed with other thoughts, because no much more enough particles were to be entangled for this information. Also the relevance is sorted out from the brain. In other words, many particles in the brain "synchronize" themselves (present - future), giving us some information that we can measure or encode in advance, because of their shortly interacted constellations when we dream. We are using the same brain, same particles everywhere, the constellations of memory cells can just be configured according to the entanglements of future moments and future states of cells. - and this happens best, when we sleep, when the mind can "dance", and interact and give us the results as dreams. This seems to be a reasonable explanation for the owl/story situation but does not seem to adequately explain the skunk/radio scenario. Likewise, I have a similar example of this type of situation: I was looking for a book to buy for my father, I am looking for more pagan/spiritual type of books and through (amazon) recommendation come across 'my big TOE' by Thomas Cambell - after a quick read of the synopsis I pass (seeing that it is more scientific based - not his kind of thing) and go onto look at the next book - however at this point the tv shouts out at me 'My big TOE, my big TOE' so I decide to buy this book instead (through the insistence of the tv!)

[silencer82]

This seems to be a reasonable explanation for the owl/story situation but does not seem to adequately explain the skunk/radio scenario. Likewise, I have a similar example of this type of situation: I was looking for a book to buy for my father, I am looking for more pagan/spiritual type of books and through (amazon) recommendation come across 'my big TOE' by Thomas Cambell - after a quick read of the synopsis I pass (seeing that it is more scientific based - not his kind of thing) and go onto look at the next book - however at this point the tv shouts out at me 'My big TOE, my big TOE' so I decide to buy this book instead (through the insistence of the tv!) I am talking about the precognitive dreams and the time delayed entangled particles within the brain. The skunk/radio and your observations with external inputs are related to outer circumstances that can be either coincidence or lets say other phenomena if you wish. Which might help you in your decision. But these things are not the same phenomena and do not need to be mixed.

[shadowofwind]

I never would have mentioned that part of the story had she not mentioned the dream....I don't see how entanglement fits this case very well either, though its less of a stretch than the skunk joke. Let me explain it to you in this example. Fact is, you talked with her. Upon there those information were entangled in/to her dream. You dodged my primary example entirely, and glossed over the most obviously problematic part of my secondary example. So you're comfortable with the causal circularity of the dream causing the exchange that made the dream possible. (She and I live at opposite ends of the country, did not grow up together, and never talk except for occasionally sharing a dream.) Maybe I'm comfortable with that too, which is why I called this example "less of a stretch". But what of the dreams where I never talk to the other party about the dream, and never acquire the information through external means? Though those dreams are never verified as being precognitive by such a check, they still have the same kind of feel to them as the dreams that I do verify. They are not 'ordinary' dreams, its clear at the time that I have them that there's information content that's not derived from my past experience. I can be fairly confident about this by comparison to the large sample of other dreams that I have verified. The first photon was detected even before the other was created. As I understand entanglement, this doesn't mean what you think it means. The detection of the photon doesn't imply that information about the future is gained, even though on the surface the words may at first seem to imply that, especially for those of us who are just reading the synopsis and don't have access to the paywalled article. This is the same as how information can not be instantaneously communicated over a distance using two entangled particles. You said that you're not talking about faster than light communication, but that's what receiving information about the future amounts to here. And if you understand why the entangled particles can't be used to instantaneously send information across space, the same principle applies to why it doesn't work for time. Have you tried soliciting feedback from a physicist who specializes in that area? No answer there either. If I get time for it today I'll send some e-mails. I'm sorry that it seems I'm trying to tear you down, I think its great that you put all this time and effort into dream precognition. But I'm serious about actually understanding it, and I think that facing these kinds of questions is what separates that from merely pretending to understand it.

[silencer82]

You dodged my primary example entirely, and glossed over the most obviously problematic part of my secondary example. So you're comfortable with the causal circularity of the dream causing the exchange that made the dream possible. (She and I live at opposite ends of the country, did not grow up together, and never talk except for occasionally sharing a dream.) Maybe I'm comfortable with that too, which is why I called this example "less of a stretch". But what of the dreams where I never talk to the other party about the dream, and never acquire the information through external means? Though those dreams are never verified as being precognitive by such a check, they still have the same kind of feel to them as the dreams that I do verify. They are not 'ordinary' dreams, its clear at the time that I have them that there's information content that's not derived from my past experience. I can be fairly confident about this by comparison to the large sample of other dreams that I have verified. Because your first example has nothing to do with precognitive dreams, you need to separate this. I do not know your other dreams, so can not talk about it. As I understand entanglement, this doesn't mean what you think it means. The detection of the photon doesn't imply that information about the future is gained, even though on the surface the words may at first seem to imply that, especially for those of us who are just reading the synopsis and don't have access to the paywalled article. This is the same as how information can not be instantaneously communicated over a distance using two entangled particles. You said that you're not talking about faster than light communication, but that's what receiving information about the future amounts to here. And if you understand why the entangled particles can't be used to instantaneously send information across space, the same principle applies to why it doesn't work for time. Sorry but you are so wrong.. You obviously know nothing and just talking anythings, why? The detection of the photon doesn't imply that information about the future is gained, even though on the surface the words may at first seem to imply that This is the sense of the experiment above which proves it. The later entangled photons have entangled characters or polarisations with that one from before. This is the same as how information can not be instantaneously communicated over a distance using two entangled particles. This is totally wrong. It is the opposite.. You said that you're not talking about faster than light communication, but that's what receiving information about the future amounts to here. And if you understand why the entangled particles can't be used to instantaneously send information across space, the same principle applies to why it doesn't work for time. I do not need a superluminal particle in the way of transmission into a direction. What for? You did not understand quantum entanglement, nor the time delayed entanglement. The particle or a photon can be entangled so that its spin or polarisation effects simultaneously to the other particle, independent from space, independent from time which the above experiment shows. Not in a way transmitting their information to other particle through space, the entangling is swapping as soon when the other gets interacted. And if you understand why the entangled particles can't be used to instantaneously send information across space, the same principle applies to why it doesn't work for time. I asked physicist, I also have some study backgrounds in physics. You can ask other physicists. They can only say like: well when the experiments show this, what can I say more? But you can learn from them somethings about quantum entanglement first to go to time delayed entanglements as shown in the experiments, before talking so many wrong things.

[shadowofwind]

Silcencer82: You've misinterpreted nearly everything I said. I'm not sure how much of that is the language barrier, how much of it is my poor communication, or how much of it is attachment to competing thoughts. If you are right then that would be great and I'd love to understand what you're saying. But so far you haven't spoken to my points, you've construed them as something else. I didn't say anything about superliminal particles. What I said is that entangled particles can not be used to instantaneously send information from one place to another, at least not according to current theory. The measurement of one particle causes the other to instantaneously acquire the complementary state, but information can't be sent that way because the measurement doesn't control the outcome for the measured particle, and the particles have to be entangled and separated at no more than the speed of light. We both understand and agree about this? I have also seen experiments described where the separation is in time instead of space, so the effect that measuring one particle has on the other is delayed in time. But I have not seen an experiment described where it goes the other direction, and a measurement has an effect on another particle earlier in time. In your underlined quote, as I interpret it, the measurement on one particle occurred before the other was created, but that's opposite from the order that's needed for precognition. The fact that the photons never coexisted doesn't change this, though to know the details a person would have to be able to read the specifics of the experiment. If I'm missing something crucial, providing a link to a synopsis doesn't help, we need to be able to read the paper. If you can find a paper that says that one particle takes on a complementary state as a result of the other particle having been measured afterwards, then that supports what you're claiming. Or, if you can find one that says that entangled particles can be used to transmit information instantaneously, that amounts to the same thing, as you must know if you've studied relativity. I've seen no such paper, though many, many sources say that entanglement does not allow instantaneous transmission of information. If your assertion were true, then that allows information about the future to be gained in the past, which can directly be applied to instantaneous communication. If the entanglement allows me to know what I experience tomorrow, then I can send that knowledge to someone far away, and it will get to them at the same time the event happens. That seems by consensus among physicists not to be what entanglement does. There is a reason why quantum physicists are not talking about precognition. If their time separation experiments illustrated a mechanism for it, some of them would be right on top of trumpeting the implications and trying to attract more funding that way. Some of the more weaselly physicists might be inclined to insinuate precognition in a headline while being more careful in their published papers: one sees this sort of thing in other areas of physics. But I haven't seen that yet in relation to entanglement, most seem to be careful not to be misleading. I do actually know quite a bit about physics, having no PhD but several years of graduate school, and I have quite a bit of experience with precognitive dreaming and other related phenomena. Your experience is more narrowly with what you interpret as precognition apparently. But in any scientific exploration its often useful to perform a related but slightly different kind of experiment to find out what it implies about the results of earlier experiments. I've done that with other things like dream telepathy, for the sake of understanding the precognition better. The later entangled photons have entangled characters or polarisations with that one from before. Yes they do. But for precognition, the measurement of the later photon has to effect the polarization of the earlier photon, not the other way around. They're entangled with each other, but where or when the measurement occurs is crucial, because that's what 'collapses' the wave function. If I'm wrong, you should be able to explain this, rather than just reiterating your earlier assertion and saying I don't know what I'm talking about. If you're serious about getting at the truth, I could also try to get an e-mail from a quantum physicist subject matter expert to confirm or dispel what I'm saying. But that takes time, and indications so far seem to be that it would be a waste of time, that you don't care what I have to say. I think that if you were serious about science, you'd be trying to understand what I'm saying in case it points to a weakness in your theory, so that you can make the theory better. Plus, if you understood me you'd be able to set me straight, and then you'd have another scientifically literate person to help promulgate your understanding. I am trying to understand what you're saying: directly addressing the points that don't make sense to me is how I get clarification so that it does make sense. So far it seems that other more dysfunctional dynamics are carrying the day though, either by your fault or mine.

[silencer82]

Ok, I got it. I see what you are meaning now.. If you can find a paper that says that one particle takes on a complementary state as a result of the other particle having been measured afterwards, then that supports what you're claiming. Here I found some articles in English that can help you for all what you mentioned: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don’t Exist at the Same Time Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time - Wired Science As they are linked, when there is a detection in one, then the other one is directly affected, the entanglement is meaning also vice versa. When we measure or interact photon 4 (later one), we see that photon 1 was entangled.. Entangled in the Past: “Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted” Entangled in the Past: “Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted” – Uncertain Principles The first quantum entanglement of photons through space and time The first quantum entanglement of photons through space and time | ExtremeTech

[shadowofwind]

Thanks for the response and the links. I'd seen the Wired article previously. As I understand them, these articles seem to support what I was trying to say. The second one seems particularly clear, since it describes the experiment. Four photons are created, first one pair then another. One of the first pair is measured, then photons from each pair are measured together, which entangles the first and fourth photons. The measurement of the first proton predicts the outcome for the fourth photon, even though it was created later, because the joint measurement of the second and third measurements entangles them. And so the final event to be predicted from the initial event. But it would not be if the second and third photons were not entangled, and that is a choice that can be altered after the first measurement. (There's enough time for that, if the path of the second photon is long enough.) In that sense the combination of measuring the first photon and entangling two more of them 'causes' the forth event. Something happens, then something else happens later as a consequence of what happened previously. This is what I meant when I suggested that having the dream 'selects' one of multiple possible outcomes. Its not a volitional selection: the state of the first and forth photons can be thought of as a type of synchronicity, since the person conducting the measurement can't control what the outcome of the first measurement is. But he can make a decision about whether to pass that state on to the fourth photon. If he has a slightly fancier setup, and can measure multiple photons and pass the result he chooses on to the forth photon, then he can make the outcome for the forth photon whatever he wants it to be. So it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, though one that uses a nifty mechanism. As I understand this, the implication is that if entanglement is how dream precognition works, then the dream is part of a process of selecting possible future outcomes, which is part of what I tried to say to start with. I have a lot more clarity on it now than I did before this discussion though, so I thank you for your help with that. The other part of what I was trying to say, via the analogy with scattered light, is that it seems to me that controlling or even deciphering something with the wavefunction complexity of a future event seems to me to be almost unimaginably hard. A vast number of non-coherent states are involved. How to make sense of all of that? Let's suppose its possible. Now we can create the skunk anecdote, by subconscious remote control via entangled particles, causing the skunk to cross the road when it did, causing me to drive across that spot when I did, and causing the radio to play that add right then. At least two of those three things coordinated to match the third one. Yes causing that event to happen would seem really hard, but it doesn't seem much harder to me than correctly interpreting the 'entanglement' to predict an event. It seems the same thing to me, since if you can interpret it, you can alter your choices and affect what happens, as you suggested earlier. But since stuff in your brain is entangled with the external events, you can do that right in your brain without external action. And its clear that a lot of this sort of thing happens subconsciously, or clear to me in relation to myself anyway. Its a bit like non-linear regression. If you have the map from Y to X, you can use that to get from X to Y even if you can't invert the map explicitly and have to iterate on it a few times until you bring the desired result into focus. Some people claim that if you share a precognitive dream with someone before the event happens, then the predicted event will not happen. That hasn't been my experience, but maybe it makes sense in this context. One example that I sometimes give as a precognitive dream is when I dreamed of the 2009 bird-strike and Hudson river water landing a few hours before it happened (US Airways Flight 1549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I use that example because I e-mailed the dream to someone before the event, and because its a public event that's known to other people. In that dream, I experienced myself as causing the event. I've also had two or three other dreams where I seemed to help cause more serious outcomes. As one example, I dreamed of standing and watching a train derailment the same morning that someone in my sibling's L.A. suburb intentionally caused a lethal train derailment. (I lived a couple of hours further east at that time.) My other two examples are more disturbing, so I guess I won't post them. If your entanglement theory is correct, then it seems to me that I am at least partially culpable, because the dream and what is subsequently done with it is at least partially causal. I'm not culpable to the extent that I was duped into participating, and may not have been individually strong enough to alter the outcome. Though plausible deniability by choosing to keep certain thoughts subconscious still amounts to culpability. (As a side note, the second time there was a lethal accident on that same rail line, I dreamed of being in a western town near a Kobe Bryant theme shop, and being afraid to go the place in my mind where I'd normally have precognitive dreams. I'd never been to L.A., but I could sort of contrast how the place feels with Denver. Point is that avoiding the dream doesn't avoid the event. Trying to manage this sort of thing sort of reminds me of the tricks that economists play to try to forever delay the day of reckoning for irresponsible behavior. If you've been pouring a huge portion of your resources into corrupt activities, it catches up to you eventually, money is not magic. In that sense magic is not magic either, you can't ultimately escape the consequences of who you are.) To reiterate, if I'm entangled strongly enough with the future event to know what it is, then I can affect it through entanglement. The dream and my subsequent thoughts are events also. Sort of like in control system theory where if you can observe something you can control it, though here the observation is remote. I guess this probably follows even if entanglement is not the mechanism. Note that the existence of semi-collective gods and fates follows from this sort of thing also. If you can be aware of a likely future event through entanglement, this amounts to awareness at a distance. If mind can thus bridge the gap between objects, temporal or spatial (again, as I understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and relativity, one implies the other), then there are minds that are comprised of aspects of the minds that are built into specific bodies. Sort of like waves moving long distances in a conductor even though the electrons themselves don't physically move as far. So if I suggest I was 'duped' I'm not suggesting that I'm being stalked by powerful adept magicians, just that this kind of thinking is partially collective, and involves influences from other people. In other words, if you can be aware of an event before it happens, and make choices as a consequence, then countless other people can do that too, consciously or otherwise. If the event affects patterns of images and stories in your mind, then the patterns and stories in people's minds have some effect on the event also, and consequently on you. I suggest we don't argue about this. If you don't believe that telepathy and precognition, for example, are aspects of the same thing, then just try it. Start with your precognitive experiences, and look for the element of someone else's thought in the experience. That makes you more aware of other people in your mind. Also look for precongition in waking-life metaphors as well as dream-life metaphors. The brain is a physical thing, and a dream is just a type of event, even though its one that relatively easy to influence, like an antenna with high gain. Other things besides brains can be influenced also. One was to discover this is to mess around with the I Ching for a while, for example, or a Tarot deck. The drawing of the cards is an impressionable as your dream intuition, speaking from my own experience anyway. As you get better at this your experience changes, and you start to better understand the connections between precognition and fate. Don't just tell me that the two things are unrelated before you've looked into it, try it for yourself. It may take a few years, but you can get there. Were you born in 1982? That makes you about 30. I'd had some precognitive dreams by then, but I was 40 before I could extend it into this other stuff. And I had a lot of circumstantial luck helping me. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that I know more than you, or that generally speaking I'm ahead of you. I have no doubt you know things I don't. Like you I'm just trying to communicate something of what I've worked out, and learn more. If you don't want to pursue the dream telepathy and synchronous fate stuff then don't, that's perfectly reasonable. But then you're not going to be in a good position to tell me how and whether those other kinds of experiences are relevant to precognitive dreaming. By the way, I had a dream about the number 82 about five years ago. There was a power struggle between two factions, sort of like the struggle between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' which are really two different sides of one same dynamic, with an underlying commonality of motive that's more fundamental than the ideologies that they wield to try to get relative advantage. In my dream, this dynamic changed, and they joined forces to turn their efforts against me. This is somewhat analogous to how establishment Democrats and Republicans in the US are united in their persecution of people like Snowden who threaten the lucrative power of the institutions that they work through. (Sorry a more Euro-centric analogy doesn't come to mind as quickly, but hopefully you get the idea.) They slap an '82' on my back and I flee, with them in pursuit. If you're in a situation like that, I hope you escape your difficult circumstances. Unless the enemy that's pursuing you is truth, in which case I hope it catches and mauls you, its worth getting caught. I don't mean that as an insult or ill-will, I say the same thing for myself. In any case, best wishes. I hope we can avoid a fight, I'm OK with just letting this go. I've said what I wanted to, and I have learned something from the exchange I think. Maybe if some of what I said doesn't make sense, it will make more sense later if you let it stew for a while. Then you'll be in an even better position to explain to me where I'm full of shit, which is a welcome service.