Now, I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to relativity theory, and originally the idea of time as a dimension appeared to me rather strange, though as I thought it through more it made more sense. I haven’t gotten around to doing a proper study of it yet (my new years resolution will be to put my science cap on), but I was looking at the evidence for precognition recently, and I wondered what the implications might be of relativity theory in that domain. According to relativity theory is each moment created ‘new’, as an ‘outward growth’ or is all time a singularity, and so, in a sense, all time has already happened? Or is there no agreed idea in that area (or, in fact, am I talking bullshit)? Basically I’m trying to figure out how precognition might be explained according to the dimensional concept of time.
Oh, and such answers as ‘precognition is a load of paranormal nonsense without any basis in reality’ are not helpful, if you don’t wish to get involved with the question, don’t bother commenting. Thanks in advance for anyone who manages to decode my confusion-ridden question.
I am not a very smart man. When someone tells me that they have seen into the future and the thing came to pass, I have two options, that one can see what is not, I can believe in a tense error, Or can I say that the definition of reason and prophecy are the same, to predict a given results with certain givens. This is the definition of sentience.
If I found, and I have on several occasions, learned of things to come, and they did come to pass, I could puff my chest out, spread my feathers and claim that I can do the impossible, see what is not. Then I can go on and fantasize a whole bunch of stuff and make myself look like I might have an IQ. Or I can say that the definition of sentience is the definition of sentience and I was told.
The last thing I did, was to think a lot about it. What does it mean? By whose vision do we live? Can we say we have human will, if our future is in the hands of something with reasoning power we cannot even begin to imagine?
As I said, I am a stupid man, and I think it is time to microwave my hair again. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Rainshine, I don’t think relativity says nearly as much as you hint at. It just says that time is dependent on context, i.e. it is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. Phenomena like time dilation are relative, so while I may see my clock as running faster than yours, you’ll see yours running faster. And that only when we’re moving past each other, or in different fields of gravity.
I know you asked us not to offer this comment, but I can’t help it: I think you’re getting the cart before the horse. You seem to be looking for an explanation of something that has little to no evidence, but still trying to make it mesh in a semi-scientific framework. If you’re going to accept things with little evidence, why are you trying to ground them in theories with lots of evidence? Why not go whole hog and believe precognition, an unfounded phenomena, works for some equally unfounded threoretical reason, like orgone?
I’m still trying to figure out how one connects time to pre-cognition other than through duality, where past-present-future are seen as some sort of fixed entities.
Linear time is a construct that conveniently allows us measurement. Relativity describes the limits of our measurements as they pass into space/time, a fourth dimension. There are some who have said that time is an integral part of “things” as we apprehend them. Time is part of the particularness of what is a constant flow of energy/particle phenomenon we call things. In short, there is no external time, only the time within each thing.
Pre-cognition is sensitivity to patterns and our ability to project those patterns into a possible future.
We have to remember that time and precognition are simply constructs that allow us to make sense of, they are not necessarily reality.