Conquer Club

Assuming for the sake of discussions that premonitions are possible, how would causality be affected?

For instance, a person has a premonition that on his way to work, a little girl on a bicycle will get in front of his car. The next day he's extra careful and he's able to stop the car when the little girl gets in front.

How can you explain then the line of causality?

nietzsche wrote:Assuming for the sake of discussions that premonitions are possible, how would causality be affected?

For instance, a person has a premonition that on his way to work, a little girl on a bicycle will get in front of his car. The next day he's extra careful and he's able to stop the car when the little girl gets in front.

How can you explain then the line of causality?

It's possible to have a premonition about anything at anytime,I suspect that we only hear about those that seem to come true (assuming the person reporting them is truthful in the first place),so I would say there is nothing remarkable about this particular line of causality,only the law of averages at work.We tend not to remark on the apparently unremarkable.It requires no more explaination than the scenario where there is no girl on a bicycle and the car driver forgets about his premonition

chang50 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Assuming for the sake of discussions that premonitions are possible, how would causality be affected?

For instance, a person has a premonition that on his way to work, a little girl on a bicycle will get in front of his car. The next day he's extra careful and he's able to stop the car when the little girl gets in front.

How can you explain then the line of causality?

It's possible to have a premonition about anything at anytime,I suspect that we only hear about those that seem to come true (assuming the person reporting them is truthful in the first place),so I would say there is nothing remarkable about this particular line of causality,only the law of averages at work.We tend not to remark on the apparently unremarkable.It requires no more explaination than the scenario where there is no girl on a bicycle and the car driver forgets about his premonition

True, but I'm assuming a less skeptic scenario.

Let's say Guy X has had premonitions in the past and he knows when he has a premonition or precognition. Assuming it's the same girl in bike scenario, we could say that knowing about a future event caused him to be more cautious and stop the car.

Many accounts of this sort of things have been recorded, and explanations are lacking. I say this only as a matter of motivation to discuss this, not trying to say that precognition/premonitions exist.

nietzsche wrote:

chang50 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Assuming for the sake of discussions that premonitions are possible, how would causality be affected?

For instance, a person has a premonition that on his way to work, a little girl on a bicycle will get in front of his car. The next day he's extra careful and he's able to stop the car when the little girl gets in front.

How can you explain then the line of causality?

It's possible to have a premonition about anything at anytime,I suspect that we only hear about those that seem to come true (assuming the person reporting them is truthful in the first place),so I would say there is nothing remarkable about this particular line of causality,only the law of averages at work.We tend not to remark on the apparently unremarkable.It requires no more explaination than the scenario where there is no girl on a bicycle and the car driver forgets about his premonition

True, but I'm assuming a less skeptic scenario.

Let's say Guy X has had premonitions in the past and he knows when he has a premonition or precognition. Assuming it's the same girl in bike scenario, we could say that knowing about a future event caused him to be more cautious and stop the car.

Many accounts of this sort of things have been recorded, and explanations are lacking. I say this only as a matter of motivation to discuss this, not trying to say that precognition/premonitions exist.

It's my nature to be sceptical,sorry.Thing is we don't understand enough about causality to say much about it at all.Have you heard of the 'butterfly effect'?,where all things are interconnected.So whether a butterfly beats its wings or not can lead to Obama pressing the nuclear button or not,in theory...In your example he might drive cautiously and save one life but unknowingly cause multiple deaths.There is a far deeper mystery to be explained than premonitions apparently coming true.

chang50 wrote:
It's my nature to be sceptical,sorry.Thing is we don't understand enough about causality to say much about it at all.Have you heard of the 'butterfly effect'?,where all things are interconnected.So whether a butterfly beats its wings or not can lead to Obama pressing the nuclear button or not,in theory...In your example he might drive cautiously and save one life but unknowingly cause multiple deaths.There is a far deeper mystery to be explained than premonitions apparently coming true.

IMO a butterfly beating his wings can determine whether or not a republican will say something stupid and bigoted but Obama will never press the button.

BTW causality is preserved in the girl and bike example because the man's belief in his premonition is what caused him to be more cautious.

Have you ever seen Star Wars Episode III ?
Anakin has that premonition that Natalie Portman will die during childbirth, and in trying to prevent that actually makes it come true.
[/spoiler]

sundance123 wrote:IMO a butterfly beating his wings can determine whether or not a republican will say something stupid and bigoted but Obama will never press the button.

There's always a chance that he will press the button. One can never be certain about anything at all. It's just the probabilities.

ManBungalow wrote:Have you ever seen Star Wars Episode III ?
Anakin has that premonition that Natalie Portman will die during childbirth, and in trying to prevent that actually makes it come true.
[/spoiler]

sundance123 wrote:IMO a butterfly beating his wings can determine whether or not a republican will say something stupid and bigoted but Obama will never press the button.

There's always a chance that he will press the button. One can never be certain about anything at all. It's just the probabilities.

Obama will never push a button that launches nukes, it's impossible...

because the launch mechanism isn't a button

ManBungalow wrote:Have you ever seen Star Wars Episode III ?
Anakin has that premonition that Natalie Portman will die during childbirth, and in trying to prevent that actually makes it come true.

I have to say the idea that the future is fixed and we cannot change it makes the most sense to me. Otherwise you have the problem that N. is driving at.

nietzsche wrote:Assuming for the sake of discussions that premonitions are possible, how would causality be affected?

Premonitions happen all the time. Unfortunately, the vast majority of them aren't accurate, so we quickly forget them. Only the ones that were somewhat accurate are remembered, thus they SEEM to be accurate far more often than they actually are. It's confirmation bias at its best.

maybe that guy has a history hitting little girls on bikes because he's such a bad driver

nietzsche wrote:Assuming for the sake of discussions that premonitions are possible, how would causality be affected?

For instance, a person has a premonition that on his way to work, a little girl on a bicycle will get in front of his car. The next day he's extra careful and he's able to stop the car when the little girl gets in front.

How can you explain then the line of causality?

Confirmation bias.

See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179350&view=unread#p3916298

puppydog85 wrote:

ManBungalow wrote:Have you ever seen Star Wars Episode III ?
Anakin has that premonition that Natalie Portman will die during childbirth, and in trying to prevent that actually makes it come true.

I have to say the idea that the future is fixed and we cannot change it makes the most sense to me. Otherwise you have the problem that N. is driving at.

I just knew you were gonna say that.

okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

nietzsche wrote:okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

Essentially, true premonitions that are really predictable are only possible in 2 cases.
1. events entirely outside the person's direct ability to change. A small example might be a child, worried about a future trip that is already set, that the child cannot change, having a "vision" of something from that trip. A bigger example might be something like seeing that a prominent individual, far away, might do something.


2. If there is no real free will, no real variability.

Most people prefer not to accept #2, don't really consider it accurate. (if we did, we would all be fatalists). Therefore, most of us basically think of situations like #1.

I would say scenario #1 is about the only type of scenario I would really see. Anything else would be science fiction, and you instantly have a series of paradoxes, usually that the person seeing the vision is somehow either going to cause the event because of the premonition or is somehow going to be steered toward that end in ways utterly beyond the person's ability to control.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

Essentially, true premonitions that are really predictable are only possible in 2 cases.
1. events entirely outside the person's direct ability to change. A small example might be a child, worried about a future trip that is already set, that the child cannot change, having a "vision" of something from that trip. A bigger example might be something like seeing that a prominent individual, far away, might do something.


2. If there is no real free will, no real variability.

Most people prefer not to accept #2, don't really consider it accurate. (if we did, we would all be fatalists). Therefore, most of us basically think of situations like #1.

I would say scenario #1 is about the only type of scenario I would really see. Anything else would be science fiction, and you instantly have a series of paradoxes, usually that the person seeing the vision is somehow either going to cause the event because of the premonition or is somehow going to be steered toward that end in ways utterly beyond the person's ability to control.

In scenario 1, maybe the person cannot change the event, but it changes something in that person, either before the event happened and afterwards. And as chang50 mentioned, even the smallest changes can cause big changes in time. I'm not talking about that person indirectly causing the event, but causing other changes (although if everything is interconected in causality as a deterministic universe implies it does somehow plays a part in causing the event).

So we have this option in which premonitions are already accounted for in the line of causality, in a deterministic universe where everything is already written and we are only playing our parts. Where conciousness is only a metacognitive process and has it's part in causality as well.

nietzsche wrote:okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

you do realize this sounds suspiciously like quantum mechanics right?

fadedpsychosis wrote:

nietzsche wrote:okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

you do realize this sounds suspiciously like quantum mechanics right?

Are you talking about the observer effect or the uncertainty principle?

nietzsche wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

Essentially, true premonitions that are really predictable are only possible in 2 cases.
1. events entirely outside the person's direct ability to change. A small example might be a child, worried about a future trip that is already set, that the child cannot change, having a "vision" of something from that trip. A bigger example might be something like seeing that a prominent individual, far away, might do something.


2. If there is no real free will, no real variability.

Most people prefer not to accept #2, don't really consider it accurate. (if we did, we would all be fatalists). Therefore, most of us basically think of situations like #1.

I would say scenario #1 is about the only type of scenario I would really see. Anything else would be science fiction, and you instantly have a series of paradoxes, usually that the person seeing the vision is somehow either going to cause the event because of the premonition or is somehow going to be steered toward that end in ways utterly beyond the person's ability to control.

In scenario 1, maybe the person cannot change the event, but it changes something in that person, either before the event happened and afterwards. And as chang50 mentioned, even the smallest changes can cause big changes in time. I'm not talking about that person indirectly causing the event, but causing other changes (although if everything is interconected in causality as a deterministic universe implies it does somehow plays a part in causing the event).

So we have this option in which premonitions are already accounted for in the line of causality, in a deterministic universe where everything is already written and we are only playing our parts. Where conciousness is only a metacognitive process and has it's part in causality as well.

You are explaining why real consistant premonitions cannot happen. The premise was to assume they could and did.

Woodruff gave the best real example. The truth is that we get ideas of the future all the time, even "visions", but most just don't happen and so we dismiss them. But... the question was not about reality.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You are explaining why real consistant premonitions cannot happen. The premise was to assume they could and did.

Woodruff gave the best real example. The truth is that we get ideas of the future all the time, even "visions", but most just don't happen and so we dismiss them. But... the question was not about reality.

Those who say to have premonitions say they come to them in dreams, and they experience the dream differently, more emotionally charged or more vivid. Somehow.

I think I tried to explain how in a deterministic universe, where everything is already written, premonitions can be accounted for, but the line of causality as we understand it would be a mess. Forget about a simple line (relatively).

But though I'm a believer in a sort of deterministic universe, this scenario doesn't make completely sense to me...

nietzsche wrote:
But though I'm a believer in a sort of deterministic universe, this scenario doesn't make completely sense to me...

Exactly my point.

Either everything is fully determined, or it is not. The only way, then, premonitions could be true would be if the person having the premonition were truly outside of any ability to influence -- either becuase of the timing/location of the premonition or some other reason.
My examples were not the best, just spur of the moment ones. The fact is that there are many ways to influence things that are not apparent.. and that is just considering what we actually know to occur. The unknown may hold much more.

nietzsche wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

nietzsche wrote:okokok that's why I said assume for the sake of discussion that premonitions are possible!

Try again.

In a deterministic universe a possible solution to the causality thing is that precognitions were considered all along for the line of causality. That is, knowing about events in the future do influence the future therefore we could say the future influences the past, but somehow, that perception of an event in the future was always included in the line of causality and never jumped (if you picture causality in a line from past to future).

Another possible solution, is that time is not linear at all.

you do realize this sounds suspiciously like quantum mechanics right?

Are you talking about the observer effect or the uncertainty principle?

a little bit of both, but more the observer effect