Can Dreams Predict Future?

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
I think Russ would like for you to propose some mechanism by which the unconscious human mind would be theoretically capable of predicting the future. You run into an awful dilemma here in that the future hasn't happened yet. How can one have knowledge of that which does not exist?

My guess would be that the human mind is capable of threading together past and present events in such way that it can construct a very highly probable model of what the future will bring, but if the model turns out to be correct, it was nothing more than a lucky guess. A very highly educated and impressive guess, but lucky nonetheless.

One example I can think of is that I once dreamed of the exact circumstances and manner in which a girlfriend broke up with me, three months before it happened. I don't think of myself as clairvoyant. It is likely that I had simply seen signs pointing the way without actually realizing what I was seeing, and it took the dream to bring it to my attention.
 
Yes. Then the prediction is a prediction. Was it possible for you to have considered the possibility consciously that this might happen at that time - jus before ouy had the dream? If not then I'd put it into the category of prediction. I understand that as a science forum - mechanisms and controlled tests are everything. But there is at the moment no plausible theory on this other than your model-genrator theory or the time-travelling theory (on this forum anyway). I just wanna see if people actually believe its more than a coincedence no matter what mechanisms they explain it with - again this may not interest sum people.
 
loseyourname said:
Thank you for bringing it to my attention that hardly anything is more than nothing.
You are welcome. :smile:
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
quddusaliquddus said:
But there is at the moment no plausible theory on this other than your model-genrator theory or the time-travelling theory (on this forum anyway).
When you take into consideration the fact that time travel violates the laws of physics as they are currently known, one hypothesis (neither is quite a theory) is a tad more plausible than the other.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,845
5,032
Loseyourname covered it pretty well, but...
quddusaliquddus said:
When it comes to dreams - it's worth more than nothing.
Well that's just it - it is nothing.
russ: To deny something outright without any evidence (or to believe in something) even though there's a chance it might be true isn't right. Can u not hold out the possiblity?
To believe it without evidence is worse. Sorry, I use the scientific method. That ain't it.

In that abstract, anything is possible. But I'd bet my birthday on a lottery ticket before betting on a number I saw in a dream (and I don't do lotteries). Things I know, on the other hand, come from science. To even consider the possibility (without scientific evidence) that dreams are predictions is foolish - more foolish than betting on the lottery.
 
Last edited:
466
0
Russ, foolishness is a constant. It is the human condition. Science is not a thing, it is a bandwagon of human beings. Yes men/women with a degree to shake and nod ones head. So, you would place the knowlege of others, things outside yourself, unknowns and make that truth? It reminds me of the move "The Deer Hunter" as he yells for more bullets. If a human wants the truth, they will find it, they will realize it.

What you have no clue of haunts me all the time. I have seen the future of humanity. You will not need shades. My visions come to pass and I know the ones that will. I call them out before hand boldly when I know, and I keep my mouth shut when I don't.

The continual unconcious acts of young and old without the responsbility for what we must do. Ah, another movie. "Thing", end of the movie "lets just sit here and wait."
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Scientific evidence demands reproducibility. If we cannot reliably reproduce a phenomenon, does it automatically entail that it doesn't exist? Maybe we just don't know how to reproduce it. If we humans weren't as bright as we are, perhaps we would never figure out how to reproduce static shocks. But our failure to reproduce the phenomenon would be a shortcoming on our part, not good evidence against the phenomenon in question.
 

confutatis

TENYEARS said:
Russ, foolishness is a constant. It is the human condition. Science is not a thing, it is a bandwagon of human beings ... If a human wants the truth, they will find it, they will realize it ... What you have no clue of haunts me all the time. I have seen the future of humanity...
A little off-the-topic but I want to share it. I checked the forum this morning and the main page said the last post on this thread was by Hypnagogue. Since I like to read Hypnagogue's writings I decided to check it out, but when I clicked on the thread I was taken to Tenyears' post instead. So I started to read his post thinking it was Hypnagogue's, and the thought that came to my mind was, "oh my, is Hypnagogue playing with LSD again?" :confused:

(this is a private joke :smile:, if you don't get it nevermind)
 
466
0
Like I said before, confused us was never enlighted. Bad choice of name, it is not that he could not have been, it is just that during his life, from what he expressed, it indicated nada. Expression though is not a requirement, so I guess I am talking out my hat or maybe I am giving you food for thought. Do you have a stomach to digest it or are you not hungry, the question is self answering, but the posting can produce hunger.
 
184
0
wtf..........
 
Tenyears might be the one playing with LSD
;D
Tenyears: show us the path that goes to the peak of the mountain of enlightenment - that we may follow there and then kick you off ;D

Joke
 
Dreams seem to be mysterious for a long time. In the ancient time, it is related to the message from God, however, modern research has proved that it is related to our unconscious mind.
 
lollolololololololololol
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
hypnagogue said:
Scientific evidence demands reproducibility. If we cannot reliably reproduce a phenomenon, does it automatically entail that it doesn't exist? Maybe we just don't know how to reproduce it. If we humans weren't as bright as we are, perhaps we would never figure out how to reproduce static shocks. But our failure to reproduce the phenomenon would be a shortcoming on our part, not good evidence against the phenomenon in question.
Science demand that you document carefully all of the steps you took to produce the phenomenon in the first place. If someone paid careful attention to how they produced a static shock, then another scientist conducting the same experiment, using exactly the same method, should attain exactly the same results. All that science is saying is that physical laws are the same in all spatial and temporal coordinates. Without reproducibility, you have no way of knowing whether or not the experimenter in question is simply lying.
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
loseyourname said:
Without reproducibility, you have no way of knowing whether or not the experimenter in question is simply lying.
True, but this is hardly negative evidence. If anything, it is lack of evidence. More accurately, it is lack of a particularly rigorous kind of evidence. So while we can't confidently say that the phenomenon is 'for real,' we can't assert the converse with absolute confidence either.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
I'm not sure what type of discovery you're thinking of here, but when it comes to that which science deals with, I'm going to have to stick with the crowd here in saying that reproducibility is a pretty decent indicator. Again, if all of the steps and variables in an experiment are described in detail, any person performing that experiment should get the same results. If no one is able to reproduce the claims of a given experimenter, then that is good evidence that the experimenter is either lying or unintentionally leaving something out (perhaps even something that he/she didn't realize effected the results). Can you think of a scientific experiment in which this would not be the case?
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Think of the strangest state of mind you've ever had. Can you readily reproduce it? If not, does that mean that you never really had it?
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
See, that is not within the realm of science. That's why I wanted you to provide an example, and I thank you for doing so. You don't know all of the factors that go into creating a certain state of mind. All that the scientific method states is that if you knew every single factor that goes into producing a given mindstate, then you should be able to reproduce that mindstate. Can you think of any reason to believe otherwise?
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
I'm not challenging that idea. All I'm saying is that our failure to reproduce 'prophetic' dreams (or most psi phenomena in general) does not amount to evidence against such phenomena, just a lack of a certain kind of evidence for them.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
That wasn't my argument against prognosticatory dreams anyway. My argument against it was that the future does not exist and we cannot possibly have knowledge of that which does not exist. At the very least, granting the possibility would require a huge overhaul of our understanding of the nature of time. I don't know how much you know about Bayesian probability analysis, but given our background knowledge and the available evidence, one hypothesis is almost infinitely more probable than the other. The equation is always open to new evidence, but until such evidence comes, it would be utter foolhardiness to conclude that clairvoyant prognostication is taking place, or even that the prospects are anywhere near equal for each hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
The future does not exist according to whom? It appears as if it doesn't exist yet-- this is a view of time made from within time. Are we really in some priveleged position to judge what does and does not exist, or is our view relative to our particular viewpoint?

In any case, time isn't an absolute. Two events that appear to occur simultaneously to one observor can appear to occur sequentially to another. So for one observor, 'the future' is happening right now, and for the other it is yet to happen. If the latter says that it doesn't exist, he'll get a funny look from the former. More generally, if we refuse to grant priveleged status to any particular reference frame, then there is no absolute sense in which the future doesn't exist.
 
466
0
I do not believe I can see the future I know I can, I have done it many times. Those who did not believe it is possible now believe it is. One women I told of a disaster before it happened and the exact day said she did not what to know anymore and not to tell her. The fact that anyone says something does not exist is a complete admission of their lack of logic and dishonesty. I witnessed my next door neighbor(the father of my friend) walk again after years of being confined to a wheel chair unable to walk with MS. The doctors also said it was utterly unexplainable after many years confined to a wheel chair. I would not accept that he was healed even though I knew his character and it was good. I had to understand how it was possible. Could I deny it NO. Chould I affirm it NO. I was left in nomans land. This is being true to myself. This is logic. Drop you arrogant foolishness before life pounds you into the dust. It will you know. Change your minds, change your ways. You would have accepted it when you saw not only the physical evidence, but one piece of evidence which was purely physical.
 
184
0
I just think its one of those things that most people will think is bull**** unless they have a direct personal experience of it.
I dont really blame anyone for not 'believing', but at the same time i think its going a step too far to say that seeing into the future is impossible as it hasnt happened yet.
That seems a little simple minded to me; as hypnagogue pointed out time is relative.
 
466
0
You find the college with balls enough to care about reality, and I will prove it is possible. Stage one will be to examine the past of what happened already. I can prove that with some degree of certainty with a series of tests. Stage two, I tell what the universe is created out of and how it works which is how this is possible. With this comes a few extras. Stage three?

It would be kind of like giving fire to kids wouldn't it. It's ok I suppose there is a safety gaurd for misuse. Problem is you will get masses of people attempting to take advantage of others, dozens of times more so than now. And many will be taken advantage of because they do not see the difference.

I will undergo something which no other would be willing to go through who has claimed to see the future. Some of you belong to colleges, many maybe. Find me the college. This is no joke. The second the world "believes", things will change somewhat. Sometimes belief creates a break through into that extra nudge which creates or unviels experience.

If you know the words of a truthful person, you will know mine.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
hypnagogue said:
The future does not exist according to whom? It appears as if it doesn't exist yet-- this is a view of time made from within time. Are we really in some priveleged position to judge what does and does not exist, or is our view relative to our particular viewpoint?

In any case, time isn't an absolute. Two events that appear to occur simultaneously to one observor can appear to occur sequentially to another. So for one observor, 'the future' is happening right now, and for the other it is yet to happen. If the latter says that it doesn't exist, he'll get a funny look from the former. More generally, if we refuse to grant priveleged status to any particular reference frame, then there is no absolute sense in which the future doesn't exist.
Our future doesn't yet exist within our own reference frame. Good enough?
 

Related Threads for: Can Dreams Predict Future?

  • Posted
2
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • Posted
2
Replies
49
Views
14K
Replies
64
Views
30K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top