Precognition - PROOF! results from MPR - the real holy grail

[FreeRoulette]

Here the results from my latest precog session.  I only played one spin, but I knew that I'd win the next seven spins so I went ahead and graphed them too.

LOL

Look how rich you would have been if you only be on that number before the ball rolled. Don't miss out on the next one, just rush me a check

[Steve]

Assuming it worked, precog would be unlikely to work on every spin. Just like any AP method, you have an EDGE.

I get why some of you mock it as something that may actually work. It's like how some people mock AP. They don't have the right or enough information to know better.

Again I believe it is likely a viable method. I don't have solid enough information to know for sure. Developing precog is riskier (timewise) than developing traditional methods.

[Still]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't think Joe understands the ramifications of this when he agrees. 

Evidence is indeed subject to assertions.   Faith and assertions are very much the same thing. 

Anything that scientists can observe as a persistent phenomenon has previously been asserted (it was believed and is still believed).   

Something asserts what we like to call the physical, or material world...which is then observed by "scientists" who look for ways to measure reliable circumstances, or test for persistent phenomenon.

What asserts the physical world of trees, bees and seas, i will call that the *prime believer*.   

As it believes, it produces what we call humans, or what i will call *secondary believers*, made in the image (imagination) of the prime believer.   

The relationship between the secondary believers and the primary believer is rather incestuous.

Self deception is the ultimate result. 

We only believe what we want to be true.   Hence why faith is the same as an assertion. 

The physical/material world is the *evidence* of a prior faith/assertion.   

Scientists seem to observe the evidence first, and then believe.   This is deceptive. 

Atheists seem to observe the evidence first, and then believe (that the physical world is real, and/or that an unseen world is unreal).   

The objective of faith is to make one's assertions *real*.   

To the extent that something seems real, that is the evidence for the faith/assertion. 

Believers don't respond to evidence.  Evidence responds to believers. 

We can believe things that are not true, and see evidence for our assertions.

Such is the physical world of bees, trees, and seas.  None of these are true or real despite the assertion (faith) that they are.  And yet, we see it and accept it as evidence of its own reality (truth). 

They remain simulations, including the humans and their eyeballs that see the bees, trees and seas:

You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It: George Smoot at TEDxSalford

[Still]

So given the information in my prior post above, what might precognition be?

It might be a distinction between a primary believer and a secondary believer. 

It could be the primary believer "knows" what the next number will be because it asserts it...and it believes it because it asserts it. 

The secondary believer would just need to tune into what the primary believer is asserting. 

So it would seem the secondary (weak) believers live in ignorance, while the primary (strong) believer abides in "knowledge", or what passes for knowledge (but might not be). 

So long as the secondary believer believes it is the primary believer (the knower), it will lose and suffer as it's assertions (assumptions) succumb to the mathematics asserted by the prime believer in the first place.  This would be to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Maybe there are multiple levels of believers, where the math is made by the prime believer, the next number is made by the mid level believer, and the  dupe (last believer in the chain of believers) either tunes in to the making of the next number, or believes whatever he wants to believe and gets hammered. 

To me, philosophical evidence is a consistency of argument where there is no cognitive dissonance interfering, like how Joe thinks.

[winforus]

It's not really a question of "trust". We all take things on trust, we have to otherwise we would never get through the day That doesn't mean that we shouldn't believe anything that isn't "scientifically" tested because we are justified in believing a lot of things without the help of science, just using common sense.

But I agree with you that it would better to do my own tests to convince myself.

I don't think Joe understands the ramifications of this when he agrees. 

Evidence is indeed subject to assertions.   Faith and assertions are very much the same thing. 

Anything that scientists can observe as a persistent phenomenon has previously been asserted (it was believed and is still believed).   

Something asserts what we like to call the physical, or material world...which is then observed by "scientists" who look for ways to measure reliable circumstances, or test for persistent phenomenon.

What asserts the physical world of trees, bees and seas, i will call that the *prime believer*.   

As it believes, it produces what we call humans, or what i will call *secondary believers*, made in the image (imagination) of the prime believer.   

The relationship between the secondary believers and the primary believer is rather incestuous.

Self deception is the ultimate result. 

That's right.  Joe doesn't understand that the things he calls "common sense" are not "common sense". He took them on blind faith, he never questioned them.

You see, there is no "physical reality". The brain doesn't produce consciousness. Consciousness is independent of the brain and independent of thought. Consciousness precedes everything. Given that, the body is just a vehicle for experiencing consciousness.

So what do we have? A foundational screw up. Joe(along with many scientists) took things on blind faith and now his entire model is upside down. Where is his evidence that matter creates consciousness? That's right, there isn't any.

The problem with science is that it doesn't question it's own foundations. Although now more scientists than ever before are beginning to understand these things.

So how can you tell what I said is true? You don't have to take it on blind faith. You can prove it yourself, though careful self-observation. That's right, you should do your own science and your own tests. There is a lot of information on this out there as well, do your own research. (This is not something that I can prove to you or that you can prove to anybody)

This is very relevant, because if you understand this - you will understand why precognition phenomena is real and many other things. Precognition is just 1%.

How would you explain how precognition works? Everything is interconnected, simple as that.

[winforus]

Assuming it worked, precog would be unlikely to work on every spin. Just like any AP method, you have an EDGE.

I get why some of you mock it as something that may actually work. It's like how some people mock AP. They don't have the right or enough information to know better.

Again I believe it is likely a viable method. I don't have solid enough information to know for sure. Developing precog is riskier (timewise) than developing traditional methods.

Because I am not that well trained, I get the best results when I play up to 10-15 spins per session. The accuracy goes down significantly as fatigue + other factors kick in and you are not able to sense as well as you did before.

Developing precognition is not risky, because the reward is far beyond just winning at roulette.

[Let Me Win]

Precognition would violate the principle of antecedence (causality), that an effect does not happen before its cause.

Information passing backwards in time would need to be carried by physical particles doing the same. Experimental evidence from high-energy physics suggests that this cannot happen.

There is therefore no direct justification for precognition from physics."

[Joe]

I don't think Joe understands the ramifications of this when he agrees.

Evidence is indeed subject to assertions.   Faith and assertions are very much the same thing.

Anything that scientists can observe as a persistent phenomenon has previously been asserted (it was believed and is still believed).   

Something asserts what we like to call the physical, or material world...which is then observed by "scientists" who look for ways to measure reliable circumstances, or test for persistent phenomenon.

What asserts the physical world of trees, bees and seas, i will call that the *prime believer*.   

As it believes, it produces what we call humans, or what i will call *secondary believers*, made in the image (imagination) of the prime believer.   

The relationship between the secondary believers and the primary believer is rather incestuous.

Self deception is the ultimate result.

We only believe what we want to be true.   Hence why faith is the same as an assertion.

The physical/material world is the *evidence* of a prior faith/assertion.   

Scientists seem to observe the evidence first, and then believe.   This is deceptive.

Atheists seem to observe the evidence first, and then believe (that the physical world is real, and/or that an unseen world is unreal).   

The objective of faith is to make one's assertions *real*.   

To the extent that something seems real, that is the evidence for the faith/assertion.

Believers don't respond to evidence.  Evidence responds to believers.

We can believe things that are not true, and see evidence for our assertions.

Such is the physical world of bees, trees, and seas.  None of these are true or real despite the assertion (faith) that they are.  And yet, we see it and accept it as evidence of its own reality (truth).

They remain simulations, including the humans and their eyeballs that see the bees, trees and seas:

You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It: George Smoot at TEDxSalford

Still, interesting though your speculations are, it's all beside the point and we seem to have wondered far off course in this thread. I started posting in the thread because those who make claims (not necessarily about precog, but about systems too) seem unwilling or unable to recognize that in order to draw inferences from your results, you need to use inferential statistics.

Even if your theories were true, it wouldn't remove the need for this, because as Steve says :

Assuming it worked, precog would be unlikely to work on every spin. Just like any AP method, you have an EDGE.

And I think you would agree. Now, supposing we really are "secondary believers" who are generated by a "primary believer" and that all we assume and observe is an illusion, we still have to live and function in this world of "appearance" even if we have an intuition that it is indeed illusion. You and I still need to feed our illusory bodies, put illusory roofs over our illusory heads, and put our illusory chips on the illusory table at the illusory casino in order to at least have a chance at making illusory profits! 

So long as we are in this pitiable condition, we have to make inferences, because most of what we believe comes from inferences and not direct observation (of illusory objects!). Even if the "material" world is illusory, you have to admit that there is a kind of stability and predictability about it, otherwise "science" wouldn't work. There is the principle of the "Uniformity of Nature".

Whether we get our bet selection from precognition, intuition, or a system, randomness and variance are constant factors and so we need to have some way to determine whether the results are due to these or constitute a real edge.

I don't want to get sidetracked by your metaphysical speculations, but it does remind me of Kant's philosophy, which is full of contradictions, like all radical skepticism is. And it's rather ironic that you reference a video of a talk by a Physicist, while asserting that science has it all backwards. 

[Joe]

That's right.  Joe doesn't understand that the things he calls "common sense" are not "common sense". He took them on blind faith, he never questioned them.

You see, there is no "physical reality". The brain doesn't produce consciousness. Consciousness is independent of the brain and independent of thought. Consciousness precedes everything. Given that, the body is just a vehicle for experiencing consciousness.

So what do we have? A foundational screw up. Joe(along with many scientists) took things on blind faith and now his entire model is upside down. Where is his evidence that matter creates consciousness? That's right, there isn't any.

When I talk about "common sense" I'm really talking about logic and reasoning, not things we observe. Even if everything physical is an illusion we can still make inferences about what appears. You can't deny that there is "appearance", even if you doubt the status of that appearance. Even God, if there is such a being, cannot break the laws of logic. And you cannot "refute" logic itself because to do so you would have to use logic!

And please stop misrepresenting my views. I have never said or implied that matter creates consciousness, so I don't need to provide any evidence for it. But at least you admit that evidence is necessary in order to believe, although you're rather selective about where and when it's necessary. 

[Joe]

Precognition would violate the principle of antecedence (causality), that an effect does not happen before its cause.

Yes, but our precog gurus have taken care of that because "before" and "after" are an illusion, and anyway, it's science which is all wrong! just listen to the Physicist in the video! 

[RayManZ]

You know what may be a good argument? You can't sell precog. It's a skill. You have to learn it yourself.

If i would have a working system. A holy grail. I would do what Steve is doing. Sell the service. Get a monthly payment and let others do the boring/hard work.

That does not work for precog. You have to do the work yourself. It just like that sixpack. It takes time. By the time you got the sixpack you have learned so much more. You got a life skill to never get fat again and if you ever get fat you know how to get rid of it. It's worth the time.

Like everybody is saying that is doing precog. We don't care. You think we care because we post alot about it here? We are just trying to open your eyes. Stop with all the systems. There are people here that are putting in so much effort and time in systems that won't work. Ever. If only they put in the same time in precog.

Maybe the same goes for AP. That also takes alot of time and effort to learn. Same idea. Different skill.

You don't believe it works? That's ok. We are not mad. We are not trying to sell you anything or scam you. That's not how it works. Instead of netflix 2 hours a day. Do it for one hour a day and use the other hour the practice with the app. Try it for 6 months and report back.

[Joe]

It's a skill. You have to learn it yourself.

I see that as a weakness, not an advantage. When you're gone, the "system" goes with you. With a system you can pass it on to someone else, or rent it out, sell it or create a bot.  That's passive income, not something you have to work at day after day like a 9-5 job.

And did it ever occur to you that if you're getting results, it may not be due to precognition, but "intuition"? If you're practicing day after day looking at roulette outcomes it's possible you may have discovered, perhaps subconsciously, a way of selecting bets which creates an advantage.

[RayManZ]

I see that as a weakness, not an advantage. When you're gone, the "system" goes with you. With a system you can pass it on to someone else, or rent it out, sell it or create a bot.  That's passive income, not something you have to work at day after day like a 9-5 job.

And did it ever occur to you that if you're getting results, it may not be due to precognition, but "intuition"? If you're practicing day after day looking at roulette outcomes it's possible you may have discovered, perhaps subconsciously, a way of selecting bets which creates an advantage.

I practice with the app. I only play max 15 spins a day. That's 75 units. A unit can be whatever my bankroll is at that moment. I have a bankroll of 4 times 75 units.

I have the feeling you always like to see things from a negative point of view. Try to change that. It will improve your life.

[winforus]

When I talk about "common sense" I'm really talking about logic and reasoning, not things we observe. Even if everything physical is an illusion we can still make inferences about what appears. You can't deny that there is "appearance", even if you doubt the status of that appearance. Even God, if there is such a being, cannot break the laws of logic. And you cannot "refute" logic itself because to do so you would have to use logic!

And please stop misrepresenting my views. I have never said or implied that matter creates consciousness, so I don't need to provide any evidence for it. But at least you admit that evidence is necessary in order to believe, although you're rather selective about where and when it's necessary. 

The only way you know anything to be true, even just simply everyday truths like "It's raining today" is NEVER through logic. But only through experience. Logic is something that operates upon experience. The grist for the mill is experience. Without experience, you wouldn't know you exist.

All logic can stop, and you'd still exist very comfortably.

Logic itself IS an experience! All that said, logic is useful for everyday human affairs. The only mistake would be to worship it and use it exclusively. Imagine if I insisted on using a hammer to do brain surgery -- because I really love hammers. Well... that would be a bad thing. But hammers are still useful. Just not for brain surgery.

When it comes to understanding things like precognition - you will not understand it through logic.

Based on what you wrote, it is very easy to assume that you are a materialist and unfortunately materialist paradigm does not give any room for things like precognition.

I see that as a weakness, not an advantage. When you're gone, the "system" goes with you. With a system you can pass it on to someone else, or rent it out, sell it or create a bot.  That's passive income, not something you have to work at day after day like a 9-5 job.

And did it ever occur to you that if you're getting results, it may not be due to precognition, but "intuition"? If you're practicing day after day looking at roulette outcomes it's possible you may have discovered, perhaps subconsciously, a way of selecting bets which creates an advantage.

If you would develop the skill, you could apply it way beyond roulette. Developing the skill itself, is a huge rewards in itself.

Like RaymanZ said, we don't  really care to prove anything to you., we have no stake in the outcome. You could spend countless of hours on trying to develop systems that will never work, it is your choice.

If you are genuinely interested, you will put in the time and test it for yourself. You have all the tools available to you.

[The General]

LOL

Look how rich you would have been if you only be on that number before the ball rolled. Don't miss out on the next one, just rush me a check

Yes, I knew that you'd write what you did above.  I didn't miss out.