Significance

[precogmiles]

Any proof of that? 

You need to believe in precognition first then you'll be ready to see the proof. Until then you will forever have your skeptic tinted glasses on and wont be able to see the reality even if it was staring you right in the face.

[Joe]

You need to believe in precognition first then you'll be ready to see the proof.

That really doesn't make any sense. A proof doesn't depend on prior belief, that's the point.

[precogmiles]

That really doesn't make any sense. A proof doesn't depend on prior belief, that's the point.

What would constitute as proof for someone who denies the possibility of its existence?

[Let Me Win]

Hitchens's razor....

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

[precogmiles]

Hitchens's razor....

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

How can anyone ask me for proof? Are you blind? Can you not see my signature?

The question is not about proof. It is to do with a type of blind and irrational skepticism which claims that from the get go certain things are impossible i.e precognition, telekinesis etc..

So the question still stands. What proof would be required to make someone change their mind?

It seems whatever evidence is brought in front of the skeptic, it is never good enough. They are awaiting the high priests of the cult of materialist science to approve the belief of precognition. Once it has the blessing of the irrational scientific community then you will see these same skeptics blindly believe it is now a real phenomena.

These types of questions have been thrown at parapsychology for a long time. The problem is that since science has no theoretical model to explain precognition without breaking other rules they claim it impossible. They believe in theory over reality.

They played the same game with cold fusion. Now cold fusion is an accepted fact. The phenomena of CF is real.

I am not interested in sheep skeptics who are like parrots and repeat the same questions and quote wiki like they are geniuses.

[Herby]

I am not interested

Why you don't stay in your own thread, why that arrogant style if you just try to help us to a higher level ?

[Herby]

cold fusion is an accepted fact

You believe everything what you are told

[precogmiles]

You believe everything what you are told

Like gravity?

[Herby]

Mr. PRECOX, this is a ROULETTE forum.
Please try to understand this.

[Firefox]

To be fair Herby, you've invested enough time in non-random which is a total fallacy method but dressed up in an elaborate way. I don't think that has much to do with roulette, but people still spend years debating it!

[Herby]

Hi firefox,
at least you have some understanding of mathematics  .

But:

You know somebody who knows somebody  who knows somebody …........
who knows a library with the book written:    it’s all fallacy.
Find the guys, find the library, find the proof and show us the proof: all non physics approaches are total fallacy.

The borders of your language are the borders of your world.

[Firefox]

I don't know anyone. I draw my own conclusions.

Reliance on immediately previous spin results to point to bet selection, without reference to what is happening on the wheel, is fallacy territory.  No matter what you call the method.

You also clearly have a good mathematical understanding so I'm surprised you got so involved.

The proof is that wheel has no memory, other than defects within, which may render the assumption that all outcomes are equally likely, invalid.

Non of the mathematics of non-random ideas offer any constraints to the outcome of the next spin. Therefore you will never have an advantage.

[Joe]

What would constitute as proof for someone who denies the possibility of its existence?

I'm not denying the possibility of precognition, but I'm skeptical. You say look at your results on MPR, and sure, you're at the top, but I don't even know how the score works; what is it measuring? And there are others who also have positive scores who presumably are NOT using precognition. For a start, I need to know exactly how the scores are calculated.

There is no evidence that precognition works. The infamous study by Daryl Bem, which is what everyone cites when trying to show that precog has merit, was shown to be flawed. It doesn't matter so much that there is no theoretical model, there is no satisfactory model for quantum mechanics either, just a lot of speculation and multiple interpretations. But the difference is that QM WORKS. Even if ONE person could be proved to have precognitive abilities it would be enough, but it hasn't happened.

[Herby]

no satisfactory model for quantum mechanics

Try it with Schrödinger's differential equation.
Maths ist the exactest language.

[Joe]

Herby, a mathematical formulation isn't an explanation. There is no agreed explanation of why QM works or what it "means".