In 2013, a University of Colorado professor of quantum engineering organized a project with his class, based on precognition. “I’m going to show you a picture this time tomorrow, and I want you to describe what you will see at that time.”
The picture was chosen by chance from two possible pictures, and, as frequently happens with such experiments, the students’ descriptions fit better with the picture that they were actually to be shown than the one they would never be shown (even though at the time they were describing the picture, they had not yet seen it).
Prof. Moddel added a variation: He decided in advance that if the stock market goes up tomorrow, he will show the student Picture A, and if the stock market goes down, Picture B.
Result: The students correctly predicted the picture 7 out of 7 times, and Prof Moddel’s investment in DJIA futures made $4,000.
write-up in the Journal of Scientific Exploration
Comment: I believe such things happen far more often than chance would predict (in this case, 1 time in 128). But I also think they are less consistent than the “7 for 7” would indicate, otherwise the research field of parapsychology would not remain underfunded, as it chronically is .
As the article describes the investment, they would have made $28,000 instead of $4000 if they had invested just as they had planned to do, but they mistimed their 7th and last trade, and suffered a large loss.
If you believe it possible that people can sense in advance what picture they will see tomorrow, you probably also think it possible that human events are arranged so as to warn people away from life paths that are venal and unrewarding.
Even if precognition lacks sufficient consistency to support a hedge fund, the phenomenon is consistent enough to justify a rethinking of the foundation of Western science. — JJM