To predict exactly how an event will unfold in the future is impossible because even the slightest change in the present can affect the outcome of the future. However, with the right wisdom and technique, you can predict how an event can unfold but the prediction will be more general than specific. How general or specific the prediction will be will vary depending on the event.
The future has infinite possibilities. When people predict the future, they are only seeing one or a few of the possibilities of the future. As a result, their predictions may not always be correct. One of the few times that you can accurately predict how an event will unfold in the future is when that event has reached a point of critical mass. The scenario below should help you understand this concept.
Pretend that there are two people in front of you. Person number one is holding a piece of paper in a horizontal position and person number two is holding a small metal ball and a bottle of water. Person number two decides to put the small metal ball on the piece of paper and start dripping water on the metal ball, thus wetting the paper in the process. Eventually, the paper will not be able to hold the metal ball and the metal ball will seek through. The exact time when the metal ball fall through the paper is the critical mass point. Once this point is achieved or near, the future is certain and there is not much you can do in the present to change it.
As explored at PreventDisease.com.
Wouldn’t it be nice to predict future events, even if they are just ten seconds ahead? According to researchers at Northwestern University, we can do just that.
Researchers already know that our subconscious minds sometimes know more than our conscious minds. Physiological measures of subconscious arousal, for instance, tend to show up before conscious awareness that a deck of cards is stacked against us.
Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition — knowledge of unpredictable future events — for years. But the fringe phenomenon recently got a mainstream airing after a paper providing evidence for its existence was accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.
What’s more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”