Research Program / Nonlinear Time and Self-Cognition · 中文

precognition

预知

interface 3/3 · testability 3/3 · 12 claims · claims · concept entry

This program treats the Seth Material as a source of hypotheses, not as doctrine to be validated. Lead dossiers are AI-compiled from the corpus with a book-and-session citation after every statement; literature reviews are AI web-search summaries whose references were all DOI-verified against Crossref; the agenda draft is an AI synthesis. None of it is Seth's original text, and none of it represents scientific consensus. This dossier is a machine translation; the Chinese text is authoritative.

Precognition (precognition) Clue Archive

1. What exactly does Seth claim about this concept? How many times was it mentioned, in which books, and does the wording change over time?

Precognition is explicitly asserted as a fact, contradicting the linear-time conception. "You know that precognition is a fact. The steady line of time does not exist." [early-sessions-5 §221]
Precognitive dreams are documented as actual experience: "we have had many precognitive dreams, all documented" [esp-power §15]
Precognition must be understood through probability: "It's impossible to speak of time and precognition without considering probabilities." [dreams-projections §3]
The possibility of precognition is related to an inverted time system, in which past, present, and future can be viewed as existing simultaneously in the "spacious present": "the so-called present, past and future can be viewed as existing in a spacious now" [early-sessions-5 §221]
The mechanism of precognitive dreams involves the transmission of electromagnetic patterns: "In telepathic, clairvoyant or precognitive dreams, exactly what is transmitted? … the electromagnetic pattern is transmitted" [dreams-projections §3]
Regarding "how many times mentioned": the provided material does not give an exact count, and only confirms mentions in each of the three books above; regarding wording, both the early 1965–1966 material (esp-power, early-sessions-5) and the later material (dreams-projections) emphasize precognition as fact, but the provided material does not explicitly indicate changes in wording over time.

2. What mechanism does he offer?

Seth bases the mechanism of precognition on a redefinition of the nature of time: time is not a linear continuum; rather, an "inverted time system" is closer to its true nature [early-sessions-5 §221]; time "curls inward while also exploding outward from itself," with energy moving from a core in all directions, and the core sometimes becoming the outer surface [early-sessions-5 §221]; in this system, the present, past, and future can be viewed as existing in the "spacious present" [early-sessions-5 §221]; any apparent differences between past and future are only due to perception [early-sessions-5 §221].

Precognition is possible because consciousness can perceive probable events within this "spacious present": Seth states that he "can perceive far more of your future than you can," but is not omnipotent—prediction depends on judging which "probable channel" an individual will choose [unknown-reality-1 §681]; precognitive information sometimes appears erroneous because "the ego chose a different probable event for materialization"—the channel indicated by the prediction need not be the one ultimately selected [unknown-reality-1 §681]; prediction itself does not violate free will, because the choice still belongs to the individual; free will is simply not limited to being exercised by the "ego" alone [unknown-reality-1 §681].

Precognition also involves projection of consciousness: Seth explicitly states that "precognition requires projection," although the projection itself may not be remembered [early-sessions-7 §327]; projection need not be conscious—the waking ego may carry on daily activities while the inner self is elsewhere, with projection continuing beneath both waking and dream states [early-sessions-7 §327]; the work of precognition is done by "another portion of the self" that belongs to the self but not to the self as usually understood in psychology, and it can be developed through training [early-sessions-7 §327].

3. Are there observable inferences or explicit predictions (including time, quantity, conditions)?

The material provides an observable precognition experiment: each day, write down at least five predictions about future events of that day, without revision or selection; subsequently, check against actual events over consecutive days, recording all predictions and outcomes. [esp-power §9]
The experiment specifies clear time and quantity conditions: the experiment lasted six months (November 1964 to April 1965), with a total of 741 predictions written down, of which 320 showed significant results. [esp-power §9]
These 320 significant results fall into three grades: direct hits (highly consistent with future events, not explainable by other means), striking results with lower verifiability, and significant but vaguer results. [esp-power §9]
Predictions allow a grace period of two to three days—a prediction made on Monday may be fulfilled on Wednesday. [esp-power §9]
Concrete examples: on March 4, the prediction "a stranger will visit" was fulfilled that evening when a friend brought a complete stranger; the prediction was written at 8 a.m., and this person rarely received visitors; another example: on January 27, the prediction "a secret will be told, sharp tongues, teasing" was followed by corresponding events that afternoon. [esp-power §9]
Precognitive results are not always accurate: sometimes they appear wrong because the subject chose an alternate probable-event path; precognitive information depends on the subject's perception of future choices, and therefore does not violate free will. [dreams-projections §3]
Precognitive dreams correlate with temperature and weather, but the material does not give specific temperature ranges or numerical conditions. [dreams-projections §3]

4. Where did he say science was wrong, and in what direction should it look?

Science's error lies in relying on instruments and outer senses to grasp essence:

"Your scientists will find that their instruments are no longer adequate… otherwise they will only be dealing with 'camouflage' and run into dead ends—not because their eyes are closed, but because they have not used the right pair of eyes" [dreams-projections §2]
"Their instruments necessarily carry distortion effects. Any physical instrument carries inherent distortion effects" [dreams-projections §2]

Science's error in direction:

"Scientists think the universe is composed of the same elements… yet the elements they know are, of course, 'camouflage' patterns… the elements you know now and the elements you will create are camouflages of the basic material or vitality that you cannot discover with the outer senses" [dreams-projections §2]
"When scientists create instruments to deal with smaller and smaller particles, they will see smaller and smaller particles, seemingly without end… they will become, and already are, prisoners of their tools" [dreams-projections §2]
"Your expanding universe theory is wrong" [early-sessions-5 §221, §221] (this assertion is made in two related places: early-sessions-5 §221 explicitly states that the expanding universe theory applies much more truly to time than to the physical universe: "The expanding universe theory applies much more truly to time than it does to the physical universe")

The direction to look:

"Scientists will be forced to eventually use the inner senses… the inner senses will give you any evidence about the basic nature of life" [dreams-projections §2]
"The instrument that matters, more than any other, is the mind (not the brain)… the mind is the meeting point of the inner senses and the outer senses… the mind is where the secrets of the universe will be discovered, and the mind itself is the discovery instrument" [dreams-projections §2]
"Scientists will have to look for proof in their own dreams… there is a laboratory where dreams can be studied and evaluated, and that is the extremely complex laboratory of the individual personality" [esp-power §4]
"Scientists are now even forced to consider telepathy as a possible means of communication, and they will be driven further and further along this path" [unknown-reality-1 §702]
"The journey from one so-called galaxy to another so-called galaxy is accomplished by shedding the camouflage of the physical body; the vehicle of so-called space travel is the mobility of mind and psyche, i.e., the transformation of energy on the psychic level" [unknown-reality-1 §702]

The significance of precognition for science:

"The fact of precognitive dreams reinforces the view that personality is not bound as tightly to space, time, or matter as is usually supposed" [esp-power §4]
"If the future indeed existed separately after the past, separate from the past, then perceiving future events in dreams or in waking states would be impossible… it is not time itself, but the limitations of our perception of time that create the difficulty" [esp-power §4]
"Your division of past, present, and future does not exist… the concept of causation you are so eager to understand is likewise merely a necessary camouflage pattern" [esp-power §4]

Correction of the time model:

"The inverted time system actually presents us with a way that is closer to the true nature of time. Time does indeed turn inward, just as it explodes outward. The expanding universe theory applies much more truly to time than to the physical universe" [early-sessions-5 §221]
"There is no real progression, moment by moment, as you suppose… the past can be changed, present action can alter events that would otherwise occur in the future; but once this is admitted, we must also admit that present events can change the past" [early-sessions-5 §221]

Science should not look for evidence of precognition in the laboratory:

"Scientists will not find proof in their laboratories. There is only one laboratory where dreams can be studied and evaluated: the vast and complex laboratory of the individual personality" [esp-power §4]

5. What experiments or exercises did he suggest? What did Jane and Rob actually do and observe?

Experiments or exercises suggested by Seth

Seth suggested that, after receiving information from the first inner sense, experiments could be begun on the basis of that information; as seen from the actions in the material, this was an encouraged practice [dreams-projections §2].
Seth encouraged Rob to continue the exercise he had devised, based on the first inner sense, and told him he was doing well and should practice it often [dreams-projections §2].
Seth instructed imagining a "line structure" running through all things, and imagining these lines as "alive"; this was offered as an experimental, mental exercise [dreams-projections §1].

What Jane and Rob actually did and observed

After receiving information from the first inner sense, Jane and Rob both began conducting experiments with the first inner sense, based on the information received that evening [dreams-projections §2].
Rob conducted a simple deliberate experiment: first, with his mind's eye, he "encircled" objects in the living room (such as a vase, a picture on the wall, plants), trying to clearly "see" their backs; then he stood at the window, looked toward the bridge, imagined walking across it, felt the wooden planks underfoot, passed the signal light at the far end of the bridge, and tried to envelop the houses and trees along the way with "inner touch" [dreams-projections §2].
Rob had a spontaneous visual hallucination, clear and specific: he saw his brother Dick dying in a bedroom in England in a past life; he immediately made a sketch [dreams-projections §2].
Rob also had a visual hallucination about his brother Loren, in which Loren was a monk on a pilgrimage; Seth provided supplementary details about this hallucination in the next session [dreams-projections §1].
While lying in a trance-like state, Jane heard a slow, hoarse male voice beside her ear say "twelve-o-five"; she checked with a pendulum and received the answer that she had picked up a random thought transference [early-sessions-4 §153].
Before the alarm clock went off, Jane had an experience in which she knew she was not dreaming: she stood in gray-white smoke, smelled smoke, and felt a brief panic; when the panic appeared, the experience ended [early-sessions-4 §153].
Jane and Rob had conducted experiments with a Ouija board and pendulum, which eventually led to Jane beginning to speak for Seth; during these Ouija board activities, Jane could anticipate almost from the start what the board was about to "say" [dreams-projections §1].

6. What supplements or contradictions do other concepts in the corpus offer in relation to this concept?

Basically, there is no difference between precognition and telepathy; this apparent difference arises from an inadequate understanding of the nature of time [early-sessions-6 §240].
In precognition or telepathy, information is received by the individual bypassing the recognized sense systems, and sensory data is fundamentally independent of the physical body [early-sessions-6 §240].
When precognition occurs, the individual unconsciously constructs the perceived physical event, just as he constructs any present physical event [early-sessions-6 §240].
Precognition (especially precognitive dreams) must be understood within the framework of probability, because the future, like the past, is being altered at every point [dreams-projections §3].
Precognition does not negate free will; the predicted event is only the "correct" probable channel—that is, the channel ultimately chosen—and this choice depends on your choices in the past and present [dreams-projections §3].
Sometimes precognitive information appears wrong because a different probable event has been chosen for materialization [dreams-projections §3].
In precognitive dreams, emotional attraction is a necessary condition for initial transmission and transformation; the subconscious often picks up and acts on this information without conscious recognition [dreams-projections §3].
Events in precognitive dreams must be meaningful to the dreamer; hidden emotional connections (such as old personal experiences or those of others) condition us to experience certain events [dreams-projections §3].
Precognitive dreams often contain subconscious distortion and are interwoven with other dream material; such dreams may reveal more about how we receive and interpret precognitive information than fully consistent events do [dreams-projections §3].
Some seemingly precognitive dreams may not be truly precognitive, but rather the events are propelled by a "post-hypnotic suggestion" effect created by the dream itself [dreams-projections §3].
The ego determines the nature of physical time as perceived by the individual by insisting on choosing the stimuli to which it can respond, thereby affecting the reception of precognitive information [dreams-projections §3].
The reception of precognitive information involves transforming the transmitted electromagnetic pattern into a form the ego can recognize, which often requires emotional attraction [dreams-projections §3].
In precognitive dreams, the outer senses are not used, and there are often apparent differences between events as presented in the dream and physical events themselves (such as off-location or substituted persons), but core elements are retained [dreams-projections §3].

7. Questions that have not yet been asked

How can a double-blind randomized controlled experiment be designed to quantify the dose-response relationship between emotional attraction intensity in precognitive dreams and event hit rate? Existing dream emotion scales and prospective memory testing paradigms could serve as references.
Seth proposes that precognition requires projection of consciousness and does not occur in the waking state—can high-density EEG or fMRI be used to compare default mode network activity differences across sleep stages between precognitive and non-precognitive dreams?
If precognitive information is transmitted via electromagnetic patterns, what testable frequency-band or topographic distinctions does it have from known neuroelectromagnetic signals (such as cortical slow potentials)? Can scalp magnetoencephalography measure electromagnetic feature changes in occipito-temporal regions before and after precognitive dreams?
The ego's selection of probable channels in precognitive dreams involves free will—can a decision-reversal experiment be used to test the consistency between the choice tendencies reported by individuals in precognitive dreams and subsequent waking behavioral choices, thereby examining the stability of probable-channel selection?
Based on the inference that "the past can be changed by the present," can a retrospective memory intervention experiment be designed: after subjects complete a precognition task, they receive misleading memory suggestions, to test whether precognitive reports change significantly with subsequent memory reconstruction?

Appendix: Claim List (for Stage C)

id	claim	type	source
precognition-1	Precognition is a fact; linear time does not exist; past, present, and future exist simultaneously in the "spacious present."	ontological assertion	early-sessions-5 §221
precognition-2	Precognition must be understood through probability; the future, like the past, is being altered at every point.	ontological assertion	dreams-projections §3
precognition-3	The mechanism of precognition is the inverted time system: time curls inward and explodes outward; the past can be changed, and present events can also change the past.	mechanism description	early-sessions-5 §221
precognition-4	Precognition requires projection of consciousness; projection need not be remembered; the inner self can project during waking states.	mechanism description	early-sessions-7 §327
precognition-5	Precognition and telepathy are essentially the same; the difference arises from perceptual limitations regarding the nature of time.	ontological assertion	early-sessions-6 §240
precognition-6	Precognition does not violate free will; the prediction points to the "correct" probable channel, and individual choice determines which channel is materialized.	ontological assertion	unknown-reality-1 §681; dreams-projections §3
precognition-7	Seth designed an observable precognition experiment: write at least five predictions daily, continue for six months, allow a two-to-three-day grace period; Jane and Rob wrote 741 predictions from November 1964 to April 1965, of which 320 were significant hits.	testable prediction	esp-power §9
precognition-8	Scientific instruments and outer senses carry inherent distortion; only the inner senses and the mind can reveal the basic nature of life.	methodological recommendation	dreams-projections §2
precognition-9	The mechanism of precognitive dreams involves transmission of electromagnetic patterns; emotional attraction is a necessary condition for initial transmission and transformation.	mechanism description	dreams-projections §3
precognition-10	Some seemingly precognitive dreams may actually be events propelled by a "post-hypnotic suggestion" effect created by the dream itself.	ontological assertion	dreams-projections §3
precognition-11	Reception of precognitive information depends on the ego's selection of stimuli to which it can respond; the ego determines the nature of physical time.	mechanism description	dreams-projections §3
precognition-12	The expanding universe theory applies more truly to time than to the physical universe.	ontological assertion	early-sessions-5 §221

Literature review · 14 DOI-verified references · generated 2026-09-05 · ★ fundable

slug: precognition generated_at: 2026-09-05T18:58:54.282Z channel: codex-search

Precognition Research Status Review

Supported 1 ｜ Contested 1 ｜ Untested 9 ｜ Contradicted 1

precognition-1｜contested

Claim: Precognition is a fact; linear time does not exist; past, present, and future coexist simultaneously in the "spacious present." (early-sessions-5 §221)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Daryl Bem, Patrizio E. Tressoldi, Thomas Rabeyron, Michael Duggan (2016). Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events. F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7177.2 —— The positive meta-analysis reports a small effect, but this cannot establish precognition, nor does it test the nonexistence of time. Paper
Zoltan Kekecs et al. (2023). Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191375 —— Used preregistration, transparent recording, and multi-laboratory collaboration; the target precognition effect was not replicated. Paper
Jan Walleczek et al. (2025). Metascientific replication project with the advanced meta-experimental protocol of the transparent psi project procedures for testing the precognitive effect claimed by Bem. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335330 —— Three studies with a total of 26,483 participants did not establish a stable, replicable precognition effect; a reverse deviation that was once replicated did not reappear in subsequent studies. Paper

Adjudication experiment: First test information acquisition: multicenter, approximately 5,000 participants, each making 100 two-alternative forced judgments; targets are generated by an independent random source after responses are sealed; neither participants nor on-site experimenters can learn targets in advance; analysts do not know condition labels before code lock. Duration 12–18 months, with preregistered effect-size lower bounds, exclusion rules, random-source audits, and independent replication. Even if successful, this could only establish anomalous prediction and cannot alone adjudicate the simultaneous existence of all times.

Suggested paper title: A Pre-registered Multicentre Test of Prediction Accuracy for Subsequently Randomized Events

Core subversion: Reliable positive results would revise the assumption that "after excluding information leakage, current responses are statistically independent of subsequently generated independent random targets."

Related teams/funders: Zoltan Kekecs, Transparent Psi Project, precognition replication research; Jan Walleczek, Phenoscience Laboratories, anomalous effects and research methods; Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, anomalous cognition research

Specificity of Seth's formulation: The "spacious present" specifies no probability distribution, time span, or measurable parameter, and offers no more distinguishable predictions than general retrocausal hypotheses; spacetime holism also does not automatically permit access to future information.

Notes: This review is based on web searches as of 2026-09-06; "contested" applies only to the precognition effect; "time does not exist" was not tested by these experiments; "untested" throughout indicates that no direct test was found in this search and does not guarantee that no research exists; the sample sizes listed are planned magnitudes; formal project design requires power simulation based on minimal effects and repeated-measures correlation.

precognition-2｜untested

Claim: Precognition must be understood through probability; the future, like the past, is being altered at every point. (dreams-projections §3)

Evidence: None (or verification failed and was removed)

Adjudication experiment: First separate "probability changes" from "past changes." Approximately 1,000 participants each report probabilities of future random events 100 times; after reports are sealed, new information is randomly provided or withheld; compare Brier scores, calibration, and updating direction over 6–12 months. Additionally set up completed events with third-party sealed records to test whether what changes is the judgment about the past or the recorded event itself; "past changes" with no observable difference cannot be adjudicated.

Suggested paper title: Probability Updating for Future Outcomes and Previously Recorded Events: A Pre-registered Study

Core subversion: If past events themselves are shown to be altered by subsequent intervention, this would revise the assumption that "new information changes beliefs about past events but does not change events that have already occurred."

Related teams/funders: Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, anomalous cognition and psychological factors; Marc Wittmann, Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, time experience; Carey K. Morewedge, Boston University, judgment and decision biases

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Using probabilistic language does not constitute a distinctive prediction; it must specify when, by how much, and by what rules change occurs; otherwise any miss can be post hoc explained as a probability change.

Notes: Probabilities of past events can change in Bayesian updating, which does not equal past events changing; research must prohibit explaining all results through unobserved "channel changes."

precognition-3｜contradicted

Claim: The mechanism of precognition is a time-reversing system: time curls inward and explodes outward; the past can be changed, and present events can also change the past. (early-sessions-5 §221)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Stuart J. Ritchie, Richard Wiseman, Christopher C. French (2012). Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's 'Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423 —— Three preregistered studies with a total of 150 participants found no improvement in prior recall performance from subsequent practice; only adjacent retrocausal timing was tested, not time curling directly. Paper
Alan Scoboria, Kimberley A. Wade, D. Stephen Lindsay, Tanjeem Azad, Deryn Strange, James Ost, Ira E. Hyman (2017). A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747 —— Post-event suggestion can alter autobiographical memory reports, supporting a memory reconstruction interpretation, not evidence of changing the past. Paper

Adjudication experiment: Corresponds to supplementary question 5: approximately 600 participants first complete predictions with original reports copied to independent append-only storage, then random targets are presented; participants are then randomly assigned to misleading suggestion, accurate reminder, or no-suggestion groups. At 24 hours and one week later, predictions are restated; blind raters compare original hit rates, restated hit rates, and memory confidence over 6 months. If only restatement changes, this supports memory reconstruction; testing physical past changes requires additional independent physical intervention and record-integrity experiments; this memory experiment cannot complete that adjudication.

Suggested paper title: Post-event Suggestion Alters Recalled Predictions: A Randomized Test Using Time-stamped Original Reports

Core subversion: If present intervention genuinely changes prior physical events, this would overturn the causal assumption that "controllable macroscopic interventions cannot send information to completed events and rewrite their history."

Related teams/funders: Kimberley A. Wade, University of Warwick, false memory; Jan Walleczek, Phenoscience Laboratories, retrocausal-related experiments and methods

Specificity of Seth's formulation: "Curling inward and exploding outward" has no equations, scales, or conservation relations, making it incomparable with specific physical models; the testable part is only whether subsequent intervention affects prior records.

Notes: "Contradicted" targets the literal version of controllably rewriting macroscopic past in conflict with the existing causal framework; it does not claim that all time-symmetric or retrocausal explanations have been excluded; quantum delayed choice also does not equal rewriting recorded history.

precognition-4｜untested

Claim: Precognition requires consciousness projection; projection can be unremembered; the inner self can project during wakefulness. (early-sessions-7 §327)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Francesca Siclari et al. (2017). The neural correlates of dreaming. Nature Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4545 —— High-density EEG identified neural correlates of dream experience and content, providing methodological basis for sleep-stage experiments, but did not study precognition or consciousness projection. Paper

Adjudication experiment: Corresponds to supplementary question 2: approximately 120 participants, 6 experimental nights each, using high-density EEG, EOG, and EMG; staged awakenings during REM and N2/N3 with immediate sealing of dream reports; targets generated randomly afterward. Preregister posterior cortical activity and source-space default mode network metrics; additionally use approximately 40 participants for concurrent EEG-fMRI feasibility validation; analyze with continuous matching scores across all trials to avoid cherry-picking hit dreams, over 18–24 months. Only after above-chance matching is replicated can neural correlates be meaningfully discussed.

Suggested paper title: Sleep-stage-dependent Neural Activity and Correspondence Between Dream Reports and Subsequently Randomized Stimuli

Core subversion: If dream reports still contain information about future random targets after excluding usual information sources, this would revise the assumption that "information processing during sleep relies only on information available previously and at the time."

Related teams/funders: Francesca Siclari, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, sleep and dream research; Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, anomalous experience and altered states of consciousness research

Specificity of Seth's formulation: "Projection can be unremembered" makes necessary conditions difficult to falsify; projection indicators must be defined independently first; hits cannot be retroactively identified as projection.

Notes: The supplementary question restricts projection to non-wakeful states, inconsistent with the stated claim that explicitly allows wakeful projection; wakeful controls should be added; default mode network differences alone cannot prove consciousness projection.

precognition-5｜untested

Claim: Precognition and telepathy are identical in essence; the difference arises from perceptual limitations regarding the nature of time. (early-sessions-6 §240)

Evidence: None (or verification failed and was removed)

Adjudication experiment: Approximately 600 pairs of participants, in fully isolated conditions, complete three task types in crossover fashion: simultaneous viewing of targets by someone, simultaneous absence of anyone viewing targets, and targets randomly generated only after reports; match target pools and scoring procedures, approximately 90 trials per pair, over 12–18 months. First test above-chance performance separately, then conduct equivalence tests, cross-task individual correlations, and common latent variable model comparisons; all-null results cannot prove identical mechanisms.

Suggested paper title: Comparing Target Timing and Sender Presence in a Pre-registered Information-matching Experiment

Core subversion: If both types of effects are reliably established, this would revise the assumption that "available information transfer between isolated individuals and across time must rely on known physical communication channels."

Related teams/funders: Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, dream and anomalous cognition research; Bial Foundation, funding for psychophysiology and parapsychology research

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Identity of essence requires concretely specified common moderating factors, identical time functions, or cross-predictable neural features; the current formulation provides none of these constraints.

Notes: Here "untested" refers to "identity of mechanism," not that the two phenomena have never been studied; Chris A. Roe's research direction and Bial Foundation funding scope have been verified; listing does not imply endorsement of the Seth interpretation.

precognition-6｜untested

Claim: Precognition does not violate free will; predictions point to the "correct" probability channel, and individual choice determines which channel is materialized. (unknown-reality-1 §681; dreams-projections §3)

Evidence: None (or verification failed and was removed)

Adjudication experiment: Corresponds to supplementary question 4: approximately 400 participants record choice tendencies in dreams for 30 nights; the next day they perform decision tasks with actual small monetary payoffs and are randomly given prompts to maintain or reverse their original choice; set up a control task where targets are independently randomly generated after dream reports and cannot be influenced by participants. Preregister dream–behavior consistency rates, reversal success rates, and external target matching rates, using participant-level hierarchical models, over 9–12 months. Channel theory must specify in advance what probability predictions it makes for external targets after reversal.

Suggested paper title: Dream-reported Preferences and Subsequent Choice Reversal in a Pre-registered Longitudinal Experiment

Core subversion: If choice can alter causally isolated external random outcomes, this would revise the assumption that "personal choice affects subsequent events only through ordinary causal pathways."

Related teams/funders: Carey K. Morewedge, Boston University, judgment and decision-making; Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, psychological moderators of anomalous cognition

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Allowing misses to be explained as choosing another channel renders the theory unfalsifiable; only by first specifying each channel's observable outcomes and switching conditions does it become more specific than ordinary preference-stability hypotheses.

Notes: Consistency between dream choices and waking choices can be explained by stable preferences, memory, and suggestion; the ability to reverse choices also cannot alone adjudicate metaphysical free will.

precognition-7｜untested

Claim: Seth designed an observable precognition experiment: write at least five predictions daily for six months, with a two-to-three-day grace period allowed; Jane and Rob wrote 741 predictions total from November 1964 to April 1965, of which 320 were significantly hit. (esp-power §9)

Evidence: None (or verification failed and was removed)

Adjudication experiment: First audit all 741 original predictions, recorded dates, contemporaneous event materials, and the original criteria for the 320 hits. For prospective replication, recruit approximately 200 participants, each writing 5 predictions daily for 180 days, yielding approximately 180,000 predictions; submissions sealed upon entry, with event, place, time, and failure conditions clearly specified, using a fixed 72-hour upper limit without post hoc adjustment. Blind raters evaluate true windows, same-season shifted windows, and other participants' matched windows simultaneously; additionally include an experimental arm with targets randomly drawn after reports. Handle clustering by participant and date and window overlap; approximately 12 months including audit and analysis.

Suggested paper title: Six Months of Time-stamped Daily Predictions: A Pre-registered Evaluation Against Matched-event Baselines

Core subversion: If the random-target experimental arm consistently exceeds chance levels, this would revise the assumption that "without available prediction cues, free-text predictions do not outperform preregistered chance baselines."

Related teams/funders: Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, prospective anomalous cognition research; Zoltan Kekecs, Transparent Psi Project, preregistration and research transparency

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Daily quantity, six-month duration, and grace period are more specific than general precognition claims, but the event universe, hit rules, and null hypothesis hit rate are missing; these gaps determine whether the numbers can be interpreted.

Notes: No peer-reviewed validation of this historical experiment or independently verifiable complete raw data was found; 320/741 is approximately 43.2%, which is not statistical significance; and at least 5 predictions daily for six consecutive months should typically be approximately 900, so the compliance rate, statistical conventions, and whether the two individuals were combined need clarification first.

precognition-8｜untested

Claim: Scientific tools and outer senses carry inherent distortion; only inner senses and mind can discover the fundamental nature of life. (dreams-projections §2)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Tobias Bothwell, Colin J. Kennedy, Alexander Aeppli, Dhruv Kedar, John M. Robinson, Eric Oelker, Alexander Staron, Jun Ye (2022). Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04349-7 —— Precision instruments can test extremely small-scale time differences, showing that measurement error can be quantified and constrained; this is not a direct test of the "fundamental nature of life." Paper

Adjudication experiment: Convert "discovering fundamental nature" into scoreable hidden-target identification or physiological state estimation. Approximately 300 participants in crossover fashion use introspection, external measurement, and a combination of both; targets and true physiological indicators are sealed by an independent team; blind-rated accuracy, calibration, and cross-day test-retest over 6–9 months. The operational procedures of so-called inner senses and their unique predictions must be defined in advance; otherwise the necessity of "must use" cannot be adjudicated.

Suggested paper title: Comparing Introspective and Instrument-based Estimates Against Independently Recorded Outcomes

Core subversion: If introspection can stably obtain independent information unavailable to external measurement, this would revise the information-source assumption that "introspective advantages do not exceed available sensory, physiological, and memory cues."

Related teams/funders: Marc Wittmann, Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, subjective experience and measurement; Francesca Siclari, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, combining subjective reports and neural measurements

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Sensory and instrument error is an existing premise of scientific measurement; "inner senses possessing necessary and special epistemic authority" is the new claim, but it lacks clear operational definition.

Notes: Inner senses cannot be directly equated with studied interoception; if any external counter-evidence is interpreted as instrument distortion, the claim loses testability.

precognition-9｜untested

Claim: The mechanism of precognitive dreams involves transmission of electromagnetic patterns; emotional attraction is a necessary condition for initial transmission and transformation. (dreams-projections §3)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Pilleriin Sikka, Antti Revonsuo, Valdas Noreika, Katja Valli (2019). EEG Frontal Alpha Asymmetry and Dream Affect: Alpha Oscillations over the Right Frontal Cortex during REM Sleep and Presleep Wakefulness Predict Anger in REM Sleep Dreams. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2884-18.2019 —— Found associations between dream emotion and frontal alpha asymmetry; the study concerns neural correlates of emotion, not future information transmission. Paper
Elena Boto et al. (2018). Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature26147 —— Demonstrates measurement capabilities of wearable magnetoencephalography, providing a technical pathway for near-scalp magnetic field research, with no precognition evidence. Paper
Nathan S. Rose et al. (2015). Cognitive and neural plasticity in older adults' prospective memory following training with the Virtual Week computer game. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00592 —— Virtual Week can measure the ability to remember and execute future intentions, suitable as a control for ordinary memory mechanisms. Paper

Adjudication experiment: Corresponds to supplementary questions 1 and 3, in two phases. Phase one: approximately 600 participants each record 30 nights; before sleep, different target categories are randomly assigned low, medium, or high personal relevance without presenting specific targets; dream reports and emotion ratings are sealed before specific targets are randomly drawn within each category. Measure emotion with dream-version self-report emotion scales, SAM valence/arousal, and independent closeness-motivation ratings; preregister dose–response trends and matching rates; blind raters and on-site experimenters do not know target identity; participants cannot be fully blinded to their own felt emotions; use Virtual Week to control prospective memory, over 12 months. Only after effects replicate, approximately 100 participants undergo 6 nights each with DC-coupled EEG and near-scalp OPM-MEG, exploring 0.01–0.5 Hz slow potentials and conventional frequency bands, with preregistered occipito-temporal source activity and cross-validation decoding against external random targets; include empirically attenuation-calibrated magnetic shielding, sham shielding, and environmental reference sensors, over 18–24 months.

Suggested paper title: Emotional Salience and Dream–Target Correspondence: A Pre-registered Dose–Response Study with Electrophysiological Measurements

Core subversion: If electromagnetic signals carrying subsequently randomized target information are detected, this would revise the assumption that "measurable neural electromagnetic activity does not contain independent external information not yet generated."

Related teams/funders: Pilleriin Sikka, dream emotion and EEG research; Francesca Siclari, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, sleep neuroscience; Matthew J. Brookes, University of Nottingham, magnetoencephalography methods; Bial Foundation, psychophysiology and parapsychology funding

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Electromagnetic transmission and emotional necessity add testable constraints, but no frequency band, amplitude, propagation direction, source location, or distance attenuation is specified; the above frequency bands are experimental candidates, not Seth predictions.

Notes: Ordinary neural activity inherently has electromagnetic signatures; finding brain magnetic differences does not suffice to prove information transmission; emotion intensity measurement correlations are not equivalent to randomized dose causal effects; a Faraday cage is not equivalent to low-frequency magnetic shielding; necessity testing must preregister equivalence bounds for low-emotion conditions.

precognition-10｜supported

Claim: Some seemingly precognitive dreams may actually be driven by "post-hypnotic suggestion" effects caused by the dream itself, pushing events to occur. (dreams-projections §3)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Carey K. Morewedge, Michael I. Norton (2009). When dreaming is believing: The (motivated) interpretation of dreams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013264 —— Dreams and their interpretation affect subsequent judgments, including interpersonal attitudes and travel risk judgments, supporting a limited version of behavioral mediation. Paper

Adjudication experiment: Approximately 450 participants record dreams for 4 weeks; after qualifying reports, randomly assigned to dream review, neutral review, or no review, followed by objectively recordable small-consumption or social choices, with random outcomes not under participant control as controls. Raters and outcome recorders are blinded; test the mediation path dream content → expectancy → behavior → controllable outcomes, completed in approximately 9 months. If post-hypnotic suggestion is to be treated as a specific mechanism, separate standard hypnotic induction and matched suggestion controls are needed.

Suggested paper title: Dream Interpretation, Expectancy, and Subsequent Behaviour: A Randomized Longitudinal Study

Core subversion: No mainstream assumptions need to be overturned: dreams influencing subsequent experience through expectancy and behavior is consistent with existing cognitive theory and does not violate ordinary causal regularities for external events.

Related teams/funders: Carey K. Morewedge, Boston University, dream interpretation and judgment research; Michael I. Norton, Harvard University, judgment and behavior research

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Substantially overlaps with self-fulfilling prophecy and expectancy effects; calling it post-hypnotic suggestion does not automatically add mechanistic specificity.

Notes: "Supported" refers only to the limited version that dreams and dream interpretation may change judgments and thereby influence controllable experiences; natural dreams possessing formal post-hypnotic suggestion mechanisms, or being able to cause uncontrollable external events, has not been demonstrated by the listed papers.

precognition-11｜untested

Claim: Reception of precognitive information depends on stimuli to which the ego can selectively respond; the ego determines the nature of physical time. (dreams-projections §3)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Helena Hruby, Stefan Schmidt, Justin S. Feinstein, Marc Wittmann (2024). Induction of altered states of consciousness during Floatation-REST is associated with the dissolution of body boundaries and the distortion of subjective time. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59642-y —— Studies self-boundary and subjective time changes in sensory-reduction states; cannot infer that physical time is determined by the self. Paper
Tobias Bothwell et al. (2022). Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04349-7 —— Precise measurements of physical clock rates conform to gravitational redshift expectations, providing a physical benchmark that distinguishes subjective time from instrument time. Paper

Adjudication experiment: Approximately 300 participants complete selective attention and self-relevance manipulations, measuring time-duration estimation, stimulus detection, and prediction accuracy for subsequently randomized targets separately; electronic timing records are stored independently, using a crossover design with 4 sessions per participant, over 6–9 months. If further claiming to change physical clock rates, the scope of influence and minimum magnitude must first be specified, followed by blinded comparisons of clocks based on different principles with control for temperature, electromagnetic fields, motion, and altitude.

Suggested paper title: Self-relevance and Selective Attention in Subjective Timing and Prediction of Randomized Outcomes

Core subversion: If objective clock rates can be changed by psychological manipulations, this would revise the assumption that "physical intrinsic time depends on spacetime paths and gravitational conditions, not on ego choice."

Related teams/funders: Marc Wittmann, Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, time experience; Chris A. Roe, University of Northampton, psychological factors in anomalous cognition

Specificity of Seth's formulation: Self-selection of stimuli overlaps with attention research; the ego determining physical time is an additional assertion, but no observable, scope of influence, or effect size is provided.

Notes: No direct test of the entire special mechanism set has been conducted; subjective time varying with psychological states is already studied and cannot support physical time changes; Marc Wittmann research materials have been verified.

precognition-12｜untested

Claim: The expanding universe theory applied to time is truer than applied to the material universe. (early-sessions-5 §221)

Evidence (Crossref verified):

Planck Collaboration (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 —— Cosmic microwave background data support cosmological models containing cosmic scale factor evolution; no test of a comparison like "time expansion is truer." Paper

Adjudication experiment: First construct alternative models with explicit metrics, clock readings, and light-propagation relations, deriving observable predictions that differ from standard cosmology; then jointly analyze Planck background radiation likelihoods, BAO statistics compressed from DESI spectra on the order of millions to tens of millions, and supernova distances and light-curve timescale data on the order of thousands, conducting blinded model comparison and held-out validation over 12–24 months. If it is merely a reparameterization of time coordinates with all observables identical, no sample size can distinguish.

Suggested paper title: Testing Alternative Temporal Parameterizations Against Cosmological Distance and Time-dilation Measurements

Core subversion: If an alternative model provides and passes unique predictions, this would revise the specific model assumption that "cosmological redshift and distance evolution are jointly described by spatial scale factor and its dynamics."

Related teams/funders: Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Collaboration, cosmic expansion history measurements; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, DESI-related cosmology research

Specificity of Seth's formulation: "Truer" defines no statistical criterion or unique prediction; cosmic expansion is inherently the evolution of spacetime geometry over time and cannot be simply divided into mutually exclusive material expansion and time expansion options.

Notes: Judged as untested as metaphor or unformalized comparison; if interpreted as denying cosmic spatial scale evolution, it conflicts with multiple classes of cosmological observations; debate over dark energy's nature does not equal lack of evidence for expansion; DESI research direction has been verified.