Approximately forty years ago, I had a precognitive experience. For that reason and several others, I became interested in the field of Para-Psychology. After a while, I began to wonder how such a thing could be. As a life-long puzzle solver, I approached the problem as another puzzle and eventually came to a solution. The purpose of this article is to convey that solution to others.
Let us say that you are leading a discussion in a room full of people and you pose the following question to them. “A person has a precognitive vision of a bridge collapsing. Six months later the bridge collapses exactly as he envisioned it. When did the bridge ‘really’ collapse?” Then you ask for a show of hands and ask, “How many believe it collapsed when he had the vision?” Maybe a few hands will go up. Then you ask, “How many believe it collapsed when the people standing on the bridge felt it give out from under them?” Probably the rest of the people will raise their hands. However, there is a third possibility. “How many believe it didn’t collapse at either one of those times?” This article will endeavor to explain why it is the third possibility that is the correct one.
One of the major axioms of physics is that all events are unique. Therefore, the bridge can only collapse once. So this is a situation where the same event is being observed at two different time and from two different perspectives. This is the same scenario as Einstein’s theory of special relativity. As you may recall, he has one observer on the ground and another observer is on a train. A ball falls from the sky and the observer on the train sees it somewhat later than the observer on the round because he is moving away form the event. Now , to me, the important point is that the event, the ball dropping, takes place between two inertial frames and eventually attaches itself to the inertial frame of the observer on the ground (discounting the possibility that the ball could fall into an open window on the train). So now we have the collapse of the bridge occurring between two different inertial frames before attaching itself to one of them. The question is, what are these two inertial frames?
The only logical possibility is that there are two timelines. One going from what we would call the future to the past, and the one that we live on that goes from the past to the future. These lines are somewhat parallel (explanation forthcoming) in the Lobachevskian sense, not in the Euclidean sense.
At this point I must digress. To fully understand what I have to say, we must conjure up an image of the universe. The best metaphor I can come up with is that of a giant balloon. Imagine that all the planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and whatever else is out there are all embedded in the surface of a giant balloon. This balloon keeps expanding because God keeps blowing air into it. If memory serves, I once read that the Hindus believe that the universe expands for about 25 billion years before it collapses back on itself. When the universe stops expanding, I’m reasonably certain that the effect will be like taking your finger off the valve stem of a balloon. It will probably take the universe 500 million years or less to collapse back in on itself after it stops expanding.
Now when you draw two non-Euclidean parallel lines on a flat sheet of paper it looks like the two end infinities are very far apart. Keeping in mind that the universe is spherical, the two infinities are actually very close to one another. When the universe collapses back on itself before the next “big bang” the two lines converge. At the moment of the big bang, they diverge. After that they become “parallel.” So now imagine the balloon where the timeline we live on is coming around the front of the balloon and the other time line is coming around the back of the balloon. All things being equal, eventually these lines would meet and pass each other. However, the balloon (universe) is constantly expanding, so there is always a gap between the two lines. They never quite catch up to each other.
So now, let us return to the collapsing bridge. The collapse is first witnessed by someone whose consciousness was able to attach itself to the other timeline. Then it was witnessed by people attached to our timeline, but the event itself took place between the two timelines and eventually attached itself to our timeline. An important point is that there is a gap between the timelines. So at the time of the pre-cognitive vision what is going to cause the bridge to collapse has not yet taken place on either timeline. Consequently, effects are fixed and determinate, but causes are indeterminate and probabilistic. We can know what happened with certainty, but we can never know why it happened with any degree of certainty.
For example, there are many possible causes that would lead to the collapse of the bridge. Let us say that to the onsite witnesses it was an overweight truck that caused the bridge to collapse. In fact, the bridge had already collapsed before the truck ran over it. So rather than saying that the truck caused the bridge to collapse, it would be far more correct to say that the overweight truck was what enabled us to perceive the fact that the bridge collapsed.
This also enables us to understand why “psychically” derived information is of so little utility. An astute practitioner may very well be able to “see” you in an auto accident. That being the case, it is pointless to avoid automobiles because the accident has already happened and will eventually manifest itself. However, what is going to cause the accident hasn’t happened yet. Since the chain of events leading to the accident is still undetermined the best one can hope for is amelioration as opposed to avoidance.
In conclusion, we live in a universe where at least in some cases the effect precedes the cause and it appears that since effects are fixed, there may be multiple chains of causality, which will lead to the same end result.