Psychic Testing: Determined, Deterministic, and Unknowable

by Mike Sententia on October 22, 2012

You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.

I’ve been chatting with Ananael about easy ways to test manifesting, and I thought the topic deserved its own post. Who knows, maybe this will inspire some of you to help me gather data. (I intend to do these tests eventually, but I want to set up my psychic intuitions better first.)

All the tests involve coin flips, which are easy to do repeatedly, and open up some options that cards lack.

Current vs Future Information

Question: Does accuracy change if the information you receive is about the current state of the world vs the future state of the world? And, for future states, does it matter if there’s human action involved?

Procedure: Test your intuitions in each of these 3 scenarios:

Current state of the world: Place a coffee mug on a high table, so you can’t see into the mug. Flip a coin into the mug. After the coin lands, use your intuition to determine the result.

Deterministic future state: Flip the coin high, but don’t catch it. (I’d flip it onto a bed, so it doesn’t bounce everywhere.) While it’s in the air, intuit which way it will land. (Once it’s in the air, it’s all deterministic physics — knowable in principle, just not known to us yet.)

Human-involved future state: Before flipping the coin, intuit which way it will land. (The result will be determined by how hard you flip, the angle of the flip, and so on.)

Influencing Decisions vs Physics

You can also try to manifest a certain result (heads or tails). Which raises a question: Does manifesting work better when it can operate by guiding human decisions and actions, or when it’s simply influencing the external physical world?

Procedure: Using scenarios 2 and 3 above, try to influence the outcome of a coin toss either while the coin is in the air, or before flipping it.

Measuring Results

Do these procedures enough times for a statistically significant sample, and see which scenarios have a higher success rate.

What counts as “statistically significant?” Depends on the strength of the effect. If an effect gives you 100% accuracy, then doing a mere 20 flips gives you 1 in a million odds of having that result come up randomly. But the smaller the effect, the more flips you need.

And if you run these tests, please share your results.

If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Ananael Qaa October 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

This is a good set of tests, especially if you can get the sample size high enough. I would also be interested in seeing whether it makes any difference to add another set of trials with a second person flipping the coin. That would test your ability to influence the actions of another individual. Theoretically all these tests should work out to chance, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to parse the results if any significant deviation shows up.

Reply

Mike Sententia October 24, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I like that idea. Thanks!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: