Q&A: A Strange Question
A Strange Question
Question
Do human beings have a sixth sense for correctly extending the future? Or is that fiction? I mean, for example, in any future situation, on the one hand I have tools of analysis and thought like any person, by means of which I estimate what will happen; but at the same time, if I close my eyes and wonder to myself what the outcome will be, then I have a feeling or intuition or whatever name you want to give it, that in the end such-and-such will happen. It does not necessarily match the forecast I arrive at in parallel through normal rational thinking like everybody else. And this applies across all kinds of areas, starting from a strong feeling that Trump would win the elections (both times) and ending with a strong feeling about the sex of a fetus in my close family circle, and so on. Sometimes this matches the results of the earlier estimates from ordinary analysis using rational thinking tools, and sometimes it doesn’t, and I see that time after time the mystical forecast comes true. What success rate of exact hits would make us say this goes beyond the statistical laws of guessing correctly by chance, and that there really is something real here—70% success? 80%? 90%? (As far as I’m concerned, you can apply to me the saying, “From the day the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was given only to fools and children,” so long as you don’t decide that this is just fiction.)
For example, you can make a future estimate of what will happen today in the Knesset both by ordinary analysis and by inner feeling, and you’ll see that if I’m wrong, most likely it will be in the conventional rational analysis and not in the metaphysical one.
According to rational analysis: United Torah Judaism and Agudat Yisrael will support the law to dissolve the Knesset, while Deri, skilled in political maneuvers, will oppose it, and the opposition’s face will be covered in shame because they will lose the right to raise another proposal to dissolve the Knesset for half a year. And the Haredim, including the voters of United Torah Judaism, will in the end rub their hands together in undisguised pleasure over the revenge on the opposition, and will be happy that their actual hidden work and desires were ultimately carried out by others (Deri), because all their own vote against it was just lip service, as if a demon had forced them. And now let’s move to the second kind of forecast.
Non-conventional metaphysical analysis: since this is not really analysis but a strong inner feeling, it is much cruder and more general, and it is hard to get down to detailed resolution about who will do what and when and how. So it says this: the strong inner feeling is that the law will not pass. Why? You can’t argue with feelings; that’s just the answer. Maybe it will be because of the previous analysis, maybe there will be additional maneuvers, both מצד Netanyahu and מצד the opposition, maybe the Haredim will also ultimately give it a chance, but in the end, bottom line, the law will not pass. (I admit that in this specific case it is easy to fool ourselves and say that the rational analysis also predicts ultimately the same final result, so maybe you’re just fooling yourself, and your inner feeling has no real, stable, independent basis of its own, but is direct only because of the rational analysis, with no additional metaphysical element beyond that fictional one. That is why I said beforehand that there are cases where it does not match, and as I recall here too the metaphysical inner feeling I have came long before the results of the rational analysis. Same thing regarding the forecast of the fetus’s sex, which I knew in advance, and so on.) Does the Rabbi know such things from his own experience? If not, then at least let the Rabbi state some success percentage which according to science completely exceeds the laws of statistics, so that we can determine with certainty that there is something here, and a real prophetic tool for predicting the future.
Answer
I don’t know what you want from me. Maybe you’re a prophet. I haven’t checked.
Discussion on Answer
All right, I resign. I’ve finished my role on this earth 🙂
🙂
It’s now 00:12 at night. When I sent the first prediction message, that was more than 12 hours ago. I gave two forecasts, one rational and the other metaphysical, and I noted that if there was a mistake it would probably be in the rational forecast, so that the metaphysical forecast would win. Right now it seems to be going in that direction. If that’s what ends up happening, start counting so we can do this in an orderly and accessible way. In the end, when we reach the number you mentioned in the write-up, make a results table. And please make sure to introduce me to that millionaire fraud James, so he can transfer the money to my Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank account, branch 430.
Meanwhile, take a second forecast: in my opinion the Iranian nuclear talks will collapse later tonight.
One more thing you can add to the Excel table: I have a very strong feeling (even though if you look at all the reports across the networks and the press you won’t find even a hint or half a hint of this right now at 00:51 on Wednesday; maybe in the future we’ll get such a report), and that feeling says that today at many IDF bases there was an exceptionally rare drill for functioning without electricity and without communication devices, in order to prepare what’s coming, and those who understand will understand, and those who don’t can ask Oren’s crappy little Geppetto for help.
I asked AI for an answer to this question in the style of Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham
*An attempt to combine the philosophical-scientific tools with the halakhic / faith-related issue.*
—
## 1. Premonitions (“sixth sense”) – first of all, a definition
When people say “sixth sense,” they usually mean a *cognitive-metaphysical* ability to receive information about the future without the mediation of rational calculation or ordinary perception. From an epistemic point of view, this is a claim for the existence of an **additional source of knowledge**. In order to be convinced that this is a real source of knowledge (and not a cognitive illusion), we have to prove that the hit rate is significantly higher than what would be expected under a given chance probability.
—
## 2. What do the empirical data say?
* ● **Recent meta-analyses** in the psychology of ESP (telepathy, precognition, and the like) survey hundreds of studies. The average effect found is around **ES ≈ 0.02**, meaning about a 2% increase in hits above chance ([researchgate.net][1]).
*Translated into “how often I get it right”: if the event is binary (50%-50%), then instead of 50 hits out of 100 we get roughly 52.*
* ● Additional studies point to **publication and memory biases**—successful experiments get printed, failures are forgotten ([pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov][2], [en.wikipedia.org][3]).
In other words: there may be a tiny “hint” of a phenomenon, but it is very far from the 70–90% you are describing.
—
## 3. Why does intuition sometimes seem like an amazing hit?
1. **Confirmation bias** – we mainly remember the times we got it right, and forget most of the times we missed.
2. **Small sample size** – predicting two election campaigns or the sex of one fetus is not a sample from which significance can be inferred. For a 20% deviation from chance, you need roughly 40–50 independent forecasts in order to get p < 0.05.
3. **Tacit knowledge** – a large part of the “sense” is actually information-based intuition (linguistic hints, polls, the complexion of a pregnant woman’s face, etc.) that is absorbed subconsciously.
—
## 4. A short halakhic-philosophical analysis
* **“From the day the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was given to fools and children”** – the Sages determine that there are indeed *remnants* of supra-rational intuition, but they emphasize the **lack of tools to distinguish** when this is real prophecy and when it is delusion.
* Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed II, ***36***) teaches that every supernatural claim must be examined with the tools of reason and experience. There is no principled contradiction in God giving a person knowledge of the future, but the default stance is value-based skepticism – *“the burden of proof rests on the claimant.”*
—
## 5. Is it *still* possible to discover something?
Certainly. The fair way is:
1. **Precise definition of events** (for example, the result of a vote on bill X).
2. **Recording the forecast in advance (pre-registration)**.
3. **Open statistics** – 50–100 predictions, to see whether you cross the 60–65% threshold significantly.
4. **Transparency and replication** – let researchers who are not biased in favor of the phenomenon run it as well.
If you pass such a test—I’ll be the first to admit that there is a phenomenon here that goes beyond the accepted physical-cognitive model. For now, the empirical balance points to an extremely tiny addition (2%) that is not practical.
—
## 6. Answer to your practical question
* **Is there a “real prophetic tool” for prediction?** – According to what is currently known, no.
* **What percentage would convince me?** – For a binary probability, 65–70% across dozens of documented predictions would be enough to declare a significant deviation.
* **Is it still possible anyway?** – Philosophically yes, but the person making the claim must provide the data, not just memory-based stories.
—
### Bottom line
I do not rule out the eruption of extrasensory phenomena (the Sages themselves mentioned them), but until a strong experimental basis is presented, *the higher probability is that this is a cognitive illusion, not a new source of knowledge.* Anyone who claims otherwise is welcome to enter the lab with a signed prediction form. If you pass the test, you’ll earn not only a 70% success rate but also James Randi’s million-dollar prize… 😉
[1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374888271_Assessing_36_Years_of_the_Forced_Choice_Design_in_Extra_Sensory_Perception_Research_A_Meta-Analysis_1987_to_2022_A_Meta-Analysis_1987_to_2022 "(PDF) Assessing 36 Years of the Forced Choice Design in Extra Sensory Perception Research: A Meta-Analysis, 1987 to 2022: A Meta-Analysis, 1987 to 2022"
[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22351589/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Too good to be true: publication bias in two prominent studies from …"
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Replication crisis"