A New Scientific Experiment Involving Prediction and Multiple Universes
(Updated 10 February 2010)
| Predicting the future has been one of the most difficult things to do with remote viewing. People often ask that if someone can remote view, what will happen at some point in the future? Many have tried to use remote viewing to answer that question, and some have occasionally met with success. But to date, only one experimental design has ever worked consistently to correctly predict the future. We now have an idea why that particular experimental design works, and why other experimental designs do not work as well. The reason may have to do with the existence of multiple universes, and we now have a way to test for this directly. |  |
| Completed Experiments | Target Date |
| The Norwegian Spiral Anomaly | December 2009 |
| The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade | November 2009 |
| NASA Bombs the Moon! (And hits an ET base? Hmmm.) |
October 2009 |
| An Oktoberfest at Holloman Airforce Base | September 2009 |
| The Edinburgh Military Tattoo in Scotland | August 2009 |
| The Estonian Laulupidu (or Song Festival) | July 2009 |
| Paragliding Landings Event at the World Air Games in Turin, Italy | June 2009 |
| The Landing of the Space Shuttle Atlantis | May 2009 |
| A Tornado in Mena Arkansas | April 2009 |
| The Launch of the Keppler Mission | March 2009 |
Remote Viewing the Future: A Way That Works — Design A
The experimental design that consistently works well to predict the future involves having the target chosen in the future. That is, a remote viewer is told to conduct a remote-viewing session. The target for that session does not yet exist. The session is conducted, and then stored, often made available for public download as an encrypted file. The person choosing the target is not given access to the remote-viewing session. Eventually, say, a week or more later, the person assigned to pick a target for the remote-viewing session (a "tasker" or "targeteer") does so. The target is revealed, and the session is taken from storage or decrypted, and the session data are compared with the actual target. In this type of situation, where the target is determined in the future, the remote-viewing session tends to correctly predict the chosen target. It is also possible to use a truly random process that occurs in the future to pick the target from a pool of targets. The key is that the target is determined after the remote-viewing session is completed. In the current experiment, we will be adding a new element to this design by placing the target event between the viewing and the tasking times, which is explained further below.
Remote Viewing the Future: A Way That Often Does Not Work — Design B
Let us say that a remote viewer is asked to conduct a remote-viewing session. The session is always done blind, of course, which means that the remote-viewer does not know the target. But let us say that the target is a certain place at a certain point in time in the future. That is, the tasker or targeteer has determined the target now, and this person is subsequently asking the remote-viewer to produce a session that describes that target at that future time.
This type of experimental design has been shown to have a very high rate of failure. That is, the remote-viewing session will likely describe a future that does not turn out to be true. We have long wondered why this type of experimental design does not work well. We now think we may know why this happens. It is possible that when we remote view the future using this type of experimental design, we open ourselves up to remote-viewing the future as it exists in alternate realities, and which reality is perceived by the remote viewer is probabilistically determined and influenced by subtle mental biases and cues. To test this, we need to set up an experiment that eliminates this possibility, and then see if such a new experimental design works. That is, we need to set up an experimental design that would allow for one and only one future to be selected from a multitude of alternative futures.
Remote Viewing the Future in the Context of Multiple Universes
For many years the physics community has contemplated the existence of alternate realities, or universes other than our own. The idea of multiple universes commonly occurs in discussions of quantum mechanics, and was originally proposed by Hugh Everett in 1956 (the so-called "many worlds" theory) as a possible explanation for experimental results involving the "two-slit experiment." But until now, no one devised an experimental approach to test for the existence of these multiple universes.
Beginning in January of 2009, a group of remote viewers utilizing three separate methodologies (CRV, HRVG, and SRV) have begun an experiment designed by Dr. Courtney Brown that will directly test for the existence of multiple universes while using remote viewing to predict future events. This will be an exciting opportunity to see remote viewing in action within the context of an important scientific study that may have profound implications to our understanding of physical reality. As with many of our studies, this will involve public participation. We encourage people to watch the study unfold as the weeks and months proceed. There is no need to "believe" anything. Just look at the results, and learn.
The Experiment's Design — Predicting a Future Event
If there are multiple universes, then it should be possible to select one and only one universe out from all of the alternate universes if we can ensure that a particular timestream that defines the universe that we want actually exists. (A "timestream" is a sequence of events that occurs in a given universe.) To do this, we need to target events, and we need to guarantee that the events actually happen in the selected universe. Thus, we need the cooperation of a person in the future who either directly or indirectly witnesses the actual event and then defines the target that the remote viewers are supposed to perceive based on this information.
In the design of this study, remote-viewing sessions are being conducted in one month (call this "month #1"), and the target that the remote-viewing sessions are to describe occur during the next month (call this "month #2"). At the end of month #2, the tasker selects a target from whatever events may have happened during month #2. For example, let us say that the remote viewers do their sessions during the month of February. Then the tasker waits until the end of March to pick a target, and the target event must be one that occurs in March.
By using this experimental design, we are ensuring that the target event actually occurs in a given timestream. Thus, we are "bookending" the time between when the remote-viewing sessions are done and when the target is selected, and we are guaranteeing that the target event actually occurs between those two times (otherwise the tasker would not have known about the event). By this method, we are selecting one and only one timestream or universe from all alternate timestreams or universes, and this selected timestream is the one that contains the given event that constitutes the target.
The Hypothesis: If there are multiple universes, then the accuracy of predictions based on remote-viewing data associated with an experimental design that organizes the sequence of events from first to last as (1) viewing time, (2) target event, (3) tasking time will be significantly greater than the accuracy of predictions made when the sequence of events from first to last as (1) tasking time, (2) viewing time, (3) target event. Then the existence of multiple universes is the cause of the relative failure of the latter design since that design does not guarantee the selection of one and only one timestream.
Public Participation:
The public is encouraged to participate in this study by downloading the remote-viewing sessions when they become available and then waiting until the targets are assigned to those sessions. The public can then examine the accuracy of the remote-viewing data in describing the assigned targets. The remote-viewing results are made available for public download as soon as they are collected on an on-going basis. These results are all encrypted (using Winzip) so that no one can see them until a password is applied to decrypt the sessions. The passwords to decrypt the sessions will be made available after the targets are assigned.
Encryption Note:
Many of the files used in this study are encrypted. This is done to ensure the validity of the scientific experiment. The passwords to decrypt the encrypted files will be posted on this web site after targets are selected for the sessions. The encryption software used is Winzip, and the files are encrypted using strong 256 bit AES encryption. Because of this strong encryption process, these files cannot be decrypted using most other Zip file or compression utilities that use weaker encryption methods. Participants should use Winzip to decrypt these files. Since Winzip is a Windows based program, Mac OS users with Intel chip machines will need to run Windows (via Bootcamp or Parallels) to decrypt these files. (Some Mac users will simply want to visit a friend who has a Windows machine to decrypt the files.)
What We Are Doing Now (as of 10 February 2010):
The final results for the sessions done in November 2009 describing an event in December 2009 are now posted. The sessions done in December 2009 and January 2010 describing an event in February 2010 are now available for download.
Important Links:
 |
Here is where you get the remote-viewing sessions. Summaries of the results of the experiments can also be found here. |
 |
Here is where you can obtain the passwords to decrypt the encrypted files. Passwords are posted here after the targets are seleted. |
 |
This link describes the experimental design in greater detail. Please be sure to read this. |
 |
This is a summary of the criteria for acceptable targets chosen for this project. |
 |
These people are working on this project. |
 |
This link contains resources that are useful to the remote viewers participating in this study. |
