Salubrius

I wasn't aware that it was pronounced any other way than fun-guy until today. This was the first time I had ever heard it being pronounced as fun-ghee, and it was on the BBC no less, so naturally it peaked my curiosity. To my mind fungi is originally a plural tense of fungus deriving from Latin, and thus pronounced the same as cacti and octopi. I have never heard these plurals pronounced cactee or octopee (unfortunately for the English language it is more common to hear cactuses and octopuses these days, or just using the singular as the plural). The biological understanding and correct classification of fungi is a relatively recent development, and if the pronunciation has altered due to this, surely it would only apply when referring to the kingdom fungi? In which case I would surmise that pronunciation depends on context, fun-guy meaning plural and fun-ghee meaning the kingdom.

The reasoning behind my posting under the philosophy category rather than as a physics theory was to gain philosophical viewpoints on the theory of a person activity making a decision in the future which may seem negative to their current situation. My two small examples were meant to explain how I have came to such a theory, and thus the philosophical question. From my personal studies I have found that it is indeed impossible to thoroughly prove such things to the level necessary for scientific validation. The reason for this may be that the burden of proof has a similar effect on results as the aforementioned personal gain effect. Therefore, rather than producing a catalogue of a lifetime of such experiences, which would be necessary if I were promoting my theory as a fully formed theoretical post. I am much more interested in the plausibility of the psychological reasoning behind the individual choosing at a future point in time, not to use the ability for certain things. Personal gain and/or scientific testing of the ability, etc. And yes, as I said, the reason I came to this theory was because I could not accept an external influence, due to the reason "how would the universe know". Hence the philosophical question regarding personal future decisions, which may influence the present.

I have personally experienced precognition many times, which being scientifically minded has always led me to try to find scientific explanations. None of my paths of investigation, multiple dimensionality, quantum physics etc. have ever fully satisfied me due to one thing. I find it impossible to use for personal gain. I don't mean the "using it for personal gain will lead to disastrous consequences" rhetoric. I mean literally not possible. The merest thought of a personal gain in my subconscious or similar, means I am wrong. To give two examples to explain. I knew Prince William would have a boy and name him George. I never doubted it, but I did not place a bet on it. Once the baby boy was born and named George I was annoyed at myself for not placing a bet. Therefore when Kate was pregnant for the second time, I thought I knew as before and placed a bet, I was completely wrong on both sex and name. The second example is a horse racing one. In a big race (I'm in the UK by the way) I briefly looked at the large list of horses and picked three, first, second and third. I was correct except my timing was off. The horses were exactly as I predicted at precisely the half way point, and I mean literally in first, second and third at the precise half way point if the race. None of them placed at the end. I hope only these two examples explain sufficiently. The point of that is, I was confused as to how a personal gain was differentiated from precognitions that save your life (many examples of which are well documented). I was constantly ending up in a philosophical loop due to thinking in terms of an external source influencing my thoughts, which is fundamentally against my personal beliefs. Then today I had a breakthrough. I was looking at an article about a scientific test regarding precognitions, and the theory of the future influencing decisions made now. I made a link between Einstein and the philosophy of Eternalism, and precognitions. Now to get to the philosophical point... If all times exist and our future influences decisions in the same way as our past does, this means it's feasible that I make a future decision that I don't want to have used it for personal gain! When given more thought, it made even more sense. Consider a bad experience in the past, going through that has made you the person you are now, stronger, wiser, anything like that. So philosophically, if you could change your past, would you? Maybe being rich would mean I'd miss out on a lot of experiences that are yet to come. Maybe if I was rich I'd be miserable, miss out on a lot of social experiences, real friends, etc I am interested in hearing some philosophical viewpoints about the choice of changing your personal past in particular.