owl

"Thanks" for nothing, huh. I just found this thread. The cyclic, "Bang/Crunch" model is my fave 'cuz it doesn't require the magic of "something from nothing" or the nagging question, "What was there before the bang and where did it come from?" I haven't read Penrose on it and don't know what a "countably infinite set" means as in, "That is, would each cycle (e.g. big bang to big crunch) be classed as an element of a countably infinite set or an uncountably infinite one?" (I thought infinite meant uncountable, as in without beginning or end.) As for your second paragraph, specifically, "...Or would it mean that each cycle could have identical "looking" cycles later on."... I don't see how any two cycles could possibly be identical.* The "deck" gets "re-shuffled" every time the expansive half-cycle turns around and comes back together again in the implosive half-cycle... (which, of course will require a lot more mass to be found for that critical reversal... and the mystery of the accelerating expansion to be solved.) *Same natural principle as "no two snowflakes identical" only the whole cosmos has infinitely (?) more diversity than a snowflake... and it would be re-formed in each cycle. Thanks for the interesting subject.

Title: "Change and time... can change happen without time?" No. Change is movement on whatever scale, whatever the event or events. Movement takes time. Whether movement happens faster or slower is another question, depending on a wide variety of factors. Agreed, however obvious. The year 2002 was about the same duration as the year 2012 will be, and the former happened ten years ago. But the OP is not about the ordering of time... rather "can change happen without time." (No.)

My point is that "time" has erroneously become an entity of some kind, a "thing" which can slow down, etc. (Some even believe it is a "timescape" through which one can travel... into the future or into the past. So I attempt to clarify that it is only the concept of "duration" of any event, like between clock "ticks" (variable, for sure) or naturally occurring movement of any kind like the year or the day or the age of the known cosmos since the "Bang." How does that seem like a silly tautology to you? Yes, "... change in duration is some kind of change." A faster moving clock "ticks" more slowly. That is a change in the duration or elapsed time between ticks. How does that require some kind of meta-time? You say, "If change can only happen in time, then change in time must happen in a sort of "other time"(or maybe the same time)." This makes no sense to me. The universe would be a still snapshot, "frozen in time" with nothing "happening" without 'how long it takes for anything to happen'... which is the concept of time. A change in the time it takes anything to happen can be due to a wide variety of influences. It takes me a lot longer to take a pee than when I was a younger man. That is a change in the duration, or elapsed time, for that event to happen. No "meta-time" required. Same for clocks slowing down in rate of "time keeping" at higher speeds or in a deeper gravity well. I know of no one who understands the actual dynamics of that fact, but it happens. "How does higher velocity make clocks slow down?"*... is not a question for science, they tell me here. But I am very curious and still want to know! *Edit: It's not like clocks detect and measure something called "time" which slows down. It is simply that clocks slow down. "Why" is not a question for science? Why not?

Regarding my statement on 6/4 about the definition of time: "Everything moves and it all "takes time" whether it is measured or not." This is a broader, all inclusive concept of time than the standard physics definition, "Time is that which clocks measure," even if any given movement is a "clock" in the broadest sense. In "a galaxy far, far away" things still move around and that takes time whether clocked and assigned "units of time" or not.

You asked: "When time itself changes, does time change in time?" But you didn't answer my question: "What do you think "time itself" is besides event duration?" My implication was that "time changing in time" makes no sense if time is just event duration, like between "ticks" of a clock or "a day" or "a year." If time is just the concept of that which elapses as things move, that can be longer or shorter duration depending on the physical process involved (and velocity/gravity situation for a clock.) But that is just change in duration. What would a meta-duration mean?

What do you think "time itself" is besides event duration? When a clock gains velocity and there is more duration (elapsed time) between "ticks" we can say that the time between ticks has changed. What else changes? Some sort of meta-time?

(My italics) Sure, why not? "Tick"... "tick"... Time is that which elapses ... between "ticks." Make the clock travel faster or go deeper into a "gravity well" and there will be more time between the ticks. It takes time... we call it "a year" for earth to orbit the sun, whether or not there were any humans measuring it. Likewise, even if there were no clocks measuring it (or no intelligent life in the universe for that matter,) the elapsed time since the Big Bang would still be nearly 14 billion of the above naturally occurring units of time. Everything moves and it all "takes time" whether it is measured or not.

It seems to me that the meaning of time is that which is required for change to happen. The universe would be a "frozen in time" snapshot without time, which is required for any and all movement. ("Elapsed time" for all movement is a concept, not an entity.) It "takes time" to create the equation and to "make it evolve."

Anilkumar, I finally got around to reading this entire thread (in two installments over two sessions.) I hope you are not discouraged by the mainstream establishment here. I agree with you. My threads will verify that. I had one specifically on the scholarly debate on the nature of spacetime and the "'what curves" ontological question. It is in the philosophy section, I think, but like most of my threads, it was shut down. I leave it to you to understand why. No "hijack" here, just some late support, having just finished the thread. How can empty space or 'spacetime' (but for forces and material content) be "curved by matter?" Sorry, not a question for science... just mere ontology... and philosophy of science is not welcome here. I agree that space is the emptiness in which all things and forces exist (not, of course, "empty" where occupied), and that space as the absence of things, the void between and within "things' can not be acted upon and made to curve. I hope you don't give up. I'm not allowed to speak about "spacetime" here anymore, so hope you carry on until you are censored. Edit; here is a link to my attempt at a "scholarly" thread on scientific debate about "spacetime": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56135-spacetime-ontology-the-scholarly-debate/ It is found on pg 4 of the archives in the philosophy section... deleted from "owls content" to which you were referred early in the thread.

I am sorry but I can not play that game with you. My father died in '87, and our 'psi' connection was probably both genetic and meta-genetic, on a level beyond material science (which I will not argue here.) It is not a case of everyone having the same "gifts", (not meant as from a deity.) I don't think I still have the "gift" anyway. It has been a long time since my last telepathic/empathic experience. It is more of a "global consciousness" inner experience/meditation for me now... which has no place in this forum... and would certainly be "off topic."

I honestly don’t understand why recent posts are considered off topic. My opening post began with the question: “What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? “... and focused up front on two sources pertaining to that topic: The Intention Experiment and the Journal of Consciousness Studies. The recent debate has been about whether or not “anecdotes” or first person accounts constitute “scientific evidence” as per the first topic question. One JCS issue cited went into depth about that issue. Cap ‘n R early on raised the issue of errors in methods of statistical analysis. He also commented to the effect that extraordinary claims about paranormal consciousness phenomena require extraordinary evidence. My last “PS” was offered as an example fulfilling that requirement, and the “what are the odds” questions address the extraordinary statistics of probability evident in that experiment, though no numbers could possibly be assigned as "the odds." Yet I’m hit with the gag rule yet again. Seems that even in the “speculations” section any contributions not in line with “mainstream” thinking are subject to censorship. Ps: I do realize that the subtitle “...the missing ‘unified theory’ factor?” was way too ambitious, as I admitted recently. And, as I said, I will go with David Bohm’s speculation on consciousness as a transcendental “implicit order” in that regard, but of course that remains only speculation.

A footnote... a call for respect between the apposing camps of parapsychologists and skeptics by JCS editor, J.E. Alcock, in the introductory article of the "Psi Wars" issue... (He is firmly in the skeptics camp): So do I, even though I have no doubt at all that "psi" exists, as I and my family have directly experienced it, as related in three instances in this thread (two "anecdotal" and one experimental.) We "strived to apply" the scientific method in the related telepathy experiment. Our lack of professional credentials (or lack of being monitored by a certified team of scientists) does not disqualify the method from being scientific or the result from verifying positive telepathy results, IOW rejecting the null hypothesis (that telepathy does not exist.) PS: How would science determine "the odds" of getting a "hit" on a selected magazine image that I "sent" which my father had never seen? (Granting, hypothetically, that we were not liars or cheating frauds, which we were not.) How about the compounded odds of 10 hits out of 10 trials? How about the further compounded odds of several repetitions of the experiment getting a very high percentage of hits (85% or so, we figured, depending on how "close" qualifies as a hit)?

It's a good read for those actually interested in the subject, not just parroting "anecdotes are inadmissible as scientific evidence."

(my bold) You: If a team of scientists had visited and watched to verify the controls, then there would be no "flaws" because of sanction by authority? "... it would have been easy for her to cheat" is a very lame criticism. We were all honest amateur scientists with integrity of intent, testing for telepathy. It is not all about credentials. She did not cheat. Regarding I don't care what you said either. As I said early in the example of field study of the life of pissants, that is the subject and the scientist focuses on and records relevant information only. When studying paranormal phenomena, what qualifies as that, as I've said many times, is a demonstrated correlation (co-relation) between two events (at a distance in the case of empathic telepathy)... not a recording of 'all bad feelings' etc. for whatever designated period of time as you insisted. I hope my above reiteration cleared up your confusion on this point. My information turned out to be accurate about his very specific symptoms. That is what communication is. The fact there there was no known means made it paranormal communication. Got it yet? Neither you nor swansont is the supreme judge of what the 'scientific court' here determines to be admissable as evidence. Some "evidence" turns out to be verified, some not. That is what the 'court of science' decides. See above 'argument against' yet again. Credentials again? ("Whose sideshow is this, anyway?" Mostly yours at this point.) I taught the subject and I have been interested in paranormal studies all my adult life. Would have gotten my psychology degrees in "transpersonal psychology" if there were such a field when I was in school. But I have studied it post grad... not for credit... in depth. His "opinion" trumps mine? Didn't we cover this in depth in my thread about how much personal opinion matters... or not... in science? ...More blah, blah, blah about whose opinion and credentials "trumps" whose. Enough comment on that.

A later contemplation; My advice to the physicists here invoking the rules of the scientific method: Paranormal events involving consciousness “acting at a distance” are not often available for examination by scientists insisting on the usual methods. So “stories” must be investigated with rigor but not rejected just because they are stories. Some stories are true and some are not. Science sorts it out. Demands to perform, by "scientists" with their "rigorous" agendas, often kill the consciousness- environment that supports spontaneous paranormal events. Then the null hypothesis is inevitably confirmed. "No positive results"... a false negative when a potential (even promising) event is just stuffed (edit: snuffed) out by scientific protocol.

(Me... again...: "There was, of course, much criticism of our experimental method, but I invite review.") You distort the experiment to suit your skepticism. I addressed this already when you brought it up originally. He did not "have the pages he needed to know." My mother was the "go between" and controller of the experiment, including keeping the magazine pages for each run hidden from him. Your accusation that she could have cheated denies the integrity and honesty of my family and the controls and legitimacy of the experiment. Now to your previous post: Swansont, post 7; his bold: Me: Me: You: If we had cell phones (not yet invented) and he had called and told me about his condition, there would be no question about it, that he communicated his condition to me. But lack of known means "begs the question" that he communicated with me? I got the information and it turned out to be true and specific information about his condition. Also, from Swansont (again): "The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence." Neither your opinion nor his equates to "how things are." If all details of an anecdote are verified, as above, it is "evidence" for paranormal communication. "Evidence" of course does not equal "proof." Maybe that is the semantic point of disagreement. I was criticized as "culpable" as one who misunderstands the scientific method. My background having taught it at college level is obviously relevant to that criticism. "The scientific method" is not a universal law carved in stone... especially as pertains to scientific investigation of possible paranormal events. And evidence is not proof. There is a huge body of claims of paranormal events. The job of science is to investigate all the "evidence" in detail and sort it out (discarding what can not be verified), not just dismiss all of it on the arbitrary grounds that "anecdotes are not evidence." (IIRC ?)

Yet again: "So I left behind the speculation that consciousness could be the missing link in a TOE." Must I keep repeating to communicate? If consciousness is a transcendental, transpersonal, even omnipresent creative agent/force, it could explain a lot to fill in the gaps between the known forces. Yes, my aunt's intention to call (every one or two weeks) did 'coincide' with my dad's "picking up on" that intention. "What are the odds" that there was no causal connection? Again, there is no way to figure those odds, but you must be in total denial of the possibility of telepathy to believe there was no communication at a distance involved. Never certified! The general symptoms of "crazy" are some kind of delusion, a clear disconnect with "consensus reality." Trouble is, there is no consensus on paranormal phenomena, so many believe any such experience is automatically "crazy." My whole family would need to be in a "crazy" conspiracy (or all 'big fat liars') for that hypothesis to work. - Over and over: All normal experience is "non-supportive data." The usual daily normal experiences do not count against the validity of the rare paranormal experience. But a correlation between events, without explanation, is what designates a paranormal event. Is that so difficult to understand? This is not the physics of observable, physical "billiard ball" cause and effect. Of course my dad and I, my aunt and my dad, and my son and I were "in tune" with each other. Like, on the same consciousness "channel" in radio wave propagation lingo. There was no prearranged time for the calls. Sometimes it was a week or so, sometimes over two weeks between calls. No "trigger." We don't know "why" we have (had) this ability. But it seems to have been passed on for at least three generations, from my grandfather (no examples given) to my dad to me to one of my sons. I'll go with David Bohm's work in the field, but that remains "speculation" until some kind of explanation/mechanism emerges. Science as we know it has only disdain for all 'things' which might transcend the known physical world. I "know" things (as given in all examples in this thread) without knowing how I know. The stomach pain and image of my son just "happened" in that case. My dad was adept at creating a "blank screen" in his "mind's eye" when in "trance." My projected images as "sender" then appeared on his "blank screen." I will be keeping my 'finger on the pulse' of studies of consciousness, including paranormal phenomena.

My first question in the OP was: “What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon?" (Later I explained to a critic that the above is not a false dichotomy and cited Wiki on the difference.) If consciousness is an “active agent” the thread title asks if (implies that) it could possibly be the “force” that unifies the four known forces into a unified field theory... a “theory of everything. (TOE)” That was an ambitious purpose for a thread, and I acknowledged up front that “hard core” physicists will protest mightily, and of course they have. So I left behind the speculation that consciousness could be the missing link in a TOE. Even such a well respected quantum physicists as David Bohm was dismissed as having gone off the deep end with his speculation on consciousness as an omnipresent (or at least transpersonal) “implicate order” of “hidden variables,” a transcendental medium connecting individual “minds” at a distance under certain circumstances where a wave of probability ‘collapses’ into a manifest phenomenon. The thread proceeded to look at experimental evidence for consciousness as a force acting at a distance, and there were criticisms of such experiments, including methods of statistical analysis. I offered one such “home grown (my home), Mom and Pop” telepathy experiment with exceptional results including a run of 10 out of 10 “hits” on images from magazines, not your average (classic experiment) “chance” of a hit out of five or so geometric figures ( with20% chance of a hit for any trial.) There was, of course, much criticism of our experimental method, but I invite review. I also offered as “evidence” the “coincidence” of symptoms (and mental image) between my son and myself, but it seems that all such “stories” can be easily dismissed as mere “anecdotes,” even with such clarity of coordination between very specific events as I described in detail. Swansont said in post #7 and often in other words more recently: I have argued that “systematically record(ing) all thoughts of these and other people” is quite an unreasonable (even ridiculous) requirement for an account to qualify as evidence. I explained that, to qualify as a potential paranormal phenomenon, an object of study in that field, two events must demonstrate a correlation as I specified. It seems quite dogmatic to me to say that no “anecdotes” qualify as “evidence.” (“Case closed.”) I said, early on: The focus of scientific investigation in such cases must be “How can such claims be verified?”, not an outright dismissal of all such claims. When a mother “feels and sees” that her child has died in an accident before any normal notification, this is a paranormal event... or she is a liar. One stance is that all such accounts are from liars. This is pseudo-science by flat out denial. I related how my dad often anticipated phone calls from his sister, announced such to the family, and then she would call within a minute or so. This forum dismissed this evidence for telepathy by simple incredulity. Not good science. An incident worth repeating: He announced such an immanent call, but it didn’t come for 10 minutes or more. He asked, “What took you so long?” She laughed, said, “You are good!,” and explained that she had almost picked up the phone but decided to go to the bathroom first and then showered before calling. Dismissing it as incredible does not make it go away. It happened as I said and both my family and hers verify that it did. This forum can dismiss that as “not evidence” but that just perpetuates a false negative... that telepathy does not exist because science can not explain how it works. This is “science” at its closed minded worst. We can’t explain how gravity works either but no one (that I know of) doubts that it does... bodies at a distance mutually attracting each other. I’ll leave it here for now, inviting any and all comments about any of the above. Maybe we can discover where past attempts to communicate have failed and make progress. (More likely not, given the history of the thread... but it's worth a 'last ditch' effort.) Please keep in mind that consciousness studies are not necessarily in the realm of the physics of "the material world." Maybe, as I said in my last post, the parameters of "the scientific method" need to expand to accommodate the paranormal nature of the subject matter.

Good question/prompt. It will take a cooperative effort. As I mentioned once before in this forum, as a grad student I once taught an undergraduate class, "Logic and the Scientific Method" ("special studies" by invitation of my academic adviser), and I advocated then as now a broader focus for science as to what constitutes "evidence," as above. Maybe it's not just a misunderstanding but a broader definition of the "scientific method." (Something to consider.) A quick review of where that position has taken this thread recently: Me: Swansont; The question for scientific record keeping is, what qualifies as a “potential paranormal event?” Certainly not every thought and feeling one has ever had or is having.* An event becomes “potentially paranormal” if there turns out to be a correlation between one event and another as in my example, i.e. communication, at a distance via no known means. Then the investigation must analyze the details for specificity. I provided very specific details before asking, “What are the odds?”, i.e., the odds of all details being accidental coincidence. What would Swansont’s required log have contained besides the details of my journal, essentially the same as shared in this thread? (See * above.) So it seems that Swansont's follow up ignores all of the above, including my answer as follows: S: "No, I'm asking what prevented this from being an accidental coincidence, since you have insisted that it could not be one." Me: As I said later: “His condition was somehow communicated to me. All the details verify that.” “Somehow” means we don’t know how, and that qualifies as paranormal." I disagree that all anecdotes must be discarded as “not evidence.” As I said: “"Science must discard all anecdotes" is not a universally accepted principle of science. Science must examine each claim/case/ life-history in thorough detail and have enough evidence to call a case "confirmed." Regarding the “sideshow” reference; Swansont: Ringer said: Apparently I am the the one creating the sideshow. It would have nothing to do with all of Swansont’s claims to superiority, being a scientist and all while I am not. (See my correct definition of scientist, "pro" not essential to the definition)* *Re: his one-ups-man-ship that one of us is a scientist and one is not and my retort about "one of us" probably having a superior IQ. See also his more recent comments about my ignorance (in his opinion.) Whose sideshow is it anyway? Regarding Swansont’s demand for “proof” of a causal connection, I replied: * I also acknowledged: “Still, of course there can be no absolute proof, totally "excluding the possibility" as per my first reiteration above. A chance in a "zillion" is still a chance, however improbable.” (edit) So... all of the above debate is about whether or not consciousness can communicate at a distance without any known means/mechanism. The above argues, "Yes it can, and here is an example of it."

Holy crap! "What to say?" "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." (Sam Clemens, I think.) You have again demonstrated your lack of attention to detail and/or lack of reading comprehension. I said: "So, after this post, I agree to leave the personal attack "sideshow" behind and focus on science here." Replying to my: "There is no “proof," no way to “exclude the possibility” that the events were not causally connected." Not actually closed unless you do ignore (which you did) the rest of what I said: Still, of course there can be no absolute proof, totally "excluding the possibility" as per my first reiteration above. A chance in a "zillion" is still a chance, however improbability. "Real science" must approach the situational evidence without automatic dismissal based on the belief that telepathy is impossible. I think that is the essence of your dismissal of the evidence: Also, as I said: End of story.

More personal judgment, probably unconscious on your part. "Willful ignorance?" You continue to mistake disagreement with you for ignorance. (As if you were, defacto, always right. That would logically, in your mind , make me wrong.) Again, you assume that you are right, so if you say (I am "told") that I am mistaken, and I don't accept your omniscience on the matter... I must be wrong. Quite arrogant of you, really. You seem to be asking for “proof” that his ulcer caused my empathic perception/response to the very same symptom... very specifically identical, out of all the various experiences I have ever had. There is no “proof," no way to “exclude the possibility” that the events were not causally connected. But you must ignore a very specific simultaneous identity of symptoms, at a distance, to argue that there was no connection between us at all. This is the epitome of being unreasonable in service to a prejudiced skepticism about telepathy in general. How is it that you do not accept the burden of proof that they were not causally connected, given the identity and simultaneity of both sets of symptoms? All of the above answers that in detail. Whether or not you hear it is up to you. Identical symptoms. No history of ulcers on his part or severe stomach pain on my part. Both symptoms simultaneous. His image in my mind was simultaneous with my pain. Turned out to be true/verified information communication. You will not hear or see any of that, but that does not discredit the case as very clear evidence of empathic telepathy at a distance. Your "credentials" as a Phd physicist (a "real scientist"), which you do waive around as part of your argument, don't automatically make your assessment of this paranormal anecdote the last word of truth on the subject. I gave "the data" in detail, yet again above. Your rejection of it from your obviously biased opinion of the whole field of study does not invalidate the evidence. If I were lying about the whole thing, that would be different, but I am not. Since you can not know that for sure, I do understand your skepticism. "Proof?" We both know that "proof" is an overstatement in science. If I had a dream or a mental image of a bunch of numbers that turned out to be lottery winning numbers, I wouldn't feel the need to call it anything but maybe telepathy with whatever lottery officials established the number, but I would consider it a mysterious "gift" of information from... whatever... some transcendental level of consciousness. I am tired of arguing with you about it.

Since no one knows the "mechanism" for any possible empathy/telepathy communicated at a distance, that fact precludes "pointing to a cause." That is the nature of the animal being studied, called paranormal as specified in this case. So we are left with the details of each circumstance to sort out for possible causal connection. As already stated, the way an experience ( selected from the set of "all experiences") becomes a candidate for "paranormal" study is that a correlation is demonstrated between two events which happened at a distance precluding "normal communication." Certainly my stomach pain with no known physical cause and his stomach pain with an obvious physical cause were "co-related." Again I refer you to the first emphasized statement above. Out of all the experiences I had during the week on my wilderness trek, there is an extremely high probability that my specific stomach pain was "linked" to his, happening at the same time, and with an accompanying mental image of him in pain. Or we could say that the null hypothesis, that there was no link, just uncaused coincidence, is extremely unlikely. Evidence of endorsing the "protestant ethic" I see. Maybe I should have been taking notes on everything I experienced, as a "good scientist" would have done, hiking along constantly scribbling in my notebook... and missing most of the experience of nature in the process! Sometimes such extraordinary experience as above just happen. Without the confirmation/verification back home and at the hospital, there would have been nothing paranormal about the whole thing, just a "bad feeling" out there without a cause and certainly no connection with my son. This case was evidence of paranormal communication. Here is why, again, and the challenge:

This kind of personal judgement is not worthy of a science forum. [An aside: Neither is the popularity contest engendered by the merit/demerit system here, where any "idiot" can demerit any "genius" (so to speak) and carries the same weight as an astute scientific criticism. Or, any of my many critics can "demerit" my posts as if it were a real scientific criticism.] You "believe," huh? "...as a why to strengthen the idea..." Maybe the discussion would be more direct if you would be patient enough to let him speak for himself. If you have been taking a poll of *opinions* against me, please give specifics. (Joke) But at least explain how "what people have been saying" scientifically refutes what I have been posting about this incident. [Hint: "Science must discard all anecdotes" is not a universally accepted principle of science. Science must examine each claim/case/ life-history in thorough detail and have enough evidence to call a case "confirmed." ... If you say you have the ability to move objects at a distance, you had better be able to demonstrate that claim to the most hostile critics, like "The Amazing Randy." Personal belief counts for nothing here.

Define "accidental coincidence." The events "coincided." My "event" turned out to be verified knowledge of his event, very specifically, out of all possible events, severe stomach pain... with no known means of communication between the two events, making it "paranormal" communication. What about that do you conceive as "accidental?" None are so deaf as those who will not hear. Still "ridiculous" as explained in detail above. A log of all experiences would become a log of the mechanics of logging, eventually just trying in vain to keep up with the internal "stream of consciousness." Yet you can't see how "ridiculous" that would be. But more specifically, it would require a log of all thoughts and feelings about any/all other non-local persons to fulfill your requirement of logging "all of the instances of potential (paranormal) events." Actually, paranormal study focuses on possible paranormal events, and events don't qualify as such until a correlation appears between one set of events and another. You are not, as you seem to believe, an expert in all things, and certainly not in paranormal studies. Your lottery winners example is so off-the-wall and irrelevant to this discussion as to be unworthy of comment... and I don't have the patience to explain how irrelevant it is, nor would you have the ears to hear it.

I am not saying that that it was impossible for this to be a coincidence. The events, after all, coincided. What made it a para-normal event was that my unexplained stomach pain and mental image of him in pain coincided with his ulcer pain and that there was no normal explanation of how that happened. Not that complicated. It is not clear what you mean here: "What physical mechanism prevents this from happening?" Nobody knows what, if any, "physical mechanism" might convey telepathy in any case.* Maybe a little more context would put the "probability" factor into context. I was about a week into a planned two week wilderness journey. (My wife knew my plan.) My experience above had a powerful impact, an urgency about it, that made me change plans and immediately head home. I "knew in my gut" literally, (and "saw in my mind's eye") that my son was in pain and that the pain was in his stomach. (This "knowing" is a common though subjective experience among empathic telepathy accounts.) "What are the odds?," as the cliche' goes. 'Astronomical' is a weak answer, but there is no way to give an actual statistical answer that would satisfy science. I "knew." What makes it paranormal is that there was no normal way for me to know what turned out to be true... confirmed knowledge. * We can speculate that consciousness itself can be,potentially , transpersonal, transcending "my consciousness" and "his consciousness" as separate entities or states,... this under very special circumstances which manifest that potential. But, of course they (individual states of awareness) usually... almost always... are separate. So the speculation goes that it requires an urgency of experience in one person's awareness to "collapse the wave of potential" (to borrow a phrase from QM) and connect the two individuals' states of awareness in a way that information is shared at a distance. This, of course, is not (yet) in the realm of "material science." But my other son's broken arm (at home) was an "urgent" experience on his part too, (and there were many other similar incidents over the years) yet that didn't communicate with me (at work) as the ulcer did. Too many unknown factors, but that doesn't mean that science must "throw out the baby with the bathwater." Paranormal investigation will keep on plugging away at it until science eventually gets some answers about how consciousness operates, in both "normal" and extraordinary circumstances, including, perhaps "transpersonal" states of consciousness. That was my "field of interest" before there was a designated field of "transpersonal psychology."