I'm unconvinced. I read Ed May two papers "Multiphasic Model of Precognition" and "'
Precognition: The Only Form of Psi?" and I'm totally unimpressed. In fact, both papers are not very good.
In fact, his argument apparently was just"Entropy is related to the flow of time, entropy is related to sensory perception. Precognition is related to both sensory perception and time, so precognition "functioning" is related to entropy" (not his actual quote). Ok, right. So what?
He doesn't explain any important part of the mechanism (for example he doesn't explain how the precognitive signal is transported and doesn't explain how does the brain "reads" this signal). In fact he writes:
"however, with regard to mechanisms, signal carriers,and transducers, the evidence is circumstantial. Clearly, more work is needed"
"We can keep the nature of a putative PC (precognition) channel an open question until we have a better understanding of the PD (physics domain)."
"As the nature of the putative RC signal is presently unknown, we have to assume that it is different from the normal thresholds perceived by us."
"currently, we do not know what kind of signal to look for, and hence what the concomitant EEG would look like"
A considerable amount of the paper is related to things that are only marginally related to a "model of precognition" (anecdotes from the star gate project and a discussion about synaesthesia).
Also, at some point he writes "At the macroscopic level, time moves in one direction as a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. (...) It is beyond the scope of this article to provide technical support of this statement, but the textbooks of any mid-level collegiate course in physics, thermodynamics, or statistical mechanics will provide the details."
Well, as a physicist I want at least to know the reference you are using. Was this paper even peer-reviewed?
In his paper "'
Precognition: The Only Form of Psi?" he says that macroPK doesn't exist. However, he cites Stephen Braude's work a lot of times and Braude is a strong advocate of the existence macroPK.
Also, why bother constructing a theory of human precognition? In his paper he spends a lot of time talking about human sensory perception. If precognition is such a natural phenomena, it would be way simpler to just find the "precognition signal" and amplify it. There's no need to involve humans, unless if you think that consciousness is fundamental to precognition (but I'm sure that you believe exactly the opposite)
tl;dr:He may be right, but at the moment his theory is not great and has a lot of "holes". Also, he clearly dismisses everything against his theories. So far, his paper will hardly convince physicists that precognition is a natural phenomena and probably will not convince many parapsychologists either.