Nicely argued. Your theory is difinitely intriguing but I wonder about some of its axioms. For example, you clearly differentiate between non-action bearing thoughts and action-bearing thoughts that down the chain of potentialities become actions. Somehow you make one to be too amorphous and chaotic (is that your point?) to be predictable but the other one the exact opposite.
I see non-action-bearing thoughts as the precursors of action-bearing ones, not a different species altogether. Some of them reach fruition and drive actions, some are simply stillborn and fall by the wayside. The idea that "the Universe is Mental" is deeply ingrained in Western esotericism, so I think all action is ultimately rooted in Spirit. Its a developmental continuum, and at some point in the chain the picture snaps into focus to the point that it can be interpreted with a degree of confidence. Earlier than that, the situation is not so much chaotic as
vestigial, potentially leading to malformed conclusions that I certainly don't trust. Someone who may be idly daydreaming about another person in a romantic but unrealistic way doesn't give me much grist for my mill.
I don't know if your overall theory of future prediction includes this, but if we assume a supernatural hyperintelligent intercessor that gives you information through Tarot, why would a force that is capable of mapping and unraveling such a practically unknownable chain of events to reach final potential future actions stop at that level and not go beyond and reach intentions behind actions, value judgements behind intents and thoughts behind value judgements. In very few words, since your theory more or less needs to assume an omniscient intercessor, how can that omniscient intercessor be partially omniscient?
After reading Richard Dawkin's
The God Delusion, I decided that "Spinozan pantheist" fits me best. The idea of a paternalistic, anthropomorphic God falls away and is replaced by a universal, creative intelligence or urge that permeates all existence, animate and inanimate (this isn't the academic version, just my personal take on it). The nature of this immanent and indwelling consciousness isn't as approachable as the Abrahamic version for the average human mind, but it nicely supports the idea of incremental "becoming" - Spinoza's concepts of
thought and
extension? - that I propose as the basis of my model. So the "omniscient intercessor" hasn't stopped short as you describe, it just hasn't fully begun to unfold in some instances. Thus, some thoughts can be "half-baked" while others are "nicely browned." (This is probably grossly flawed and bastardized metaphysics, but it''s only a working model at this point.)
At this point I wonder if you came to this conclusion after practical results that suggested something like that and it's not just a purely conceptual model.
I got an inkling of this when I was practicing and teaching tarot in Connecticut back in the mid-to-late 1970s, and my later qabalistic studies fleshed it out with a much fuller vocabulary. That said, I haven't had much chance to validate it in my present circumstances. I mainly dusted off my earlier thoughts for the purpose of this discussion.
I don't really mean to play the devil's advocate again since I agree that it is more or less a breach of privacy but to put the matter in the proper context it should look like this:
Would a "reasonable man" take umbrage at someone because he spread out a few painted cards by himself in his bedroom, without the prior's knowledge or consent?
Even if you still say the answer is yes, it would look a little odd to call that person just an average "reasonable man".
That may be putting too simplistic a face on it. There would obviously be no issues with a completely private practice of this sort that never sees the light of day. It's when it emerges into a social context (as in imparting the conclusions to an interested querent who may or may not honor privacy expectations) that it can become problematic. In the first case, the "reasonable man" might just be uncomfortable that someone is using him as a guinea pig, in the second case he may well feel violated by the lack of discretion, especially if potentially harmful impressions are disseminated to his circle of friends, colleagues and acquaintances.