In Fringe Season 3 episode 3, Milo Stanfield was the subject of a drug trial which aimed at improving his intelligence. Before identifying their suspect as Milo Stanfield in the beginning though, when the Fringe team (in the Alternate Universe) is still suspicious of the coincidences of chains of events leading to peoples' deaths, Agent Farnsworth mentions that it would be impossible for someone to willfully know how to set off such a chain of events since that would require solving an equation of 1271 variables. At the end of the episode, Milo is left having to interface with a computer since his thoughts got too complex for humans to interpret.
The Observers' tech gives the Observers a similar ability (with the addition of teleportation, and manipulating the morphology of the brain for controlled evolution), but let's focus solely on the tech's enabling of the ability to "predict futures". Remember, back in Season 3 episode 3, the reason that Milo's failed prediction that led to his capture failed in the first place was that he did not know to factor in the behaviour of Olivia from the prime universe, so his ability to predict the future is notably limited by facts/observations. Similarly, in a later season, after Peter implants the Observer's tech in his brain, we realize that when Olivia discovers Peter's plan to attack an Observer precinct he mentions how when he had been following Captain Windmark's lieutenants long enough to be able to predict their futures. So the tech's ability to predict futures is also limited by observations.
If someone born in the same era/time/generation as Milo Stanfield (specifically, with the exact same set of observations to work from) introduced the Observer's tech to their brain stem, who would have the more powerful cognitive ability? Could it be possible to simulate the portion of the Observers' tech for predicting futures with arbitrary doses of the same drug Milo had to take during his drug trial? If so, why didn't the people of the resistance give themselves the ability to predict futures by dosing themselves with the drug?
An obvious answer to the question of who would have the more powerful cognitive ability to predict futures (given the above situation) is to say that if the two people were basing their predictions off the same set of facts/observations then they would have a cognitive stalemate. Then could you give a reason for your assumption of why you think they would interpret the same observation in the exact same way and add the same fact(s) to their knowledge base?
1 She throws out a number of variables at that point, and to the best of my memory I could swear it was 127, but that is not too relevant