• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

(Split Thread) Synchronicity or Coincidence

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
19,141
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat


UCE said:
Scientism can be defined as follows:

(1) science is our only source of genuine knowledge about the world.
(2) it is the only way to understand humanity's place in the world.
(3) science provides the only credible view of the world as a whole.
Click to expand...
I'm as desirous as the next guy of not being called scientistic, but I wish someone could give me another compelling example of something that addresses each of these points. That would help me fulfill my desire to be a broadminded, liberal person.

Example: Synchronicity. Jung's theory involves the claim that there are meaningful co-incidences which can lead a person on a spiritual journey, or effect their lives in other ways. No scientific evidence can either prove or refute a claim like this.
Click to expand...
Nor can we tell the difference between a world where this is true* and one where it is false. In this case, we should say that synchronicity does not exist.

~~ Paul

* Assuming we can even obtain a coherent definition of synchronicity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Paul, how's it going?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I'm as desirous as the next guy of not being called scientistic, but I wish someone could give me another compelling example of something that addresses each of these points. That would help me fulfill my desire to be a broadminded, liberal person.
Click to expand...

What do you think philosophy is for?

Nor can we tell the difference between a world where this is true* and one where it is false. In this case, we should say that synchronicity does not exist.
Click to expand...

Who is "we"?

* Assuming we can even obtain a coherent definition of synchronicity.
Click to expand...

Sychronicities are just like coincidences, except they are non-random.

Geoff
 
UCE said:
What do you think philosophy is for?
Click to expand...
Rip-roaring conversations? Yet, I hesitate to believe it is a source of "genuine knowledge."

Who is "we"?
Click to expand...
Any one of us. How do you tell the difference between a coincidence and a synchronicity event?

Sychronicities are just like coincidences, except they are non-random.
Click to expand...
They are supposed not to obey cause and effect. Sounds random to me. Definition, please?

~~ Paul
 
UCE said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because you have no way to tell whether something that feels good intellectually is genuine knowledge or mood-making.

How do you learn to catch a ball?
Click to expand...
By practicing and receiving feedback about whether you actually caught the ball. Also, the definition of ball catching is not inherently incoherent.

~~ Paul
 
Darat said:
How is that meant to be an answer to the question:

"How do you tell the difference between a coincidence and a synchronicity event?"

?
Click to expand...

Because both questions have similar answers. Catching a ball requires complicated real-time calculations about dynamics. But learning this skill does not involve learning any mathematics. You cannot really define how you learn how to catch a ball - you just have to keep at it until you can do it.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
Because both questions have similar answers. Catching a ball requires complicated real-time calculations about dynamics. But learning this skill does not involve learning any mathematics. You cannot really define how you learn how to catch a ball - you just have to keep at it until you can do it.
Click to expand...


OK for the sake of discussion I'll accept your assertion that they have similar answers, so what is the answer?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Because you have no way to tell whether something that feels good intellectually is genuine knowledge or mood-making.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the statement "There is no such thing as a square circle" is genuine knowledge?

By practicing and receiving feedback about whether you actually caught the ball.
Click to expand...

OK, the situation with synchronicity is more difficult, but related. It is to do with practice, but the feedback is more elusive.

How do you tell the difference between a synchronistic coincidence and a random event? The only answer I can give you is that if you are experiencing genuine synchronicities, then you'll no longer need to ask the question. It will be obvious to you. If it is not obvious, then you can forget about it.

It's a bit like the question "How do I know if I am in love?" If you have to ask the question, the answer is "You're not." If the answer was "You are", then you wouldn't be asking the question.

Also, the definition of ball catching is not inherently incoherent.
Click to expand...

Neither is the definition of synchronicity.

Geoff
 
I should add that in terms of the original post I made in this thread, it does not matter whether you believe in sychronicity or not. What matters is whether you are willing to allow me to believe in it without being harassed for my belief. It has not been proven false by science, because that would be impossible. It cannot be proven true by science either. Therefore I have no right to expect you to believe my truth claim with respect to synchronicity and you have no scientific grounds for denying that truth claim. You just have to stick with "I don't believe it. I haven't experienced it." I have to stick with "I believe it, because I've experienced it."
 
UndercoverElephant said:
...snip... It cannot be proven true by science either. Therefore I have no right to expect you to believe my truth claim with respect to synchronicity and you have no scientific grounds for denying that truth claim. You just have to stick with "I don't believe it. I haven't experienced it." I have to stick with "I believe it, because I've experienced it."
Click to expand...

No you are wrong.

From many years ago I remember you claiming that "synchronicity" explained why websites that used to be there disappeared and ones that weren't there appeared. You also claimed that document in the form of word files appeared on your computer. All those are things that can be objectively verified (and all I mean by objective in this sense is experienced by other people) now granted I may not come to the same conclusion as you do for what they signify but your stated reasons for your belief are open to examination by others i.e. you have claimed there is evidence.
 
UCE said:
Do you think that the statement "There is no such thing as a square circle" is genuine knowledge?
Click to expand...
It's a statement of definition, just like "there is no such thing as a cow that is a horse." I acknowledge that defining terms is a form of knowledge that is outside of science. I also acknowledge that mathematics is a form of knowledge that is outside of science. If you want to call these things philosophy, I won't argue with you.

How do you tell the difference between a synchronistic coincidence and a random event? The only answer I can give you is that if you are experiencing genuine synchronicities, then you'll no longer need to ask the question. It will be obvious to you. If it is not obvious, then you can forget about it.
Click to expand...
It will be obvious to you only on the level of making a mood out of the event being more than a coincidence. You have no independent evidence that the event was not coincidental.

It's a bit like the question "How do I know if I am in love?" If you have to ask the question, the answer is "You're not." If the answer was "You are", then you wouldn't be asking the question.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and love is a mood.

Neither is the definition of synchronicity.
Click to expand...
What does it mean to be without cause yet not to be random?

~~ Paul
 
Darat said:
No you are wrong.

From many years ago I remember you claiming that "synchronicity" explained why websites that used to be there disappeared and ones that weren't there appeared. You also claimed that document in the form of word files appeared on your computer. All those are things that can be objectively verified (and all I mean by objective in this sense is experienced by other people) now granted I may not come to the same conclusion as you do for what they signify but your stated reasons for your belief are open to examination by others i.e. you have claimed there is evidence.
Click to expand...

First off, the events you are refering to go significantly beyond synchronicity, so that is a slightly different discussion. More importantly, you've already supplied the answer to your own objection: I can report synchronistic events to you but you have no way of verifying what they mean in the context of my own life and my own belief system.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
It will be obvious to you only on the level of making a mood out of the event being more than a coincidence. You have no independent evidence that the event was not coincidental.
Click to expand...

Indeed. None of this matters. It would only matter if I was expecting you to accept my truth claims about synchronicity. Since I am not expecting this, it makes little difference how or why I came to believe what I believe.

What does it mean to be without cause yet not to be random?
Click to expand...

I've explained this to you many times before: it means that it has a cause, but that the link between cause and effect is non-empirical - it is hidden from us. For synchronicity to be real there has to be some sort of causality at work in the Universe which is outside the scope of empirical science. I don't understand why you have such a big problem with this. It seems like a fairly simple idea to me.

Geoff
 
UCE said:
I've explained this to you many times before: it means that it has a cause, but that the link between cause and effect is non-empirical - it is hidden from us. For synchronicity to be real there has to be some sort of causality at work in the Universe which is outside the scope of empirical science. I don't understand why you have such a big problem with this. It seems like a fairly simple idea to me.
Click to expand...
You're making it up off the top of your head:

I think that two events can occur that are related by a nonempirical, undetectable causality, yet at the same time I think I can distinguish such a pair of events from mere coincidence.

Why do we need this nonempirical causality at all, and is there any logical room for it?

~~ Paul
 
UndercoverElephant said:
I've explained this to you many times before: it means that it has a cause, but that the link between cause and effect is non-empirical - it is hidden from us. For synchronicity to be real there has to be some sort of causality at work in the Universe which is outside the scope of empirical science. I don't understand why you have such a big problem with this. It seems like a fairly simple idea to me.
Click to expand...

Jumping in here.

Actually, I have a problem with this as well. You're talking about a real causal link, but one that is "non-empirical"? I'm not sure what you mean by this. You say "outside the scope of empirical science" and "hidden from us". Do you mean hidden from us now? (i.e., with our present tools for inquiry we are unable to get at it), or hidden from us forever? (i.e., we will never be able to get at it, no matter what tools we develop).

If you mean the second (and I'm guessing you do), then I think there is a logical problem here: you're positing the existence of something that is real but "unknowable" - forever outside our powers of detection, of testable experience (empiricism). Okay, there may be lots of things like that. By definition, we would have no way of knowing. But you also say that you know it is real because it causes this thing called synchronicity, which is detectable and knowable. Since empiricism is the investigation of the world through testable experience, you've just shown that this "non-empirical" causal link is open to empirical investigation after all.

BTW, I don't think Dawkins needs any apologists of any sort. The man has nothing to apologize for. I thought The God Delusion was one of the most humane, caring and loving books I've read in a long time. One should not confuse aggression with a passionate concern for the world we're making for ourselves.
 
Last edited:
synchronicity exist in the quantum world!

Entangled particles in a quantum system is synchronized in the sense that when one particle disentangle because of measurement, the rest of the system disentangle in the same unit of time too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom