(Split Thread) Synchronicity or Coincidence

[UndercoverElephant]

Now I agree that real synchronicity that wasn't just randomness would be a huge challenge to our conception of science. It would be an entirely different kind of non-reductive law of nature, a high-level phenomenon that isn't reducible to anything more primitive. But whether this is in fact the case is very much an empirical issue.

I don't see how. There is no objective standard by which to judge them.

Unless you want to be some kind of solipsist who thinks that what happens to you is all that really counts. For example, a solipsist wins the lottery and this tells him something profound about the goodness of the universe. The rest of us just see the inevitable working out of the laws of chance because we don't discount the experiences of the millions of people who lost.

There is a middle way. You don't have to be a solipsist to believe in synchronicity, although it looks like it contradicts determinism.

 

[chriswl]

I don't see how. There is no objective standard by which to judge them.

Well, if there is no requirement for there to be some kind of statistical anomaly behind the supposed synchronistic happenings then everything can be synchronistic. So the concept says nothing - it is just a synonym for "what happens".

Even if there were no true synchronicities there would still be people reporting bizarre, apparently synchronistic events. Because a certain number of these are bound to happen by chance. Only if they happen in a way that is not consistent with chance do we start to wonder whether there is something more going on here.

Now, you could say that these apparently chance events are actually more than that. Perhaps there is some unknown synchronistic process that actually determines who wins the lottery every week but is still consistent with an apparently random distribution of winners. But this doesn't say anything. If a process appears to be random it is random because this is all we mean by random - something we cannot predict.

There is a middle way. You don't have to be a solipsist to believe in synchronicity, although it looks like it contradicts determinism.

I don't know what you mean by a middle way. A little bit solipsist? I'd prefer to avoid solipsism completely.

Synchronicity could exist in a deterministic system if everything was pre arranged at the beginning of the universe in such a way that these apparent coincidences were inevitable. But having the universe arranged in this way itself seems like a huge coincidence.

QM holds out the possibility of some "wiggle room" for as yet unknown phenomena to happen without violating the known laws of physics. But how real this possibility is I don't know - it seems to me that quantum randomness breaking through to the macroscopic level is a pretty rare event unless we go out of our way to deliberately contrive it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And mine is that you are not in a position to ask me to accept that. Why should I allow your explanation of my experiences to over-ride my own? I think if you had experienced what I experienced, you would change your mind.

There is no reason you should allow me to override you, except for the fact that you have no coherent description of the word you are using to explain your experiences. Doesn't that make you the least bit uncomfortable?

What is the problem with just leaving it at that? You are not going to be able to argue me out of this position.

All righty then.

Explain how two things on opposite sides of the galaxy can apparently affect each other instantaneously. It looks like another example of a connection between events which looks impossible. The only difference is that this time it is scientific fact.

I'm not sure it's a "scientific fact" that the two particles "effect each other instantaneously." If that were the case, we could use this effect to transmit information, which we cannot.

But let's just say for a moment that we can do nothing other than state that the two particles are intertwined. Then we can demonstrate how that is the case. Now, if you could do the same thing with synchronicity, I would bow to the analogy. But you cannot demonstrate it at all.

That's just an ambiguous case. Those happen all the time. You cannot draw any conclusions from it. Maybe it was a synchronicity, maybe it wasn't. All you need to do is make a mental note of it, which you have done. If one day your mental notes start to add up to something, then maybe you should think about synchronicity. Until then, it's no big deal.

This sounds like nothing more than willy-nilly declaring something sychronicity or not.

The real humdinger synchronicities happen to people who are searching for spiritual truth. That is the language they speak in. If you aren't interested in such a search, you might just as well forget about synchronicity.

I daresay that is because the people who are searching for spiritual truth are, deep down, searching for a way to be special, and being the subject of a violation of physical law is really, really special.

~~ Paul

 

[Jimbo07]

Coincidence is both an unsatisfying and unfalsifiable answer. Much like "goddidit", it doesn't explain anything and once people have accepted that explanation, they cease any further investigation.

I really must thief this for my new sig... sue me if you don't like it!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, if there is no requirement for there to be some kind of statistical anomaly behind the supposed synchronistic happenings then everything can be synchronistic.

There is a statistical anomaly. The problem is that determining that anomaly requires a subjective judgement by me. It is not the events themselves which are non-objectifiable. It is what they mean to me which is non-objectifiable. They only have meaning with respect to how *I* understand reality.

Synchronicity could exist in a deterministic system if everything was pre arranged at the beginning of the universe in such a way that these apparent coincidences were inevitable.

No, that wouldn't be synchronicity. That would be fatalism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There is no reason you should allow me to override you, except for the fact that you have no coherent description of the word you are using to explain your experiences. Doesn't that make you the least bit uncomfortable?

Since there is nothing incoherent about it, no I'm not uncomfortable.

But let's just say for a moment that we can do nothing other than state that the two particles are intertwined. Then we can demonstrate how that is the case. Now, if you could do the same thing with synchronicity, I would bow to the analogy. But you cannot demonstrate it at all.

It was never supposed to be an analogy. The two cases share some features, but differ in other important respects. It was just an example of something which may have a similar mechanism.

I daresay that is because the people who are searching for spiritual truth are, deep down, searching for a way to be special, and being the subject of a violation of physical law is really, really special.

That may be so. You can draw whatever conclusions you like for whatever reasons you like. I am not here to convert anyone. I brought this up as an example of something which is possible but unprovable as opposed to creationism which is provably impossible. That was the only point in mentioning it. I have better things to do that try to convince a bunch of skeptics that synchronicity is real. I don't care what you believe. It makes no difference to me.

Geoff

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since there is nothing incoherent about it, no I'm not uncomfortable.

You cannot describe the mechanism behind synchronicity, even in the most general terms.

It was never supposed to be an analogy. The two cases share some features, but differ in other important respects. It was just an example of something which may have a similar mechanism.

Except that no one is claiming a supernatural explanation for entanglement. Or are they?

You know, I wonder if we all have the same concept in mind for synchronicity? Anyhoo, I'll let it rest now.

I don't care what you believe. It makes no difference to me.

Your past contributions to this forum belie this indifference. Are you particularly indifferent to our acceptance of synchronicity?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You cannot describe the mechanism behind synchronicity, even in the most general terms.

I could describe it. I don't want to.

If you want to understand those mechanisms, you must explore them yourself.

Except that no one is claiming a supernatural explanation for entanglement. Or are they?

No. So what?

Your past contributions to this forum belie this indifference. Are you particularly indifferent to our acceptance of synchronicity?
~~ Paul

If you are talking about the attempts to show materialism is false then yes there is a difference. I believe I can prove the falsity of materialism but there is no way I can prove that synchronicity is true.

Also, several years have passed since the events Darat was refering to. I am now nearing the end of a philosophy degree and I've had a long time to reflect on what happened, and why. I feel like I have achieved what I set out to achieve five years ago. You cannot reach all of the people all of the time, but you can reach some of them some of the time.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No. So what?

Well, you appear to be describing a supernatural mechanism for synchronicity, so it is rather different from entanglement.

But I understand now that this is some sort of indescribable personal experience that cannot be discussed. I'm not sure why Jung brought it up in the first place.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, you appear to be describing a supernatural mechanism for synchronicity, so it is rather different from entanglement.

No, I didn't say that. I gave an example of another sort of apparently inexplicable connection between events. Nothing else was implied.

But I understand now that this is some sort of indescribable personal experience that cannot be discussed. I'm not sure why Jung brought it up in the first place.

You do not have to be able to describe an ineffable experience in order for the term "ineffable experience" to mean something. It means an experience which cannot be adequately described.

 

[chriswl]

You do not have to be able to describe an ineffable experience in order for the term "ineffable experience" to mean something. It means an experience which cannot be adequately described.

I've experienced plently of synchronicities and I see nothing "ineffable" about them. There's no obvious pattern to them, no "message" behind them (and I have considered that possiblity) and I can't truthfully say they strain the limits of probability.

If something strange and surprising but basically explainable happens to me, well that's just life. It doesn't in any way exhaust my powers of description.

 

[Darat]

I've experienced plently of synchronicities and I see nothing "ineffable" about them. There's no obvious pattern to them, no "message" behind them (and I have considered that possiblity) and I can't truthfully say they strain the limits of probability.

If something strange and surprising but basically explainable happens to me, well that's just life. It doesn't in any way exhaust my powers of description.

I think you are missing a crucial difference in your experiences and UCEs. UCE came to the belief of synchronicity not just because he experienced "strange and surprising but basically explainable" events but because he experienced (objective) events that in his words breached the (known) laws of physics.

UCE's scenario was that he was seeking "enlightenment" and as he did so he started to notice coincidences and objective events that breached the laws of physics. It is this that has led him to believe that somehow the universe is either altered or the universe arranges itself to make revelations to UCE. It is this that he is calling "synchronicity".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I've experienced plently of synchronicities and I see nothing "ineffable" about them. There's no obvious pattern to them, no "message" behind them (and I have considered that possiblity) and I can't truthfully say they strain the limits of probability.

Then you have never experienced a synchronicity. Just because it had never happened to you, it does not follow that it does not happen to anyone. You cannot judge my experiences based on an assumption that they were like yours.

If something strange and surprising but basically explainable happens to me, well that's just life. It doesn't in any way exhaust my powers of description.

Again, you cannot know that until it happens. You are assuming that I haven't experienced anything you haven't experienced. You are assuming my "synchronicities" are no different to your co-incidences.

Geoff

 

[CFLarsen]

UCE: Were the laws of physics broken, yes or no?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

UCE: Were the laws of physics broken, yes or no?

ARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

No laws of physics were broken.
No laws of physics were broken.
NO LAWS OF PHYSICS WERE BROKEN.
NO LAWS OF PHYSICS WERE BROKEN.

 

[Jimbo07]

I do not and will not make any arguments which depend upon personal testimony on this board or any other. My personal testimony is as useless as anybody-else's. All I am interested in discussing is what is possible in principle and what is not possible in principle.

(bolding mine)

I have to admit, I'm a little confused. I wasn't here years ago, so I don't know all the details of this debate.

However, correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, hence the confusion):

A synchronicity (if you will) is dependent on some non-physical process (whatever that is). You want to discuss what is possible. I suppose in some sense, anything is possibly (even to a vanishingly small likelihood). However, in this case, the only evidence possible (because of the non-physical relationship) is personal testimony.

So... you want to discuss something with evidence based solely in personal testimony, yet you do not want to make arguments based on personal testimony?

 

[Belz...]

So others can better understand the type of events UCE is referring to and why he believes in "synchronicity" this is from what he posted about some of the non-coincidences back from 2002 (from my personal archive files - sadly long lost from the Forum db).

Asked about this, the expanded explanation:

Now I don't see why this type evidence can't be objectively assessed by others. For instance there is the well known phenomenon that we are all prone to i.e. "remembering the hits, forgetting the misses" so in the example above how many other websites had you visited that did not give you advice about giving up your drug habit?

Well he's bound to find interesting meanings to a whole lot of things under the influence.

 

[Belz...]

Because in the abscence of a first-person perspective one what it is like to be UCE, the evidence is meaningless. Literally meaningless. It gets its meaning by virtue of its relationship to me.

And you can try as hard as you like to provoke me to discuss specific instances, but you will fail. You can go over my old posts till the cows come home.

The evidence is meaningless to you. It is just a collection of factual descriptions of events which don't mean anything to you.

Then it is NO evidence at all, and the fact that you think that your interpretation of that "evidence" means anything speaks volumes about your ability to think critically.

 

[Belz...]

So that means it is the default explanation for you. It can also be the default explanation for me, up to a point. At that point, the fact that it is merely a default explanation no longer matters.

Personal testimony is of interest from the point of view of a person who collects anecdotes of this sort, such as William James or Jacques Vallee. But those people are not scientists. They were psychologists/parapsychologists.

Nobody is asking you to. All I am asking is to be allowed to believe my own experiences.

There may well be some common factors to the two explanations.

Maybe the same person might be able to explain quantum entanglement at the same time....

I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what synchronicity is, because it does seem to violate the laws of physics, as I understand them. A set of quantum fluctuations couldn't possibly create anything remotely as coherent as a word document.

 

[Jimbo07]

A set of quantum fluctuations couldn't possibly create anything remotely as coherent as a word document.

Isn't this ultimately what happened, over the course of oh... 15 Billion years?