• 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.

How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

I think it comes down to the odds of a sequence of events occurring and the effect on the person experiencing the events. For example, in Teapots Happen's case, the odds seem remote and the effect on him was significant.

That's irrelevant. You obviously don't understand how probabilities work, and this isn't the first thread where this is evident.

The odds of it occuring was 1. You can't determine the odds against or for an event occuring after the fact. This has been told several times.
 
Yes. By "false memory" I am referring to an event that never happened, not one that happened but at another time.

Well, you're awesome, because I know of plenty of people who have false memories, including myself.

You do know that your memories are only memories of memories of memories, right ?
 
The problem with your example is that it wasn't at all improbable that some sperm and some egg would get together on New Years Eve in 1948 -- in fact, it was inevitable.

It was inevitable that this PARTICULAR sperm would find its way to the egg on that date at that time ?

If that's the case then NO coincidence should be amazing at all, just inevitable. You can't have it both ways.
 
Because the odds of no woman conceiving on New Year's Eve 1948 was, effectively, zero. As far as fromdownunder's mother conceiving on that date, that was much less likely, but still not all that improbable. If Teapot Happens' account is accurate, on the other hand, the sequence of events was unlikely to happen to anyone.

But if another sperm had impregnated my mother, I wouldn't be posting here, or if other events occured over the past 60 years rather than the ones that did I wouldn't be posting here. The cumulative chain of events and the odds of everything (not just my birth) that led to my post would be trillians to one.

Here is a case of what might be called synchrosity:

One Friday night in the early sixties I went into the city. It was something I had never done before, and I just did it out of impulse. I ran into some friends who were talking about forming a rock band. I said "do you want an organist?" They decided that it would be a good idea, and we formed the band.

Two years later, while playing at a dance, I met my ex-wife, and we eventually married and had three children. Had I not made an impulse trip into town that night two years earlier, none of the events would have ever happened - and these particular three children would not exist.

Of course, something else would have happened between the mid 1960's and 2009, but I would, most likely be an entirely different person, quite possibly still a member of my Church, married to somebody else and with children. And this may have been as equally improbable as what happened, because seeing improbabilities in retrospect is quite easy.

Norm
 
Last edited:
Because the odds of no woman conceiving on New Year's Eve 1948 was, effectively, zero.
It's telling that you are willing to generalize the "event" that Fromdownunder specified in this way, but you're not willing to generalize these examples of "synchronicity" to the point where you realize that such events are certain to happen.

Again, Fromdownunder asked you to consider the extremely improbable series of events from his conception all the way up until yesterday that led to his posting what he posted in this thread at that time. The odds against are astronomical.

So, again, either everything is an example of synchronicity, or nothing is. The only definition you've given is "acausal", but I've already shown that the events themselves are all caused events.

The coincidence of events is easily explicable by the laws of chance (i.e. probability).
 
I had something like this happen to me a few weeks ago. I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen since their wedding, about six years ago. I remember his wedding well, because he had karaoke at his reception and I sang a song he asked for (Gary U. S. Bonds's "This Little Girl".) We chitchatted a little bit and went our separate ways.

So I hop in my car to go home, and what song is playing on the radio? Gary U. S. Bonds's "This Little Girl". I'm quite sure I hadn't heard that song, or even thought about it, since that wedding.

A weird coincidence, but exactly that and nothing more.
 
But if another sperm had impregnated my mother, I wouldn't be posting here, or if other events occured over the past 60 years rather than the ones that did I wouldn't be posting here. The cumulative chain of events and the odds of everything (not just my birth) that led to my post would be trillians to one.

For that matter, if a butterfly flapped its wings (or failed to do so) a thousand years ago, the cumulative chain of events could have led to a different outcome vis a vis your posting on this forum yesterday. I think it would be far beyond trillions to one odds against!

As I've shown with simple models like what constitutes a "meaningful or significant" outcome of flipping an honest coin 20 times, all outcomes are equally improbable. The only thing Rodney and others are doing is adding in their very human tendency to spot patterns and infer some sort of intention or significance to events.

As I mentioned, we evolved this trait (as very intelligent animals living in complex social groups) because lacking the ability and tendency to see significance is very dangerous. That is, Type I errors--false positives, which is what seeing "synchronicity" is-- are mostly irrelevant to one's ability to reproduce, but Type II errors--false negatives, or failing to see significance when it's real--can quickly take you out of the gene pool.
 
Yeah, I've already explained many times that asking what the odds against an event after it has happened (without being able to define what about the event differentiates that outcome from all the other possible outcomes with equally low probabilities) is simply the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Saying the probability of a completed event is "1" is just a pithier way of saying what I said.
 
What are the chances of Mrs. Smith winning the 1 billion dollar lottery today? 1
What are the chances of winning the lottery if you bought a ticket? 1 in 50million
 
Maybe it's suggestion, maybe it's synchronicity, but whatever the case, I feel like having some tea now.
 
Rodney, try not to go off on tangents (like "begging the question").

Here's the point: if you can't say ahead of time what outcome (of all the possible highly improbably outcomes) constitutes "synchronicity", then you're just committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

You have yet to say how tossing 20 heads differs from tossing 20 tails or alternating HTHT.. or alternating THTH or tossing 10 heads followed by 20 tails or tossing 10 tails followed by 10 heads, or even any of the equally improbable outcomes that don't have any apparent pattern at all. Since you can't, it's pointless for you to ask what the odds against the outcome that did indeed happen were. Even if the odds ahead of time are very low for that outcome, since you couldn't say which outcomes are significant, there's nothing to distinguish that outcome from all the other equally improbable outcomes.

Now if you could say ahead of time that it's some set of the patterned outcomes, and you're willing to count the millions of times people have tossed a coin, then you'll see that the real odds of that outcome approach certainty. (That's the law of truly large numbers.)

The odds against getting 20 heads in a row are exactly the same as getting the following outcome:
TTHHHTHHTTTHHHTHTHHH

Why would 20 heads be "sychronicity" but the equally improbable outcome I've just given not? (You will notice that asking "what are the odds against it?" is not a valid response since I've shown that the odds against that outcome are exactly the same as the odds against ANY outcome.)
 
Why would 20 heads be "sychronicity" but the equally improbable outcome I've just given not?
I don't say that 20 consecutive heads would necessarily be a synchronicity -- it might just be a loaded coin (or some other trickery) or an unlikely outcome (1 in 1,048,576). However, if 1000 consecutive heads were thrown, you can rule out an unlikely outcome (1 in 1.07e+301) because it's just too improbable to happen even once in all of history. So, in that circumstance you would be down to either trickery or a paranormal event. On the other hand, your "equally improbable outcome" is a true example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
 
I don't say that 20 consecutive heads would necessarily be a synchronicity -- it might just be a loaded coin (or some other trickery) or an unlikely outcome (1 in 1,048,576). However, if 1000 consecutive heads were thrown, you can rule out an unlikely outcome (1 in 1.07e+301) because it's just too improbable to happen even once in all of history. So, in that circumstance you would be down to either trickery or a paranormal event. On the other hand, your "equally improbable outcome" is a true example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Can you accept that in the case of 20 coins or 20 dice or even shuffling a deck of cards and laying them all face up, that in advance of the event every outcome is equally unlikely (unless you are a magician), and after the event every actual outcome the event actually happened?

Norm
 
Last edited:
Can you accept that in the case of 20 coins or 20 dice or even shuffling a deck of cards and laying them all face up, that in advance of the event every outcome is equally unlikely (unless you are a magician), and after the event every actual outcome the event actually happened?

Norm
Yes. Now can you accept the fact that everyone on earth can flip coins the rest of their lives and that -- barring the paranormal or trickery -- no one will ever throw 1000 heads in a row?
 

Back
Top Bottom