How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[jond]

Not exactly, because Linda begs the question that I asked when she states: "You have simply imposed a pattern formed by cognitive biases on to a motley assortment of events."

I take it, then, that you accept the previous two paragraphs as written.

 

[dlorde]

The main thing it tells me is that there is a scientifically-unrecognized force in the world.

So what, exactly, does this force do? What does it act on? Is it some kind of physical force? What does it change? Did it affect your brain? Did it move teapots around?

Did it somehow tweak the whole universe to make things work out the way they did just so that you'd get a weird feeling of synchronicity?

 

[quarky]

Without some sort of polling, its hard to know much about the alleged perception of synchronicity. For me, and the few people I've spoken to about it, the typical experience is something like this:

You're talking to your sweetheart about something fairly obscure...say, an old song. You turn on the radio and its playing. Then, you sort of wink at each other and smile. Its not a shocking thing; conveys no great secret; contains no advice on winning lottery numbers, or that its time to get your brakes looked at. Nothing prophetic. Just a silly curiosity.

Some people claim to have these moments daily. I certainly do. They are so common place, sometimes we don't even bother mentioning them.
For a certain personality type, these harmless moments are evidence of a personal aspect of the universe, which can't be proved or disproved.

The moments of 'synchronicity', or coincidence, essentially announce themselves, as in the example of the old song on the radio. One needn't be a woo-mongerer to notice them. They are hard to miss.

If one was hell-bent on making a big deal about it, the big deal would only be that there is some personal feedback in otherwise random events. Its not like seeing bigfoot. Yet, it is a curious phenomena.

If I was to look at my digital clock, randomly, when I wanted to know what time it was, and wrote that number down...day after day...and then looked to find a pattern in the numbers, a pattern might be found. Or not.

But it wouldn't be the same thing. It would be "wagging the dog", and indicative of an agenda...even if the agenda was to dis-prove any phenomena.

Me thinks the subject matter has gotten too mystical.
One needn't go looking for these peculiar moments, nor do they have anything to do with "being in synch", which is something else that happens occasionly, like when a complex plan sort-of falls together, and one's timing is fortunate.

 

[Rodney]

Forces do specific things under specific, definable conditions. What does this one do, and under what conditions? If you can't answer that question concretely, then what you have noticed is not a force.

Perhaps the following, which details Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer's theory of Seriality, will be helpful:

"He postulated that all events are connected by waves of seriality. These unknown forces would cause what we would perceive as just the peaks, or groupings and coincidences. Kammerer was known to, for example, make notes in public parks of what numbers of people were passing by, how many carried umbrellas, etc. Albert Einstein called the idea of Seriality 'Interesting, and by no means absurd', while Carl Jung drew upon Kammerer's work in his essay Synchronicity. [Arthur] Koestler reported that, when researching for his biography about Kammerer, he himself was subjected to 'a meteor shower' of coincidences - as if Kammerer's ghost were grinning down at him saying, 'I told you so!'"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer

 

[Elizabeth I]

The main thing it tells me is that there is a scientifically-unrecognized force in the world.

So how would you test for this force?

 

[Rodney]

So how would you test for this force?

As to whether it actually exists, I stated in post #576 on this thread: "I would examine the seemingly most unlikely coincidences, attempt to ascertain all relevant facts regarding each sequence of events, and then try and estimate what the odds against that sequence were."

 

[Marshmallow]

Will you and the others arguing so hard for synchronicity please explain what you think is the significance behind the phenomenon? If it were all true, so what? A bunch of numbers is telling you what? Two teapots are telling you what?

Actually, these numbers do have a specific personal meaning to me, which is what usually happens with synchronicity - it's why we notice these coincidences in the first place.


And in response to fls's post on the previous page about my example of 55:55:55:55 being an example of attribution bias: is it not possible that showing the 5s prominently like this is meant to draw my attention to the number 5?

I agree with what Rodney said about there being a scientifically-unrecognized force in the world. Just because we don't yet know how to test it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Look at all the other previously untestable things that turned out to exist after all.

 

[Prometheus]

Perhaps the following, which details Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer's theory of Seriality, will be helpful:

"He postulated that all events are connected by waves of seriality. These unknown forces would cause what we would perceive as just the peaks, or groupings and coincidences. Kammerer was known to, for example, make notes in public parks of what numbers of people were passing by, how many carried umbrellas, etc. Albert Einstein called the idea of Seriality 'Interesting, and by no means absurd', while Carl Jung drew upon Kammerer's work in his essay Synchronicity. [Arthur] Koestler reported that, when researching for his biography about Kammerer, he himself was subjected to 'a meteor shower' of coincidences - as if Kammerer's ghost were grinning down at him saying, 'I told you so!'"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer

Not so much, no. Again, what does this supposed force do, and under what conditions? All I see in that quotation is conjecture and anecdote.

 

[Elizabeth I]

As to whether it actually exists, I stated in post #576 on this thread: "I would examine the seemingly most unlikely coincidences, attempt to ascertain all relevant facts regarding each sequence of events, and then try and estimate what the odds against that sequence were."

Nope. A force does something. Gravity attracts. You can measure how much it attracts. The electromagnetic force holds protons and electrons together; it causes the flow of electricity. You can measure all those things. You can also recreate your measurements at will. You know if you put the north poles of two magnets together they will repel each other. You know if you do certain things, you will get a flow of electricity. You know if you stick your finger into the flow of electricity you will get a hell of a shock.

What does your putative "force" do? How would you measure its action? Given that if it does exist, it seems to turn on and off intermittently and randomly, how could you ever do an experiment? Sometimes it might work and sometimes not.

You're going to have to come up with something better than "calculating the odds of an occurrence happening." After all, as many people have tried to tell you, after something happens, the odds of its happening are 1.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps the following, which details Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer's theory of Seriality, will be helpful ...

Um .. Paul Kammerer ... wasn't he that guy who shot himself when his results were proven to be based on fraud? The Lysenkoist who used fraudulent data to prop up a false and impossible biological hypothesis?

That Paul Kammerer? Well, I guess that we should all listen to him, 'cos nothing he says could be completely worthless in every way.

 

[Belz...]

There's nothing scientific about it and it is different from person to person. Is anger the same for everyone? I think you are failing to see it's a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one. There is nothing to test, nothing to falsify. It's just a feeling.

I'm not failing to see that at all. It just becomes completely useless except in psychology, because there is no objective process that occurs called syncrhonicity.

And yes, anger is the same for everyone because the associated behaviours are.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I would examine the seemingly most unlikely coincidences, attempt to ascertain all relevant facts regarding each sequence of events, and then try and estimate what the odds against that sequence were.

If you can prove that any one of the the events was impossible then you're on to something, otherwise what does this show? Even assuming you can work out the probability of the events all you have proven is that a sequence of events that was possible did occur. There is no predictive application as you are dealing with single occurances.

That aside how do you propose to calculate the odds? This is where the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallicy that Joe has repeatedly refered to comes in, as there is no definition of what constitutes a 'syncronistic' event before time you have no way of calculating the range of possible events that would have constituted a 'hit' had they occurred but didn't.

For example, using Quarky's illustration "You're talking to your sweetheart about something fairly obscure...say, an old song. You turn on the radio and its playing." Simply because it's something we've all experienced at one time or another and it's a fairly simple one to discuss as an academic exercise.

How would you calculate the odds? I presume you'd take the odds that these two people would be talking, then that they would talk about that song, and then that they would switch on the radio, and finally some combination of song duraton against airtime, number of channels, frequency of the song being played etc? I'm not after figures here, but is this your general line of thought?

Looked at this way the odds are astronomically against this happening, but calculating it like that would only be correct if the event was predicted ahead of time, this is only correct ahead of time with a specific outcome, those two people, that song, that time etc.

A more accurate view of the situation is that people talk all the time, sometimes they will mention a song, sometimes they will turn on the radio each of these events happens millions of times every day, sometimes they coincide, sometimes two coincide. The window of opportunity is further widened, if someone turns on the radio and the second song that plays is one they were talking about is that syncronicity? Third, forth, the radios been on all day but they're sure they hadn't heard it on that channel for absolutely ages? They didn't speak about that song, but it was the theme to a movie they watched last night? The title's the same as a different song they were discussing? The song seems appropriate to something completely independant, but they can see the connection?

Billions of people, billions of possible connections but all in the eye of the beholder. And is one possible coincidence out of the infinite number of things that could appear significant after the fact.

 

[fls]

As to whether it actually exists, I stated in post #576 on this thread: "I would examine the seemingly most unlikely coincidences, attempt to ascertain all relevant facts regarding each sequence of events, and then try and estimate what the odds against that sequence were."

And that is exactly the wrong way to go about it. For example, you would discover that the odds against a win for every jackpot lottery winner would be very very high. However, these events are not considered examples of synchronicity, yet your much lower chance of 1 in 40 (Jung's beetle) is.

Linda

 

[Starthinker]

I'm not failing to see that at all. It just becomes completely useless except in psychology, because there is no objective process that occurs called syncrhonicity.

Exactly.

And yes, anger is the same for everyone because the associated behaviours are.

So the guy who gets angry and throws chairs around a restaurant is the same as the guy who gets angry and smiles and says he disagrees? I don't buy that. Emotions are as different as fingerprints, there is no way I can compare my anger to your anger or my happiness to your happiness. Sure there are generalities but we all have different experiences, different upbringings, different genetics, and thus will experience the range of emotions differently. Ask ten people to write down how they experience anger and I guarantee you won't get ten answers that are exactly the same.

 

[Rodney]

And that is exactly the wrong way to go about it. For example, you would discover that the odds against a win for every jackpot lottery winner would be very very high. However, these events are not considered examples of synchronicity, yet your much lower chance of 1 in 40 (Jung's beetle) is.

Linda

So I throw the question back to you. What methodology would you use to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

So I throw the question back to you. What methodology would you use to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

Give us an objective definition of syncronicity and we'll try.

 

[quarky]

It helps when several people experience it together, as per objectivity.

 

[Belz...]

So the guy who gets angry and throws chairs around a restaurant is the same as the guy who gets angry and smiles and says he disagrees?

You're probably not talking about the same anger since the behaviour is different, yes ?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It helps when several people experience it together, as per objectivity.

How? I can get several people together who have collectively experienced the certainty that a particular football team is the greatest, or the love of Jesus filled the room. That doesn't make it objective.

I think you may saying that multiple witnesses help establish the reliability of the account of the events. Fair comment, but not necessarilly vital. Some events can be corroberated even if only one or two people are involved.

The question is 'What objectively differentiates an event caused by this mysterious force of syncronicity from a random event assigned subjective importance after the event?'

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As to whether it actually exists, I stated in post #576 on this thread: "I would examine the seemingly most unlikely coincidences, attempt to ascertain all relevant facts regarding each sequence of events, and then try and estimate what the odds against that sequence were."

And I have told you time and again that this does nothing to distinguish between low probability events that are merely random coincidence and those that are synchronicity.

I've given you a number of examples that show that low probability events happen all the time, but you don't try to claim most of them are synchronicity.

If I shuffle a regular deck and deal out:
5s, 8h, 4c, Ah, Kh

the odds against that outcome are exactly the same as the odds against dealing:
Th, Jh, Qh, Kh, Ah

If I toss a fair coin 10 times, this outcome:

THHHTTHTTT

is just as unlikely as this one:

HHHHHHHHHH

Fromdownunder's real life example is true also. The sequence of events from my birth up to now that led me to write this post in this forum are extremely improbable. If you ran history over again, the series of events would almost certainly not occur exactly the same, and I wouldn't be posting here.


Yet you don't treat my posting as an example of "synchronicity".

So I deny that you "examine the seemingly most unlikely events". You only select some of them when you ask, "What are the odds of that happening?"

And you ignore the answer, "Just as low as a great many other low-probability events that you find unremarkable."