How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Asked and responded to (and shenanigans called repeatedly).

You're the one who said we should investigate "synchronicity". I've been asking you for some time how you would do that.

And several of us have been pointing out that the only definition you've been able to provide either fail to distinguish between synchronicity and random coincidence (that is, a definition consistent with there being no such thing as synchronicity--see my mimetoglamjabberism example) OR presents a logical insconsistency (that is, the definition claims there is an acausal connection or asserts that it's something other than mere coincidence but that there is no cause, which is actually what coincidence is).

 

[fls]

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

Identify 'synchronicities' in a systematic manner (such as all events associated with a sensation of intuition as described by TeapotsHappen or events with low prior probability if due to chance). Form control groups. Identify and describe all events. Compare the frequency of events with elements in common between the synchronicity and control groups.

(This is simply an initial step to attempt to identify what it is we are going to try to measure.)

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Using the coin tossing example I've just given. Several people can experience together the following two 10 toss outcomes:

THHHTTHTTT

HHHHHHHHHH

The probability of both outcomes is the same, yet no one considers the first to be an example of "synchronicity". So what distinguishes the two? It's an honest coin and a fair toss, so we know there is no reason for either outcome.

So obviously the number of observers doesn't establish any inherent or objective meaning in the event. (People who take the second outcome to be a message from the universe are committing a Type I error or apophenia.)

 

[Rodney]

Identify 'synchronicities' in a systematic manner (such as all events associated with a sensation of intuition as described by TeapotsHappen or events with low prior probability if due to chance). Form control groups. Identify and describe all events. Compare the frequency of events with elements in common between the synchronicity and control groups.

(This is simply an initial step to attempt to identify what it is we are going to try to measure.)

Linda

That's roughly similar to what I have in mind. The tricky part is evaluating outcomes that had to happen or at least were well within the realm of probability from outcomes that were inherently unlikely. Again, when you toss a coin 1000 times, you are guaranteed to have an outcome and, while the odds against any one permutation is vanishingly small, the odds of some combinations occurring are much higher than others. For example, the odds of the combination 500 heads and 500 tails occurring is about 1 in 40. On the other hand, the odds of the combination 1000 heads and 0 tails occurring is about 1 in 10^301. So, you should not be astonished if you get the former combination, but you should be if you get the latter combination.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

These "waves of seriality" remind me of the locality principle used in computer architecture. The processor can assume that certain patterns of data and instructions are more likely than others to be called for again, so these are kept in caches of various priorities, with the fastest and smallest being assigned the highest priority and the largest and slowest being assigned the lowest. It's all about probabilities.

Also -- and for some reason, this keeps sticking in my mind -- I would like to remind you that the experiment described in Jung's essay failed to find a synchronicity effect.

 

[fls]

That's roughly similar to what I have in mind. The tricky part is evaluating outcomes that had to happen or at least were well within the realm of probability from outcomes that were inherently unlikely.

No it's not. You simply select winners from games of chance - lotteries, casinos, bunco parties, etc.

Again, when you toss a coin 1000 times, you are guaranteed to have an outcome and, while the odds against any one permutation is vanishingly small, the odds of some combinations occurring are much higher than others. For example, the odds of the combination 500 heads and 500 tails occurring is about 1 in 40. On the other hand, the odds of the combination 1000 heads and 0 tails occurring is about 1 in 10^301. So, you should not be astonished if you get the former combination, but you should be if you get the latter combination.

You get around that by pre-specifying which patterns are significant.

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's roughly similar to what I have in mind. The tricky part is evaluating outcomes that had to happen or at least were well within the realm of probability from outcomes that were inherently unlikely. Again, when you toss a coin 1000 times, you are guaranteed to have an outcome and, while the odds against any one permutation is vanishingly small, the odds of some combinations occurring are much higher than others.

No they're not. Not unless you can define "some combinations" ahead of time as being significant. Otherwise, all outcomes are equally likely.

Yes, 1000 heads in a row are exactly as improbable as any other sequence of 1000, including a patterned outcome like:
THTHTHTHTH. . .
or an unpatterned one like THHHTHTTHHT. . . .

For example, the odds of the combination 500 heads and 500 tails occurring is about 1 in 40.

What? That's not true. The odds of getting the outcome of 500 heads in a row followed by 500 tails in a row are exactly the same as the odds of getting 1000 heads in a row.

Now if you're grouping a great number of different outcomes (all the sequences of outcomes that total 500 heads mixed in with 500 tails) you're just comparing the probability of getting one out of thousands of possible outcomes with the probability of getting one specific outcome.

That's just cheating.

ETA: For example, I could lump that 1000 heads outcome into a broad category defined by "all the outcomes that start with H" in which case I could say the probability of that outcome is 1:2.

 

[Starthinker]

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

Same anger. Find two people with similar backgrounds, confronted with same situation, at the same time, under the same circumstances and they are still each going to experience anger in different ways. Like I said, take ten people, have them describe what anger is to them and you will get ten different answers. It is ludicrous to believe we all experience emotions the exact same way.

 

[Rodney]

No they're not. Not unless you can define "some combinations" ahead of time as being significant. Otherwise, all outcomes are equally likely.

You're confusing permutations and combinations. All permutations are equally likely, but that is not true of all combinations. Which is why just about everyone on earth outside this Forum would be astonished by the combination of 1000 heads and no tails while yawning at the overwhelming majority of combinations of 500 heads and 500 tails.

 

[Dr H]

I'm saying that if you flip a fair coin 1000 times, that we will find some patterns more meaningful than others. For example, we would usually find 1000 heads far more interesting than 500 heads, although we would probably find 500 heads in a row followed by 500 tails in a row just as interesting (if not moreso).

Small nitpick (well, you people were talking about bugs...): "interesting" doesn't necessarily equate with "meaningful".

A meaningful pattern is one in which the pattern is actually mapped to some real-world objects or events; such a pattern may help me discern meaning in those objects or events, in that it allows me to make some reasonably accurate predictions about the behovior of the system comprised of those objects/events.

On the other hand, I may 'find' all sorts of patterns that interest me in a large enough sequence of random items, but those patterns have no meaning beyond the fact that they tickled my fancy for whatever reason. IOW, they tell me nothing useful about the items in that random collection.

 

[Dr H]

I know that confirmation bias and apophenia exist. However, that really doesn't seem to be a possible explanation in my case.

Why not? Simply because you find that explanation unsatisfying?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: If you want to avoid your phony problem with permutations and combinations, go back to my example of shuffling a regular deck of cards and dealing out 5 cards. Whatever 5 cards you get is a unique combination, and the odds are something like 1:2.5 million. All of them--even the "hands" that lack any apparent pattern.

You're confusing permutations and combinations. All permutations are equally likely, but that is not true of all combinations. Which is why just about everyone on earth outside this Forum would be astonished by the combination of 1000 heads and no tails while yawning at the overwhelming majority of combinations of 500 heads and 500 tails.

No I'm not. You're lumping together thousands of possible outcomes and comparing the probability of getting one of those to getting exactly one outcome.

As I mentioned, I could do the same with the all heads outcome by making the category "all outcomes that begin with H", and the odds are 1:2.

But you knew that already.

Can you say why the outcome of 500 heads in a row followed by 500 tails in a row is not as "meaningful" as 1000 heads?

Or the pattern "HTHTHTHT. . . "

Or the pattern "HHHHTTTTHHHHTTTT. . ."

All these three are possible outcomes that include 500 heads and 500 tails. Surely that's not the same as some patternless result that happens to total 500 of each, at least as regards to the synchronicity game.

Do you mean to tell me you would find 1000 consecutive heads (on an honest coin with fair tosses) is a message from the universe, but getting exactly 4 heads in a row then 4 tails in a row over and over for all 1000 tosses is not?

My point is that with this synchronicity business you're not saying it's only the 1000 heads outcome that is meaningful. That determination is arbitrary and made after the fact. As such, it is simply the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

In fact, I've adequately explained how this works. Our brains evolved to spot patterns. When we see patterns in random data it is a Type I error, and it's called apophenia.

 

[Dr H]

How does this square with your belief that there is an objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

There can be no objective test for the existence of synchronicity until we have arrived at some kind of working definition of what is meant by "syhcnronicity" which distinguishes it in some sort of objective sense from coincidence. Joe, and others, have pointed this out, repeatedly.

This is identical with a frustration I frequently encounter in examining paranormal claims. If you can't get someone to commit to what it is, precisely, that they mean by [telepathy; remote viewing; _fill-in-the-blank_], then no matter what test is used, and what results obtained, the claimant can always "move the goal posts" by altering their definition after the fact.

I have not yet seen any reason to believe this would be any different with synchronicity.

 

[fromdownunder]

You're confusing permutations and combinations. All permutations are equally likely, but that is not true of all combinations. Which is why just about everyone on earth outside this Forum would be astonished by the combination of 1000 heads and no tails while yawning at the overwhelming majority of combinations of 500 heads and 500 tails.

Only if predicted in advance. I would certainly be astonished if somebody at random predicted and then flipped 1,000 heads in a row, but even at the odds already quoted on this thread, if an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite amount of time...it is going to actually happen at some point. EVERY combination is equally unlikely. Every combination postdicted after the event, well the odds are 1.

BTW, do you still think the Plum Pudding is Synchrosity, since you never responded to my reply. Did you read it and consider my response wrong? Is it still one of your favourites?

Norm

 

[Dr H]

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.

"Force" has a very specific meaning in science; it is not a vague generic term like "thing".

We do know how to test forces, quite well, consistently, and in great detail. This is done every day, and whole institutions devote their resources to it.

If your "it" is untestable, then "it" is not a "force".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is this, Rodney:

When you are asked to distinguish examples of synchronicity from mere random coincidence, you answer that it's about the low probability. As I and others have amply made it clear to you, that doesn't make the distinction, since low probability events happen all the time.

With the coin tossing thing, all outcomes are actually equally likely. As you've stated, synchronicity isn't about making predictions. It's about assigning meaning and significance after the fact.

I'm trying to tell you is that what distinguishes these patterned outcomes from the unpatterned ones is not the probability, but strictly our ability and tendency to recognize patterns and consider them significant.

By the way, patterned outcomes on the coin toss aren't limited to all heads or all tails or the patterns I've shown that result in 500 of each; for examples:
HTHHTTHHHTTTHHHHTTTT. . .
HHHTHHHTHHHTHHHT. . .
TTTHHTTTHHTTTHH. . .
and so on.

The probability of each one of these is exactly the same as all heads.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is why just about everyone on earth outside this Forum would be astonished by the combination of 1000 heads and no tails while yawning at the overwhelming majority of combinations of 500 heads and 500 tails.

Yes. But the reason why that outcome is remarkable is not the odds. The probability of all heads is exactly the same as the probability of getting some random, patternless mixture of heads and tails.

The reason it's remarkable is the perception of a pattern.

However, since we know this is random data, it's an error to think that that pattern is significant. And the phenomenon of humans spotting patterns in random data is called apophenia, not synchronicity.

Synchronicity is offered as some sort of explanation. And that explanation is problematic. It claims that the coincidence is acausal (random) but still significant. That is, it makes the claim that the event is mere random coincidence at the same time it denies that the event is mere random coincidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Yes, but in the absence of evidence for such a force, it's unreasonable to believe in it.

The reason why we accept "previously untestable things that turned out to exist" is that we accumulated consistent, reproducible evidence that they exist.

At best your argument here is an argument that a previously unknown force is possible. I don't think anyone would disagree. But there's no reason to believe in such a thing without evidence.

 

[fromdownunder]

With the coin tossing thing, all outcomes are actually equally likely. As you've stated, synchronicity isn't about making predictions. It's about assigning meaning and significance after the fact.

(bolding mine)

So, Rodney, if anything can only be established after the fact, odds become irrelevant because the fact became "it happened". The odds become 1 It actually happened. What you need to investigate is why it happened that way, and how it changed anybody at all,

Once something actually happens the odds are no longer relevant. As I have said before, if the odds against something happening to somebody, are 6 Billion to 1, it;'s likely to happen every day of the week.

Teapots, Plum Puddings, going into town and forming a Rock Band, picking out a movie a person is discussing, looking at clocks, it happens. And despite what you think, One Million to One odds will happen 100's of times per day to somebody.

Maybe if it always happened to the same person, you may have something, but most of have maybe one/two or three stories at best. If there is some sort of source "out there" it is just playing games and not serious (and BTW, my TV is on, and I just heard the word serious)

Norm

 

[Rodney]

Only if predicted in advance.

Again, in the real world (i.e., outside this Forum), no prediction is necessary. And that real world includes mathematicians and statisticians. If you don't believe me, ask a few of them if they would be astonished if someone threw a coin 1000 times and obtained all heads. If anyone says no, let me know who that is.

I would certainly be astonished if somebody at random predicted and then flipped 1,000 heads in a row, but even at the odds already quoted on this thread, if an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite amount of time...it is going to actually happen at some point. EVERY combination is equally unlikely. Every combination postdicted after the event, well the odds are 1.

But that's exactly the problem -- there's not an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amount of time -- which is why, absent paranormal intervention, no one is ever going to throw a fair coin 1000 times and obtain all heads.

BTW, do you still think the Plum Pudding is Synchrosity, since you never responded to my reply. Did you read it and consider my response wrong? Is it still one of your favourites?

Yes, it's still one of my favourites, but I agree that it would be worthwhile to do some analysis to better determine what the true odds were of that reported sequence of events.