How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Ivor the Engineer]

How many patterns of heads and tails in 1000 flips might be considered significant by a human observer?

HTHT...

HHTTHHTT...

HHHTTTHHHTTT...

HTTHTTHTTHTT...

HHTTTHHTTTHHTTT...

In general: Hxn Txm ...

where n and m are integers in the range 0 to 1000 and n + m < 1000.

Then there are sequences which have mirror symmetry or other features we feel are 'special'.

A couple of experiments to try:

1) On a spreadsheet fill a column with 1024 10-bit binary numbers from 0 to 1023 (i.e. 0000000000 to 1111111111). Put a mark by the cells which, if 0 represents tails and 1 represents heads, you feel would appear significant if representing the result of flipping a coin 10 times.

What fraction of the 1024 values appear 'special' to you?

2) Write a program to produce 100 text files consisting of 1000 characters, randomly filled with H or T.

i) What proportion of the files appear to have 'special' (sub-)sequences of H and T?

Use a compression algorithm based on the Lempel-Ziv algorithm (or one which extracts patterns from the data).

ii) Is there is a correlation between the files which compress the best and which look more 'special'?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How many patterns of heads and tails in 1000 flips might be considered significant by a human observer?

HTHT...

HHTTHHTT...

HHHTTTHHHTTT...

HTTHTTHTTHTT...

HHTTTHHTTTHHTTT...

In general: Hxn Txm ..

Yep. That's a point I made some time ago too. (Post 130, and several times since then.)

In fact, I pointed out that if your definition of an "interesting pattern" is open enough, ALL results are patterns. Rodney claimed that my attempt at typing out a patternless and uninteresting sequence of 1000 (in post 811) was patterned enough for him to consider it special. (I explained how I made that, and how the "pattern" would be a section of 100 results with a boatload of wildcards scattered in them. Or you could simply say the pattern was TTT*HH, where the asterisk wildcard represents 995 unspecified results.)

What fraction of the 1024 values appear 'special' to you?

As Rodney responded to that question--if "special" means "synchronous"-- (very early when I was pointing out that he was using the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), he can't answer that ahead of time.

It's just like the game played in Uri Geller's "find the elevens" in 9/11-related stuff chain e-mail. The rules are completely arbitrary and you can make up whatever rule you need after the fact to be sure to get the desired answer.

 

[RVM45]

Alright, as I understand it:

Determinism Means that the Universe at any Time T(1), is composed of N(1) basic objects; each at it's respective Position P(1); with M(1) Momentum.

Chaos Theory means that we'll never be much good at predicting the long range state of any complex system--even systems far less complex than the Universe as a whole...

However, our inability to track everthing in no way negates the fact, at each subsequent moment T(2-infinity); you will find your particles in the only; the Inevitable places that their prior Position and Momentum "Pushed" them to...

There is no chance to Improvise--where could you come up with any thing or force that wasn't a result of some other particle or force; following immutable Rules?

Einstein was a Determinist. For some reason, he found the concept soothing--though if he was right, his pleasure at contemplating a Determinstic Universe was simply the result of a number of atoms following their predetermined path inside Albert's skull...

And there is no way that any concievable creature could evolve above acting on mere necessity.

Now along comes Quantum Theory. Einstein thought that Quantum Weirdness was merely an edifice of Human ignorance--but deep down--perhaps too deeply for mankind to ever penetrate--nonetheless, Quantum events were also Deterministic.

Few folks believe that today. The want to posit a Universe that is Detetrministic in the short term, on a small enough scale; but that is constantly injecting Random Numbers into the mix, via Quantum Effects...

And given Chaos theory, even the most obscure unpreposessing Random Numbers change the game into something unrecognizable, surprisingly quickly...

For a number to be Totally Random, it must be Acausual in principle...

But this really accomplishes little philosophically. In a Deterministic Universe you follow a script. In a Deterministic/Random Number Universe, you stop to roll dice every so often--to determine which pre-planned trajectory that you will follow 'till the next Acausual dice roll...

Then Bell Labs gets to testing the Einstein-Rosen effect.(In the '60's? '70's?) Yee-Haw! In at least some limited cases, there does Appear to be "Action at a Distance"--Synchronicity, yes...

But how can anyone weave the startling, but completely baffling results of the Einstein-Rosen Synchronicity to "Prove" the validity of Fortune Telling Dreams and Deja vu?

At most, we can say that it isn't possible to rule out such things by pure deduction--at this point in time...

.....RVM45

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But how can anyone weave the startling, but completely baffling results of the Einstein-Rosen Synchronicity to "Prove" the validity of Fortune Telling Dreams and Deja vu?

I'll take a stab at this much: I think they don't seem to understand that the quantum weirdness is only weird because it doesn't happen in the macro world. So claiming these weird things can happen to people or teapots because they happen to subatomic particles is . . um. . . wei--unreasonable.

Also, there's that problem they frequently have of confusing "observations" in physics (measurements that might be made with a machine) with something to do with consciousness, but that's probably for one of the "consciousness" threads. (Perhaps the phrase "observer effect" is the source of this misunderstanding.)

 

[RVM45]

Yeah, if Quantum level events are truly "Random"--meaning, in the only way that I can make sense of the concept--that occasionally, on the very small scale, an effect leaps forth with no prior cause--and goes on to become a cause in its own right...

#1} That pretty much squashes Determinism.

#2} Per the Chaos Theory, even minute differences of a subatomic particle or two; will have geometrically increasing significance with time.

#3} That even disproves Determinism on the Macroscopic Scale--though not through any "Giant Quantum Paradoxes".

But I can't begin to see what an indeterminacy at the Subatomic level can be used for--I mean, I see no way for men to use the effect to advantage.

.....RVM34

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah, if Quantum level events are truly "Random"--meaning, in the only way that I can make sense of the concept--that occasionally, on the very small scale, an effect leaps forth with no prior cause--and goes on to become a cause in its own right...

#1} That pretty much squashes Determinism.

#2} Per the Chaos Theory, even minute differences of a subatomic particle or two; will have geometrically increasing significance with time.

#3} That even disproves Determinism on the Macroscopic Scale--though not through any "Giant Quantum Paradoxes".

But I can't begin to see what an indeterminacy at the Subatomic level can be used for--I mean, I see no way for men to use the effect to advantage.

.....RVM34

As I understand quantum physics, the indeterminancy of subatomic particles doesn't have nearly as much effect on the macroscopic world as you would think. Although it isn't CERTAIN that a macroscopic object will behave as expected, the probability is extremely high that nearly all of the subatomic particles that make it up will cooperate with the laws of physics.

That makes it pretty hard to apply quantum effects to the real world.

 

[fls]

As I understand quantum physics, the indeterminancy of subatomic particles doesn't have nearly as much effect on the macroscopic world as you would think. Although it isn't CERTAIN that a macroscopic object will behave as expected, the probability is extremely high that nearly all of the subatomic particles that make it up will cooperate with the laws of physics.

That makes it pretty hard to apply quantum effects to the real world.

One of the physics people on this forum provided a link to a very interesting paper which essentially said that chaos was the macroscopic rendering of indeterminacy (the link is on a different computer, but I'll post it when I get there). There's still no way to get from that to synchronicity or anything psi, though.

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

One of the physics people on this forum provided a link to a very interesting paper which essentially said that chaos was the macroscopic rendering of indeterminacy (the link is on a different computer, but I'll post it when I get there). There's still no way to get from that to synchronicity or anything psi, though.

I would very much like to see that. I always thought chaos theory was no contradiction to determinism (in the macro world). It was just a hypersensitivity to minute changes in initial conditions that make it difficult to predict outcomes after a certain time. (We can predict the weather with pretty good accuracy up to 24 hours in advance, but beyond that, it gets more and more difficult.)

At any rate, as I've been saying on several threads lately, the reason the quantum weirdness is "weird" is precisely because it doesn't happen in the macro world, so arguing that quantum weirdness happens at the macroscopic level is just wrong. (ETA: If it were otherwise, and people, for example could become "entangled" and affect each other at a distance, then such phenomena would be mundane and not exceptional or "weird".)

I don't know how the bleep someone would think it does!

 

[fls]

Here is the article I was talking about:

"Linking Quantum Physics and Classical Chaos"

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is the article I was talking about:

"Linking Quantum Physics and Classical Chaos"

Linda

Thanks.

Best I can tell, this article says that it's possible to use classical chaos equations to describe that which used to only be described by QM (electrons, for example). That is, that the quantum world can be described as being more like the macro world rather than the other way around.

From the article:

"Lots of new physical phenomena have been exposed," Jensen says. "In some cases, the quantum behavior can look very much like classical chaos. In other cases, quantum systems have behavior that is completely different from classical chaos but which nevertheless reflects some aspects of the underlying classical mechanics."

 

[Dr H]

No, but would you discount all witness accounts, no matter how many and no matter how credible?

It isn't so much a matter of discounting witness accounts, as one of giving them their proper weight. Testimony is anecdotal evidence, which by its nature is suspect because it can be skewed in so many ways, both deliberately and otherwise. By itself, it is therefore only suggestive, at best.

 

[Dr H]

One of the physics people on this forum provided a link to a very interesting paper which essentially said that chaos was the macroscopic rendering of indeterminacy (the link is on a different computer, but I'll post it when I get there). There's still no way to get from that to synchronicity or anything psi, though.

Linda

Did you try moving the link from one computer to the other psychokinetically?

 

[Rodney]

It isn't so much a matter of discounting witness accounts, as one of giving them their proper weight. Testimony is anecdotal evidence, which by its nature is suspect because it can be skewed in so many ways, both deliberately and otherwise. By itself, it is therefore only suggestive, at best.

So what kind of weight would you give if, say at the next TAM, a dozen Randi Forum members on a field trip all report seeing a UFO and then each sign affidavits to that effect?

 

[Prometheus]

So what kind of weight would you give if, say at the next TAM, a dozen Randi Forum members on a field trip all report seeing a UFO and then each sign affidavits to that effect?

At TAM? No weight at all, as we could pretty well chalk that up to booze.

 

[fromdownunder]

So what kind of weight would you give if, say at the next TAM, a dozen Randi Forum members on a field trip all report seeing a UFO and then each sign affidavits to that effect?

It depends on the definition of UFO being used. If it was the normal definition, I would say OK, that's fine. I have seen a UFO, and would sign an affidavit to that effect.

If it was a definition which read "UFO = aliens" I would ask for evidence which indicated it was of alien origin.

[/off topic]

Norm

 

[aggle-rithm]

So what kind of weight would you give if, say at the next TAM, a dozen Randi Forum members on a field trip all report seeing a UFO and then each sign affidavits to that effect?

??

Why would they sign affidavits saying they saw something in the air they couldn't identify? Not everyone wastes time contemplating nonsense.

 

[Sherlock]

Response to Fnord and Bluesjnr

On earlier comment posted:

Coincidence + Confirmation Bias = Synchronicity

Let me add a second variant (one of many):

Fraud + Unchecked analysis + Free spinning media = Synchronicity, psycho kinesis, psychic psychometry, paranormal effects.

 

[Rodney]

?? Why would they sign affidavits saying they saw something in the air they couldn't identify? Not everyone wastes time contemplating nonsense.

To make this more explicit, let's say that they all signed affidavits saying that what each of them saw was a large flying disc that hovered about 100 meters over their heads for a few seconds, then disappeared at a high rate of speed, and that among the signers were Penn and Teller, Randi, and several physicists and astronomers. How much weight would you accord that?

 

[Dr H]

To make this more explicit, let's say that they all signed affidavits saying that what each of them saw was a large flying disc that hovered about 100 meters over their heads for a few seconds, then disappeared at a high rate of speed, and that among the signers were Penn and Teller, Randi, and several physicists and astronomers. How much weight would you accord that?

As much as any other testimony that was lacking in corroborative physical evidence.

It is not unusual to see UFO's, by the way; I have seen many. It's leaping to the conclusion that said UFO is of extraterrestrial origin (rather than an earthly air- or space-craft, or an astronomical, meteorlogical, or psychophysiological phenomenon) that is the problem.

And Penn, Teller, and Randi are all professional illusionists, after all...

 

[Prometheus]

To make this more explicit, let's say that they all signed affidavits saying that what each of them saw was a large flying disc that hovered about 100 meters over their heads for a few seconds, then disappeared at a high rate of speed, and that among the signers were Penn and Teller, Randi, and several physicists and astronomers. How much weight would you accord that?

I would presume the most likely explanation was that some sequel to the Carlos affair was afoot.