I think that there are various kinds of synchronicities, some more important than others. On a basic level, it is just simple patterns. I can give a very basic one. I was on the bus recently and I happened to be reading a book which was giving a description of a tattoo and as I glanced up, I saw a woman standing beside me covered in a tattoo. It was a mirroring of my own thinking in relation to a book, but it was extremely mundane and I would not call it a real synchronicity because the description of a tattoo or the woman walking past me seemed of little connection and it was a mere mirror of what I was reading.

It would be possible to see all synchronicities in this way and it is the understanding of the significance for the personal experiences which makes them what they are. What Jung argued was that they are more likely to be manifest in archetypal aspects of life. I think that is why they are noticed more in relation to aspects of life such as death, and I think that premonitions of death are most commonly reported. It may be a tuning in to the archetypal dimensions of existence.

I agree that the relationship between science and metaphysics is complex. As a child I was so puzzled by so much, especially the nature of time and science brings knowledge and the idea of relativity makes the nature of time so much easier to understand. I think that the level of scientific knowledge informs metaphysical assumptions, which can be verified through empirical searching and researching. The findings may be a starting point for revision of initial metaphysical assumptions, which lie behind all models and theories.

@180 Proof
I am all in favour of scientific explanations and theories and do not think we should just make up beliefs. However, I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels. I think that this is being recognised within critical analysis of evidence based research and practice.

I never said its complex. Far from it. Andronicus of Rhodes made it really simple for us. While classifying Aristotle's work, Andronicus realized that the philosophy in the books following the work on "PHYSIKA"( physics aka modern science) Aristotle's speculations and hypothesis were based on what he realized while doing his "physics".
So metaphysics in science is nothing more than constructing testable hypotheses based on our current available data.

-"However, I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels."
-Sure, this is human nature...and this is why we came up with a method to monitor and prevent that behavior. Its known as....science and it comes with high standards and a self correcting mechanism.
This is why bad science doesn't survive long(usually is put down before peer reviewing) and when it does manage to sneak in our epistemology is good science that brings it down.
This is why meta analysis and objective independent verification are so valuable tools.

More on this please. Gracias. — TheMadFool

If in a general way you take an evolutionary or process view of reality - what exists is what is self-stabilising - then symmetry principles explain what is likely to be the case because it is the most stable and persistent outcome of symmetry breaking.

So a wheel emerges as the shape that exemplifies rotational symmetry. If you want something to roll smoothly and with the least friction, then a circle is as simple as it gets. It doesn't get simpler. The circle is the limit towards which all else tends.

This is the general story behind all physics - the search for the ultimate simplicity in terms of breaking possibilities down to the point where they have got as simple as it is possible to be. At that point, flux becomes stability.

So in a state of thermal equilibrium, all the particles are in busy motion. But it no longer makes a difference. The distribution of the momenta has converged on a stable Gaussian distribution. The system has a stable temperature and pressure.

Or if we are talking about Newtonian mechanics, reality boils down to the simplicity of zero D points that then have the irreducible freedoms of translation and rotation. Point particles are constrained to a location, but remain free to move inertially in a straight line or spin on the spot.

Symmetry principles - Noether's conservation symmetries - predict the limits of geometric constraint. You can limit the motion of a ball in many ways, but - in a frictionless world - you can't stop it rolling in a straight line forever.

Gauge or permutation symmetry in particle physics explains why protons and electrons exist. Again, starting with all possible arrangements, only some particular arrangement winds up being the simplest achievable. Once you arrive at that state, you can't go further. There is no north of the north pole, as they say.

Existence is change meeting its match in the shape of a limiting state of indifference. Change might continue, but it makes no real difference.

The particles of a gas at equilibrium are as restless as ever. But their distribution remains the same in terms of its collective average.

A wheel might wear with use, but it doesn't continue to evolve into another shape.

The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler.

But we’re not talking about the abstract probability of an event occurring or not occurring within 24 hours here. The event is relatively improbable, sure. But it’s as improbable as any other specified five minute period. — Possibility

The problem as to mathematical probability is rather simple - the answer to the question, what is the probability of the conjunction of two events, 1) I should talk/think about/of Will Smith and 2) Will Smith happening to walk by at that particular moment?

For simplicity but without affecting the strength of my argument, let's assume that I know only 4 people, one of them being Will Smith and let's assume that the probability of me thinking about any of the 4 is equal. Ergo, the probability that I'll have Will Smith on my mind is $\frac{1}{4} = 25\%$

Come now to the probability that Will Smith should be in the same location as I am. Suppose there are only 4 spots Will Smith can be and him being at any one of them is, again, $\frac{1}{4} = 25\%$

Therefore,

Scenario 1:

The probability that I should be thinking of Will Smith AND Will Smith walking by is = $25\% \times 25\% = 6.25\%$

What about the opposite scenario?

Scenario 2:

The probability of Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him = $75\% \times 75\% = 56.25\%$

56.25% > 6.25% [It's relatively improbable that scenario 1 should occur rather than scenario 2]

Intriguingly, if I know only 2 people and any of these two can be at one of only 2 possible locations, the concept of synchronicity has no leg to stand on.

If in a general way you take an evolutionary or process view of reality - what exists is what is self-stabilising - then symmetry principles explain what is likely to be the case because it is the most stable and persistent outcome of symmetry breaking.

So a wheel emerges as the shape that exemplifies rotational symmetry. If you want something to roll smoothly and with the least friction, then a circle is as simple as it gets. It doesn't get simpler. The circle is the limit towards which all else tends.

This is the general story behind all physics - the search for the ultimate simplicity in terms of breaking possibilities down to the point where they have got as simple as it is possible to be. At that point, flux becomes stability.

So in a state of thermal equilibrium, all the particles are in busy motion. But it no longer makes a difference. The distribution of the momenta has converged on a stable Gaussian distribution. The system has a stable temperature and pressure.

Or if we are talking about Newtonian mechanics, reality boils down to the simplicity of zero D points that then have the irreducible freedoms of translation and rotation. Point particles are constrained to a location, but remain free to move inertially in a straight line or spin on the spot.

Symmetry principles - Noether's conservation symmetries - predict the limits of geometric constraint. You can limit the motion of a ball in many ways, but - in a frictionless world - you can't stop it rolling in a straight line forever.

Gauge or permutation symmetry in particle physics explains why protons and electrons exist. Again, starting with all possible arrangements, only some particular arrangement winds up being the simplest achievable. Once you arrive at that state, you can't go further. There is no north of the north pole, as they say.

Existence is change meeting its match in the shape of a limiting state of indifference. Change might continue, but it makes no real difference.

The particles of a gas at equilibrium are as restless as ever. But their distribution remains the same in terms of its collective average.

A wheel might wear with use, but it doesn't continue to evolve into another shape.

The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler. — apokrisis

To begin with, thanks for keeping it simple. Can we then say that simplicity (I don't know how it's defined but my understanding is that it means something like if a certain phenomenon starts off with, say, a hexagon and if a triangle should also work insofar as the phenomenon in question is concerned, nature will ultimately settle on a triangle) is some kind of telos for the natural world. If yes, how does that relate to synchronicity?

Can we then say that simplicity ... is some kind of telos for the natural world. — TheMadFool

As a telos, it would be a material tendency rather than a sentient purpose - what Salthe calls teleomaty rather than teleology.

And rather than just being a drive towards simplicity, it would be a drive towards generality.

To be simple is merely to lack a mess of particulars. To be generic is when every particular ceases to make a difference. So the general is a limit on change not because change is halted, but because it becomes a matter of indifference.

An equilibrium system fluctuates, but the fluctuations all average out.

A disc sitting on a surface could be rotating at any speed, or even be at rest. Unless the disc has its symmetry broken by some kind on tell-tale mark, or we will see is that it is circular. The particulars of its rotation are absorbed into the generality of its rotational symmetry.

(A triangle looks exactly the same every third of a rotation, a hexagon on every sixth rotation. A circle in fact has an infinite number of edges, so always looks the same. A triangle in fact makes a worse wheel than a pentagon for that reason ... but is the simplest answer for producing strong structures or describing networks of relations.)

If yes, how does that relate to synchronicity? — TheMadFool

My comments have nothing to do with synchronicity. Although physics certainly has good models of synchrony.

As a telos, it would be a material tendency rather than a sentient purpose - what Salthe calls teleomaty rather than teleology. — apokrisis

I see but...speaking from how humans think and how we're so bowled over by efficiency, is it wrong to say that there's an uncanny resemblance between teleology and teleomaty? Wouldn't an intelligent sentience design (teleology) a world in which teleomaty is a priority?

I am not sure how Will Smith has become the focus in the thread — Jack Cummins

I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels. — Jack Cummins

No doubt, but biases =/= "underlying theories ... metaphysics" which you conflate. Peer review, though not without implicit biases itself, and rigorous repeatable experiments mitigate the distorting effects of the "intention of the researcher and biases" as much as practically possible, which is a far greater methodological corrective than employed individually or collectively by any other non-scientific (or merely subjective) endeavor. I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. The alternatives, such as they are, do not work remotely as well theoretically or experientially, though, for most with a folk mentality, are more existentially sarisfying (like myths, fairytales, self-flattering ego-fantasies, and other fetish-like placebos). Idle, unwarranted, suspicions like yours (& other woo-seekers) tend only to stupify and not clarify matters as warranted doubts usually do.

No doubt, but biases =/= "underlying theories ... metaphysics" which you conflate. Peer review, though not without implicit biases itself, and rigorous repeatable experiments mitigate the distorting effects of the "intention of the researcher and biases" as much as practically possible, which is a far greater methodological corrective than employed individually or collectively by any other non-scientific (or merely subjective) endeavor. I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. The alternatives, such as they are, do not work remotely as well theoretically or experientially, though, for most with a folk mentality, are more existentially sarisfying (like myths, fairytales, self-flattering ego-fantasies, and other fetish-like placebos). Idle, unwarranted, suspicions like yours (& other woo-seekers) tend only to stupify and not clarify matters as warranted doubts usually do. — 180 Proof

Did you know?

Carl Gustav Jung was only 1 of 3 people involved in the exploration of synchronicity as a subject in its own right. The other two were preeminent physicists of their time. They were

The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler. — apokrisis

:100: :fire:

And your point is?

And your point is? — 180 Proof

There maybe something to synchronicity as in it may not be just some crazy idea that popped out of an overactive imagination. Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli weren't village idiots; that they gave synchronicity some weightage, even if only a little, in their weltanshcauungs must mean synchronicity needs to be investigated seriously, scientifically. That's all. What say you?

I say "so what"? Scientists speculate and fantasize like everyone else because, belonging to the same species, all of us – Einstein & Pauli too – are congenitally afflicted with the same functional defects (including cognitive biases). "Synchronicity" is ex post facto confabulated confirmation bias – at most. In the final analysis, Fool, woo is still just woo. (Btw, I very much prefer "magic" in my D&D or Traveller, don't you? :nerd:)

I say "so what"? Scientists speculate and fantasize like everyone else because, belonging to the same species, all of us – Einstein & Pauli too – are congenitally afflicted with the same functional defects (including cognitive biases). "Synchronicity" is ex post facto confabulated confirmation bias – at most. In the final analysis, Fool, woo is still just woo. (Btw, I very much prefer "magic" when playing D&D or Traveller, don't you? :nerd:) — 180 Proof

You have a point and you make it with exceptional alacrity.

If you have the time, why don't we simply engage in an open-ended discussion on the subject? Perhaps we might discover a truth or something interesting in the pile of, what you think is, bullshit (synchronicity).

First off, what does synchronicity mean?

It's defined as a meaningul coincidence which, prima facie, seems reasonable but, on closer examination, is a tautology - coincidences are, by definition, meaningful and that's why they're coincidences. The simple conjunction of events is an everyday affair e.g. my turning on the faucet in my toilet and my next door neighbor playing his drums but these are not what we call coincidences. Ergo, if a coincidence, necessarily meaningful. That's that.

Why are coincidences important to us? Why does it enthrall us so much?

One possible reason:

Lottery winning: To experience a coincidence (rarest of rarities) is similar to winning a lottery (near-zero probability) and here's where it gets interesting. Highly unlikely is very close, too close I suppose, to impossible. Mathematically, impossible simply means 0% probability of occuring or, another way of saying that is, not chance.

The concept of chance only applies if given a possibility space consisting of all possibile outcomes in a scenario under consideration. Certain & impossible, though expressible as probabilities of 100% and 0%, aren't probabilistic i.e. events that are certain/impossible are outside the universe of chance/probability.

Well, if it's not chance, what is it?

This is where you come in (if you consider this a worthwhile enterprise). What say you?

"Synchronicity" is ex post facto confabulated confirmation bias – at most. — 180 Proof

Look for faces in clouds, you'll "see" some. That's it.

"Synchronicity" is ex post facto confabulated confirmation bias – at most.
— 180 Proof
That's it. — 180 Proof

It cannot be confirmation bias because that would mean people are selecting events that confirm a hypothesis and brushing aside disconfirming evidence.

In the case of synchronicity, there's no list of events to choose from in which case you could accuse someone of confirmation bias.

Even a single event qualifies as a coincidence. Most coincidences are of this sort, they have to be. You know that!

"Synchronicity" denotes correlating otherwise contextually disparate, coincidental, events by an "apparent" symbolic or empirical resemblance. The subsequent event "seems to resemble" the precedent event, and therein lies the "illusion – bias – of confirming" the precedent by the subsequent.

I have read your recent posts and I can see the problem of bias, in interpretation of synchronicity as one aspect of life, but I think that the issue goes deeper than that. I think that what it amounts to is the fact that it may not be possible to go beyond bias completely at all. I would argue that in relation to the issue of chance, on the topic of chance, which is an area of speculation mostly people who believe that in the idea of synchronicity and those who don't believe in are probably both coming from specific vantage points which are laden with personal interpretations. I think that it is probably related to our basic philosophy premises and experience of how we have experienced life. For someone who experiences synchronicity, the idea makes sense whereas I am sure that for many, especially those who come from a scientific materialist perspective, I am sure that the idea probably appears as rather absurd.

"Synchronicity" denotes correlating otherwise contextually disparate, coincidental, events by an "apparent" symbolic or empirical resemblance. The subsequent event "seems to resemble" the precedent event, and therein lies the "illusion – bias – of confirming" the precedent by the subsequent. — 180 Proof

Confirmation bias: Requires a hypothesis that is erroneously, well, confirmed.

Synchronicity is a hypothesis: Coincidences occur; I'm excluding the other associated beliefs which you might feel is woo-woo.

Coincidences do occur.

I fail to see the confirmation bias.

I have read your recent posts and I can see the problem of bias, in interpretation of synchronicity as one aspect of life, but I think that the issue goes deeper than that. I think that what it amounts to is the fact that it may not be possible to go beyond bias completely at all. I would argue that in relation to the issue of chance, on the topic of chance, which is an area of speculation mostly people who believe that in the idea of synchronicity and those who don't believe in are probably both coming from specific vantage points which are laden with personal interpretations. I think that it is probably related to our basic philosophy premises and experience of how we have experienced life. For someone who experiences synchronicity, the idea makes sense whereas I am sure that for many, especially those who come from a scientific materialist perspective, I am sure that the idea probably appears as rather absurd. — Jack Cummins

Right!

Private conviction without corroborative, public evidence is only privately meaningful ... like e.g. hallucinations.

I fail to see the confirmation bias. — TheMadFool

Apparently.

:up: I'll seek your counsel if I have anything worth the pixels to add.

I think that the point about 'private conviction without corroborative issues'raises an interesting but slightly different discussion insofar as it is not about scientific backing but about shared aspects of experience. I come from the background of working in psychiatric care, which is concerned with what is regarded as valid or acceptable basis of belief, or what is regarded as delusion.

I think that people forming ideas on the basis of a hallucination is problematic, especially when people begin to pay more attention to such aspects of life. For example, an extreme would be if someone begins to pay attention to voices and this can even lead to people following them, with all kinds of potential disastrous consequences. However, the theory of synchronicity is not this at all. In particular, if a person had premonitions of someone' s death and went on to believe that they were responsible for the death that would be the translation of experience into delusion. The theory of synchronicity, is, on the other hand a theoretical framework from which to understand the experience rationally.

If "synchronicity" is "theoretical" (i.e. explanatory) as you claim, Jack, what unique predictions can be deduced from such a "theory" and thereby tested experimentally?

I think that what it amounts to is the fact that it may not be possible to go beyond bias completely at all. — Jack Cummins

We first have to know the different kinds of bias. Here's a list of 10 cognitive biases:
https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763

I think that it is probably related to our basic philosophy premises and experience of how we have experienced life. — Jack Cummins

It's us being human...

While people like to believe that they are rational and logical, the fact is that people are continually under the influence of cognitive biases. These biases distort thinking, influence beliefs, and sway the decisions and judgments that people make each and every day.

Sometimes these biases are fairly obvious, and you might even find that you recognize these tendencies in yourself or others. In other cases, these biases are so subtle that they are almost impossible to notice. — Cognitive biases distort thinking

Are we so busy looking for the motes in the eyes of others that we fail to notice our own ?
Despite no longer holding a Christian faith - the Bible still holds wisdom in its pages:

MATTHEW 7:3 KJV "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

***
Look at this:

For someone who experiences synchronicity, the idea makes sense whereas I am sure that for many, especially those who come from a scientific materialist perspective, I am sure that the idea probably appears as rather absurd. — Jack Cummins

N.B. The following is not meant as an attack on your person:
Have you noticed the frequency of certainty phrases in your writing, even as you pose questions ?
At one point, the most common was 'I do believe...' Repeated ad nauseam.
If I had a whisky every time I heard it, I would have been in an alcoholic coma
Here in a single paragraph: 'I am sure...' - even if you throw in a 'probably' to qualify.
Perhaps to take the hard edge off...a conviction you hold almost sacred...?

A pattern is observed.

I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. — 180 Proof

I suggest that those from a 'scientific materialist perspective' or those who undertake research have more knowledge of the cognitive biases and will acknowledge such in reports. It is part of their training and education.

The cognitive biases above are common, but this is only a sampling of the many biases that can affect your thinking. These biases collectively influence much of our thoughts and ultimately, decision making.

Many of these biases are inevitable. We simply don't have the time to evaluate every thought in every decision for the presence of any bias. Understanding these biases is very helpful in learning how they can lead us to poor decisions in life. — Cognitive biases distort thinking

Shared aspects of experience are fine...up to a point.
It depends on what, with whom and why they are important. How do you assess ?

Synchronicity theory

The theory largely relies on metaphysics and the belief of a universal unconscious. It is for this reason that synchronicity seems similar to the Law of Attraction and the principle of vibration as their relationship shall be discussed later. Carl Jung believed synchronicity could explain and describe the universal dynamic that governed all human experience the social, spiritual, emotional, and psychological. — Synchronicity meaning and examples: Reality or Bias

So, how biased is this article ?
If it is about belief as in religion, then some will hold it as a matter of faith
Others will not. Some will reserve judgement or not see it as terribly important.

We can ask the question: We sometimes have these feelings. What, if any, are the implications ?
What is at stake? Psychological comfort ?

But, do you think that everything can be proved or disproved through official 'experiments'. The main reason why I chose not to do a degree in psychology was because I did 'A' level psychology and felt that experimental psychology was so shallow. I am not dismissing experiments completely but just don't think that it is all about laboratory and statistics. I think that life itself is the greatest experiment.

The main reason why I chose not to do a degree in psychology was because I did 'A' level psychology and felt that experimental psychology was so shallow. — Jack Cummins

You feel and judge from a single experience. I am reminded of your swift assessment of a short story.
Dismissing it - from its title alone. In that case, fairly unimportant consequences.
Consider how your habits of thinking/decision-making might appear 'shallow' to others ?
What are the implications in your 'life experiment' ?

Experimental psychology.

Isn't that how Jung came to his conclusions. The ones you admire so much ?

Jung recorded the response of his patients in word-association technique. He also, used to observe the time taken to answer. He recorded whether certain type of words lead to particular behavior or even perspiration. Jung believed that by word- association technique, he was exploring unconscious as Freud did, using free association and dream analysis.

Based on his experimentation, particularly word-association, Jung developed the concept of unconscious. His concept of unconscious, is fairly different from what Freud has proposed. — What is Analytical Psychology of Carl Jung ?