He may have unraveled the secret of synchronicity. Will science prove him right?|306|

Max sent me this: http://www.photocosm.com/2016/02/light-is-coming-to-the-usa.html

I think he's right... I think I let Eric off too easy.

Hi Alex, this made me smile! - I quote from the article you just posted: "Maybe the Italian language was better suited for discussing his theory. French used to be the language for diplomacy, and German was highly regarded for science. In Italian, Dr. Wargo could have made his teoria exciting, happy, sunny with a Mediterranean air!" -

To me this is yet another minor synchronicity: I'm Italian. Not even Italian-American, I mean born and raised in Italy, Europe, 100% "made in Italy" :-). This joke was after all uncalled for (there was no need to refer to foreign languages in a post about a podcast on synchronicity). OK so Italians are stereotypically considered "not serious" as a people, so he *had* to refer to the Italian language to make fun of Dr Wargo. But then again, how many women (or even men) from Italy are posting in the Skeptiko Forum? (and I've only joined because I'm trying to make sense of my synchronicities).
 
Which is more reasonable:
-Our will/intention makes this happen or
-God (or another higher power) is doing it as part of a game that God is playing with us.

The validity of this argument is further enhanced by considering the nature of the data (which is rather like rather a large number of psi phenomena). So, what data do we get? Do we get data which is clear, repeatable and unambiguous? Of course not. We get just enough so that our interest is piqued and no more.

I've said this on Skeptiko several times but I'll say it again. All this paranormal stuff seems to me to be "regulated" so that it dances just out of reach. We see it there, we are enticed but we can never really grab it and pin it down.

So, I feel life is a kind of game and the paranormal is a "Easter Egg" in the game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(media) ). But, of course, there are some brutal things in this life so in some ways it seems a pretty nasty game for some people. I don't really have an answer to that.
Very useful food for thought, thank you, Alan! I realise that it's probably a question of personality: some people have actually told me that they like life to be a mystery, while I am a very empathic person and, for example, find it hard even to accept that while I'm so privileged to be able to ponder such questions there are others in distress (you said in another post that "it's strange" that certain horrible things happen; to me it's downright incomprehensible, if there is a supposedly benevolent God behind it all, as you say). And the suffering in this world is not only man-made - I say this because usually believers put all the blame on us human beings: we're sinners, we're evil, that's why we suffer. I disagree. I think the vast majority of us are doing our best, especially since we are born with many needs and urges which we certainly did not create ourselves. All beings (not just humans) have to struggle to survive, and our bodies are fragile. Today I was talking to a colleague at work who had breast cancer twice and therefore underwent a double mastectomy; she's younger than me, has a very young child - she had the "breast cancer gene" (see Angelina Jolie) so it's not even a question of lifestyle, she's not to be blamed in any way, it's the way this reality function that's deeply flawed in my opinion. Many animals need to kill each other on a daily basis in order to survive: "nature red in tooth and claw". if I had been God I would not have created a material world that functions in this way. And if there was no other way (but isn't God supposed to be almighty?), maybe I would not have created anything in order to avoid anybody suffering (and moreover living in a mystery, not even knowing what they are doing here). Again, it's a question of personality, how we "feel" about the world makes the difference. So I won't argue with you :-) You give God the benefit of the doubt (and assume that he means well), I don't, and in any case I deeply dislike his methods, especially if it were true, as you say, that "this is a game that God is playing with us": I don't like people who play games with me, especially nasty ones (your own apt definition), but that's OK. I don't even believe in God btw, I'm agnostic. It goes without saying that I'd rather there was no God if s/he/it is like you describe....
 
Wish I had more time to participate in this thread as this is a favorite topic of mine right now.

If we view synchronicity as evidence of a "plan" that implies a higher order intelligence (or higher subconscious) authoring the storylines. If we view synchronicity as a mechanism, then it might be something more like gravity in the 5th dimension - curvatures and densities in meaning-space. Highly meaningful events (emotionally charged events or choices) send out field lines forwards and backwards in time and can possibly attract more meaningful events. A synchronicity might be like doing a loop through the 5th dimension while orbiting around a dense area of meaning-space. Many have noted that synchs occur more frequently during travel or periods of change or breaking out of the daily routine. These are periods when we increase the meaning that we experience. It could be that meaning attracts meaning.

Asking how synchs occur implies mechanism. Asking why implies conscious intention. Asking either question persistently results in the blurring of mechanism and mentality into ineffability.
Brilliant post - I do hope you'll find the time to continue to participate in this thread. Your contribution also led me to your blog and in particular to your latest post ("Logos, Abyss and Spirit") which was of great interest to me. So once again I'm really glad to be here, thank you again Alex! :)
The arguments you present are very cogent. However, I don't necessarily associate the concept of synchronicity to the concept of meaning as you do. I guess the concept of meaning is as elusive and subjective as the concept of God..... I find that many synchronicities are pretty meaningless (based on my idea of "meaning"): they only make me experience a feeling of improbability and hence unreality about my experience (as if I was in a dream, or in a "Candid camera" kind of situation) but they do not convey an unmistakeable, specific meaning like "do this" or "don't do that", although as I said most people who believe in synchronicity seem to (or wish to) interpret them as specific messages. To me they are more like Rorschach inkblots: you see that there is some kind of structure/symmetry, there's some unmistakeable order in the randomness of the blot, but as to what the blot actually shows ....your guess is as good as mine!
 
Last edited:
nice :) does seem like a hall of mirrors. so how do we balance the reality of the syncro-mystic and the scientist?

I think you'll find all the answers you're looking for in the LEGO Movie :) ...seriously... that would be a good one for "Skeptiko at the movies."

Science is the study of patterns. The mistake made in scientism is to believe that there is only pattern without ambiguity and therefore without opportunity for choice or novelty and therefore without meaning. Pattern is a combination of objective existence and subjective overlay of boundaries. Scientism denies the role of this subjective component and denies the limits of logic. I say embrace the fruits of the study of patterns but recognize the limits of logic and enjoy being in the middle of mystery.
 
Brilliant post - I do hope you'll find the time to continue to participate in this thread. Your contribution also led me to your blog and in particular to your latest post ("Logos, Abyss and Spirit") which was of great interest to me. So once again I'm really glad to be here, thank you again Alex! :)
The arguments you present are very cogent. However, I don't necessarily associate the concept of synchronicity to the concept of meaning as you do. I guess the concept of meaning is as elusive and subjective as the concept of God..... I find that many synchronicities are pretty meaningless (based on my idea of "meaning"): they only make me experience a feeling of improbability and hence unreality about my experience (as if I was in a dream, or in a "Candid camera" kind of situation) but they do not convey an unmistakeable, specific meaning like "do this" or "don't do that", although as I said most people who believe in synchronicity seem to (or wish to) interpret them as specific messages. To me they are more like Rorschach inkblots: you see that there is some kind of structure/symmetry, there's some unmistakeable order in the randomness of the blot, but as to what the blot actually shows ....your guess is as good as mine!

Thanks for your kind words. :)

I think that meaning and probability are probably closely related concepts. If things go as expected in the routine sort of way, meaning is usually very low. But when there is more uncertainty or something unexpected or more opportunity for choice, then meaning increases. I've said this a few times on here and maybe I sound like a broken record to some, but I think that meaning is generated by story and story could be thought of as the "4-D line" we trace out throughout our lives. We use spatial terms to describe stories. When the storyline is boring we say it is "flat." When the storyline takes a "plot twist" (through the 5th dimension) meaning is high. Think of an author writing a novel... the author might scatter foreshadowing clues throughout the book and begin arranging things in chapter 1 that affect the climax in chapter 33. The key events in chapter 42 would also have lines tracing back to the climax in chapter 33. If you were to draw out the storyline as a timeline and draw arcs from the point of the climactic event back to all these foreshadowing clues and all the key points in the plot that were actually setting it up, you might have something that looks like field lines of a magnet with the lines densely packed around the climactic event or "high meaning" event and the field stretches forwards and backwards in time. In this way a synchronicity or any meaningful event could be thought of as a 5D object or field. Psychics seem to look into this 5th dimension and pick up on the topography. Many NDE reports describe seeing things from a 5th dimensional perspective and being immediately drawn to the location of where interest or meaning occurs. It could be that when we are freed from the body we begin seeing our lives from the 5th dimensional perspective and being tracing out all the lines of meaning and experience this as a "life review."

It has been said that those who pay attention to synchronicities experience more of them. This could be the fact that we change our filter and also could be the fact that we have more of an emotional reaction and therefore assign more meaning to them. The person who shrugs things off as coincidence experiences less meaning around synchronicity so there is less magnetism or gravity in the 5th dimension pulling him towards synchs. Those of us on the look out for them get a little reward every time they happen so there is more of a draw towards them.

Looking at the tiniest particles which are subject to quantum uncertainty, we could think of it as the particle has a choice to make from one planck frame to the next. How does the particle get from its coordinates in 4D space in one planck frame to its coordinates in 4D space in the next planck frame? Through the 5th dimension of meaning space. Where the particle will go from one frame to the next is a matter of probability. And as long as the particle behaves the way it probably should it is meaningless from our perspective. But if the particle behaves in a way that is unexpected, this is meaningful. So when meditators try to alter the behavior of these particles, perhaps the meaning assigned to a shift in the probability creates a slight curvature in the 5D space in which the particle travels from planck frame to planck frame and on a mass scale this slight curvature in the 5th dimension gives us the results we see from RNG experiments. I'm by no means an expert on particle physics so maybe this is gobbledygook... maybe not. Anyway its how I model meaning from a spatial perspective.
 
Thanks for your kind words. :)

I think that meaning and probability are probably closely related concepts. If things go as expected in the routine sort of way, meaning is usually very low. But when there is more uncertainty or something unexpected or more opportunity for choice, then meaning increases. I've said this a few times on here and maybe I sound like a broken record to some, but I think that meaning is generated by story and story could be thought of as the "4-D line" we trace out throughout our lives. We use spatial terms to describe stories. When the storyline is boring we say it is "flat." When the storyline takes a "plot twist" (through the 5th dimension) meaning is high. Think of an author writing a novel... the author might scatter foreshadowing clues throughout the book and begin arranging things in chapter 1 that affect the climax in chapter 33. The key events in chapter 42 would also have lines tracing back to the climax in chapter 33. If you were to draw out the storyline as a timeline and draw arcs from the point of the climactic event back to all these foreshadowing clues and all the key points in the plot that were actually setting it up, you might have something that looks like field lines of a magnet with the lines densely packed around the climactic event or "high meaning" event and the field stretches forwards and backwards in time. In this way a synchronicity or any meaningful event could be thought of as a 5D object or field. Psychics seem to look into this 5th dimension and pick up on the topography. Many NDE reports describe seeing things from a 5th dimensional perspective and being immediately drawn to the location of where interest or meaning occurs. It could be that when we are freed from the body we begin seeing our lives from the 5th dimensional perspective and being tracing out all the lines of meaning and experience this as a "life review."

It has been said that those who pay attention to synchronicities experience more of them. This could be the fact that we change our filter and also could be the fact that we have more of an emotional reaction and therefore assign more meaning to them. The person who shrugs things off as coincidence experiences less meaning around synchronicity so there is less magnetism or gravity in the 5th dimension pulling him towards synchs. Those of us on the look out for them get a little reward every time they happen so there is more of a draw towards them.

Looking at the tiniest particles which are subject to quantum uncertainty, we could think of it as the particle has a choice to make from one planck frame to the next. How does the particle get from its coordinates in 4D space in one planck frame to its coordinates in 4D space in the next planck frame? Through the 5th dimension of meaning space. Where the particle will go from one frame to the next is a matter of probability. And as long as the particle behaves the way it probably should it is meaningless from our perspective. But if the particle behaves in a way that is unexpected, this is meaningful. So when meditators try to alter the behavior of these particles, perhaps the meaning assigned to a shift in the probability creates a slight curvature in the 5D space in which the particle travels from planck frame to planck frame and on a mass scale this slight curvature in the 5th dimension gives us the results we see from RNG experiments. I'm by no means an expert on particle physics so maybe this is gobbledygook... maybe not. Anyway its how I model meaning from a spatial perspective.

Yes, even though I've got some different views to yours, I too like how your thinking about these things... good stuff.

Two comments I would make...

Re your ideas about meaning... There have been some really good studies showing that we seem more likely to experience things perceptually when they are novel, this paper below shows such an effect... Incongruent objects (unexpected associations/new context etc) break into experience faster... these sorts of studies suggests to me that a core reason for why I have experience, has something do with learning new things... something to do with how I deal with (understand and store) new associations.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1203998.files/Course Readings/Week 6/Mudrik.pdf

On RNG's... when I looked into them I quickly realised there was a great deal of classical electronics and post programming added inside these devices to get anything random looking to appear at the output port. This is to such an extent, that one cannot be measuring 'quantum randomness' with these RNG's, as their internal post processing is deliberately smearing out whatever they are occasionally sampling, and redistributing it in a nicely useable way etc, so that you get a good random and nicely distributed output at the port... but not what was sampled.

It's utter rubbish in my view that Radin and the GCP are measuring anything useful here. And on two occasions, I've seen Radin use a specific RNG device for a field study which is known to be very suseptible to changes in the power feeding it... then attaching the RNG to a laptop powered by batteries... Where by changes in output from the battery as it drains, result in the RNG output changing. He's then gone back to the lab, and tested the laptop and RNG on mains power, showing that there is no change in RNG output over time, when compared to the field experiment. He then claims that the field experiment is showing something different from the lab, and claims this difference is significant... But all he's done is show that the RNG output alters, as the laptop battery is drained.
 
Thanks for your kind words. :)

I think that meaning and probability are probably closely related concepts. If things go as expected in the routine sort of way, meaning is usually very low. But when there is more uncertainty or something unexpected or more opportunity for choice, then meaning increases. I've said this a few times on here and maybe I sound like a broken record to some, but I think that meaning is generated by story and story could be thought of as the "4-D line" we trace out throughout our lives. We use spatial terms to describe stories. When the storyline is boring we say it is "flat." When the storyline takes a "plot twist" (through the 5th dimension) meaning is high. Think of an author writing a novel... the author might scatter foreshadowing clues throughout the book and begin arranging things in chapter 1 that affect the climax in chapter 33. The key events in chapter 42 would also have lines tracing back to the climax in chapter 33. If you were to draw out the storyline as a timeline and draw arcs from the point of the climactic event back to all these foreshadowing clues and all the key points in the plot that were actually setting it up, y.

Another very impressive post by you, Hurmanetar, but I feel the need to bring this conversation somewhat closer to earth :), I hope you and all the others here won't mind. I understand your reasoning because you base it on what for me is a pretty abstract definition of the concept of "meaning". Basically if I understand correctly, you see meaning and improbability as highly correlated ("If things go as expected in the routine sort of way, meaning is usually very low"). For me, on the contrary, meaning is related to intelligibility and communicative intention, so the more unlikely or bizarre the coincidence the "crazier" it feels to me (like a schizophrenic confabulating - no meaning to be extracted there, sadly, at least with reference to the kind of the meaning I am looking for) and the less likely I am to interpret it as "meaningful".
After all, as I said in a previous post, based on current data synchronicities may or may not be "caused" by some entity having intentions or just be ripples emerging due to the very nature of the fabric of reality that you, among other, postulate (btw Jung used the term "constellate" to avoid the contradiction in terms inherent in using the verb "to cause" in connection with synchronicities, which are by definition "acausal events" - at least based on the causes science recognises at present) That's why I do not endorse the use of the expression "meaningful coincidence" as a synonym for "synchronicity": I do not see synchronicities as necessarily imbued with meaning, in the sense that the word "meaning" has for me. If it is just an echo in mind-matter, it is not communicating anything, apart from showing me how the universe functions. So one particular synchronicity would not convey additional, specific and intentional meaning. It's only another piece of evidence. Like another apple falling on the ground is additional evidence that gravity exists. But of course some apples may fall for a specific, meaningful purpose while the vast majority of them doesn't (that's also impossible to disprove: some apparent synchronicities may in fact just be coincidences, regardless of their implausibility, who knows....).
I like examples because I feel they help grounding discussions so here's one which I hope will bring back the focus our discussion on the "why" once again :) The "how" is of interest to me, too, but certainly less than the "why". In one of your latest posts on your blog you pinpoint what you appear to consider synchronicities in connection with the Pope's visit to the US. I copy and paste a particularly relevant passage in the context of this discussion:
"This is the 266th Pope from the first – St. Peter. The Pope decided to arrive at Washington D.C. on 9/23 which happens to be the 266th day of the year. Why is that significant? On average, a woman is pregnant for 266 days before going into labor. In Genesis, it is said that labor pain is the first judgment God gave to mankind. The evening of 9/22 to the evening of 9/23 is 7/10 on the Jewish calendar which is the Day of Atonement. This was the day that God decided how he was going to judge a person for the rest of the year and on 7/11 he would issue that judgement. (Side note: SEPT-ember was originally the 7th month so 9/11 could be thought of as 7/11. And 9/11 in Roman numerals is IXXI which is a re-working of the sign of Saturn and was engraved in Jesuit rings for a time. Pope Francis is the first Jesuit Pope, so he is thus “Lord of the IXXI Rings” and therefore kind of like the eye of Sauron/Saturn between the twin towers… Oh and don’t forget tower 7… 7/11). This year, 9/23 also happened to be the fall equinox – which doesn’t mean much to modern man, but recall that the ancients (and modern secret societies) were all about the Sun worship. Fall equinox is thus symbolic of the time when the powers of darkness overcome the powers of the light. Thus, what is “birthed” on 9/24 is something wicked."
Here are my very straightforward questions:
- do you believe that these dates were deliberately chosen by some kind of "illuminati cabal" which orchestrated this visit in order to make it numerological significant ? (in which case they would not be syncronicities but rather man-made constructs) - I am sure you know that the Internet is rife with similar theories (often considered as "conspiracy theories") about lots of significant world events. Would you subscribe to them wholesale if they feature similar reasonings to yours, or would you look at the numbers and other details to be able to endorse each individual one, even if they should come to very different "political" conclusions to yours?
- or do you believe that some/all things in the universe "line up" like this, a bit like the planets in our solar system do (some even believe that they are there for a purpose and have an influence on our character, destiny and events on earth - I try to be agnostic about this, though of course my rational mind rebels against this idea)
and, if you believe that "it is no coincidence" that things syncronistically line up like this, at least for "major events", why do you think they do? Is the universe/God/call it what you will some kind of author writing a compelling novel (I dislike it intensely, but then again, we all have different tastes) using us as unwitting characters and disseminating clues (which however the vast majority of people are not seeing)? Or are there many authors out there competing and pulling this story in different directions, maybe? Is it really a story or does it only occasionally feature moments of "alignment" (like the one you described) amidst a chaotic and meaningless plot (which doesn't even deserve this name)?
- last but not least, does the fact that you feel you have discovered the synchronicites underlining this particular event make you feel that this is meaningful to you, in the sense that this will guide your life and your choices (say, about which presidential candidate you will vote for) and that therefore it was not just some kind of "striking alignment" but a meaningful message (from whom exactly?) to you and perhaps other fellow Americans, in order to influence the choices in your life?
I would have gazillions of other questions but I'll stop here for the moment. Thank you so much for enabling me to ask these questions which are of great importance to me. I appreciate your take on these things.
 
(you said in another post that "it's strange" that certain horrible things happen; to me it's downright incomprehensible, if there is a supposedly benevolent God behind it all, as you say). And the suffering in this world is not only man-made - I say this because usually believers put all the blame on us human beings: we're sinners, we're evil, that's why we suffer. I disagree. I think the vast majority of us are doing our best, especially since we are born with many needs and urges which we certainly did not create ourselves. All beings (not just humans) have to struggle to survive, and our bodies are fragile

Good points. Especially the point about the vast majority of us doing our best.

I have lots of sympathy with the view that the world seems pretty crap really. What was God thinking? So, I feel this emotionally.

That said, intellectually, I think it is like this. Think about things from God's position. You've decided to make this world so, what's it going to be like? If you are going to have a world with free will then you are going to have a world with evil. If you are going to have a world based on natural laws then you need something like dna and when you have that you will have dna errors (and therefore cancers caused by the same and bipolar disorder (which caused my psychosis and has a strong family connection so this is at least partially caused by faults with my DNA)). Ditto with earthquakes. You need a planet much like ours to support life and if you are going to have this then you are going to have earthquakes.

So maybe I am saying that we really do live in the best of all possible worlds - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

I just said that. Do I mean it? Not sure.

One last thing. When you hang out at Skeptiko long enough and read enough books and watch videos (search YouTube for James Linegar) you come to the conclusion that reincarnation is real. When you believe that then fear of death becomes much less. I don't want to die but I also also fairly relaxed about it. To me the real issue is how you live your life now. I am still working on that though. I have a long way to go! Maybe I would like to be some kind of "saint person" but, you know, the bills need to be paid so here I am in the office instead of spreading goodness. And, of course, I'm really not sure how to implement "being a saint" anyway. What does it really mean? Do I have to give up drinking with my mates? So, anyway, one step at a time.
 
Re your ideas about meaning... There have been some really good studies showing that we seem more likely to experience things perceptually when they are novel, this paper below shows such an effect... Incongruent objects (unexpected associations/new context etc) break into experience faster... these sorts of studies suggests to me that a core reason for why I have experience, has something do with learning new things... something to do with how I deal with (understand and store) new associations.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1203998.files/Course Readings/Week 6/Mudrik.pdf

I completely agree. :) novelty is found on the boundary between structure and deconstruction. I think that what it really means to be alive and full of spirit is to move along this boundary. Staying too structured leads to lack of novelty, ossification, brittleness and boredom. No structure leads to insanity and a featureless void which is also boring. The interplay of creation and destruction is what keeps things new and fresh and lively. Curiosity is the aspect of an individual spirit that draws it along this boundary of knowledge and this is where life really happens.

On RNG's... when I looked into them I quickly realised there was a great deal of classical electronics and post programming added inside these devices to get anything random looking to appear at the output port. This is to such an extent, that one cannot be measuring 'quantum randomness' with these RNG's, as their internal post processing is deliberately smearing out whatever they are occasionally sampling, and redistributing it in a nicely useable way etc, so that you get a good random and nicely distributed output at the port... but not what was sampled.

It's utter rubbish in my view that Radin and the GCP are measuring anything useful here. And on two occasions, I've seen Radin use a specific RNG device for a field study which is known to be very suseptible to changes in the power feeding it... then attaching the RNG to a laptop powered by batteries... Where by changes in output from the battery as it drains, result in the RNG output changing. He's then gone back to the lab, and tested the laptop and RNG on mains power, showing that there is no change in RNG output over time, when compared to the field experiment. He then claims that the field experiment is showing something different from the lab, and claims this difference is significant... But all he's done is show that the RNG output alters, as the laptop battery is drained.

I'll have to some more thinking and refresh my memory on what I'd read to give a response to this but thanks for sharing. I'll load it into the hopper of ideas about to be processed. :)
 
I completely agree. :) novelty is found on the boundary between structure and deconstruction. I think that what it really means to be alive and full of spirit is to move along this boundary. Staying too structured leads to lack of novelty, ossification, brittleness and boredom. No structure leads to insanity and a featureless void which is also boring. The interplay of creation and destruction is what keeps things new and fresh and lively. Curiosity is the aspect of an individual spirit that draws it along this boundary of knowledge and this is where life really happens.

Great! I love the points that too much structure leads = boredom and too little leads to insanity/void = boredom.
 
I understand your reasoning because you base it on what for me is a pretty abstract definition of the concept of "meaning". Basically if I understand correctly, you see meaning and improbability as highly correlated ("If things go as expected in the routine sort of way, meaning is usually very low").

The simplest most comprehensive definition of meaning I can think of is that it is the product of or the features of a story. When the unexpected happens (a plot twist) this is one way that a story generates a large amount of meaning. There are of course many other ways a story can generate meaning.

For me, on the contrary, meaning is related to intelligibility and communicative intention, so the more unlikely or bizarre the coincidence the "crazier" it feels to me (like a schizophrenic confabulating - no meaning to be extracted there, sadly, at least with reference to the kind of the meaning I am looking for) and the less likely I am to interpret it as "meaningful".

I see what you're saying. If something highly strange or awe-inspiring occurs with no apparent purpose or message, then is it meaningful? I would say yes. If you sit down and watch an awe-inspiring sunset while sipping a cold beer, that can be meaningful to you. Perhaps it might be even more meaningful to you if you just spent 3 days hiking to the top of a mountain and happen to witness the sunset that you'll never forget. Perhaps it would be even more meaningful if you did this with a loved one and shared the experience you'll both never forget and will retell the story again and again. No message was communicated here. But simply being in the story and having the awesome experience is the meaning in itself.

From the informational perspective we could consider the light that shines through the atmospehere and clouds and bounces off the landscape as the mechanism that reads one form of symbol and turns it into another form of symbol. Matter from a star is converted to light which bounces off matter and enters a CCD sensor on a camera and is converted to electrical signal which is cast into material form on a CD which is then hit again with light in a CD reader which bounces off the material in the CD and is converted to electrical signals and then back to light on a screen and then into your eyes which convert again into electrical signals and then somehow a mental image is generated along with emotions which is experienced as part of your story.

So a sunset is one form of phenomena that can create meaning in our lives when experienced just as synchronicity is another form of phenomena that can be awe-inspiring and create meaning.

But I get what you're saying. The reason we can communicate with words is because the auditory signals are not random noise but patterns we have learned to recognize. We assume then that if we detect a pattern in what should otherwise be random noise we must be picking up on a communication of some sort. I'm open to the idea of synchs that communicate as well as synchs that are "just for fun" or synchs that happen by some mechanism (like 5D Gravity) and I think all are meaningful (unless we pay them no mind by assuming coincidence). Meaning involves choice.

In regards to definitions of words, we say that words have meanings. But the meaning is dependent on context. So the word is a symbol or a dashed line we draw around a little piece of the story which only makes sense to a person who can bring a frame of reference to the table. Words in isolation are noise. Only in context (in the story) are they meaningful.

In one of your latest posts on your blog you pinpoint what you appear to consider synchronicities in connection with the Pope's visit to the US. I copy and paste a particularly relevant passage in the context of this discussion:
"This is the 266th Pope from the first – St. Peter. The Pope decided to arrive at Washington D.C. on 9/23 which happens to be the 266th day of the year. Why is that significant? On average, a woman is pregnant for 266 days before going into labor. In Genesis, it is said that labor pain is the first judgment God gave to mankind. The evening of 9/22 to the evening of 9/23 is 7/10 on the Jewish calendar which is the Day of Atonement. This was the day that God decided how he was going to judge a person for the rest of the year and on 7/11 he would issue that judgement. (Side note: SEPT-ember was originally the 7th month so 9/11 could be thought of as 7/11. And 9/11 in Roman numerals is IXXI which is a re-working of the sign of Saturn and was engraved in Jesuit rings for a time. Pope Francis is the first Jesuit Pope, so he is thus “Lord of the IXXI Rings” and therefore kind of like the eye of Sauron/Saturn between the twin towers… Oh and don’t forget tower 7… 7/11). This year, 9/23 also happened to be the fall equinox – which doesn’t mean much to modern man, but recall that the ancients (and modern secret societies) were all about the Sun worship. Fall equinox is thus symbolic of the time when the powers of darkness overcome the powers of the light. Thus, what is “birthed” on 9/24 is something wicked."

Here are my very straightforward questions:
- do you believe that these dates were deliberately chosen by some kind of "illuminati cabal" which orchestrated this visit in order to make it numerological significant ? (in which case they would not be syncronicities but rather man-made constructs) - I am sure you know that the Internet is rife with similar theories (often considered as "conspiracy theories") about lots of significant world events. Would you subscribe to them wholesale if they feature similar reasonings to yours, or would you look at the numbers and other details to be able to endorse each individual one, even if they should come to very different "political" conclusions to yours?

I do not know what percentage of the "coincidences" in world events are orchestrated by the secret societies and what percentage are synchronicity but I think it is a good mix of both. It has been noted that engaging the trickster can cause the paranormal including synchs to come forth. I have read that the secret societies employ people who do nothing but schedule important events around occult and astrologically significant dates and times. That makes sense. If you are authoring a story and you are a good author you will find ways to hide meanings in symbols and numbers that evoke that "aha" feeling of appreciation of depth when read.

or do you believe that some/all things in the universe "line up" like this, a bit like the planets in our solar system do (some even believe that they are there for a purpose and have an influence on our character, destiny and events on earth - I try to be agnostic about this, though of course my rational mind rebels against this idea)
and, if you believe that "it is no coincidence" that things syncronistically line up like this, at least for "major events", why do you think they do? Is the universe/God/call it what you will some kind of author writing a compelling novel (I dislike it intensely, but then again, we all have different tastes) using us as unwitting characters and disseminating clues (which however the vast majority of people are not seeing)? Or are there many authors out there competing and pulling this story in different directions, maybe? Is it really a story or does it only occasionally feature moments of "alignment" (like the one you described) amidst a chaotic and meaningless plot (which doesn't even deserve this name)?

I think it is both and I think there are many authors. We are each co-authors to the extent we maintain our free will. Authors have author-ity over the direction of the story. There are hierarchical systems of authority on earth and there may be hierarchical levels of author-ity in the realms beyond. To ask what is the meaning of life is to ask "what is this story I find myself in and who is authoring it?" Therefore anyone who wants to know the meaning of life must question author-ity. If personalizing the hierarchy of authorship into a singular male father figure is distasteful, we could think of the universe as a novelty generating engine. Interestingness is the product and spirit is the dynamo behind it.

- last but not least, does the fact that you feel you have discovered the synchronicites underlining this particular event make you feel that this is meaningful to you,

Yes. There was so much talk and speculation buzzing on the internet before 9/23 that although I tried to remain skeptical I couldn't help but think SOMEthing was likely to happen. Nothing spectacular happened but since I know the secret societies are enthralled with encoded messages (because they know what is said here that all creation is an interplay of symbol and meaning and perception) I do believe this series of symbolic coincidences was at least partly for their jollies.

in the sense that this will guide your life and your choices (say, about which presidential candidate you will vote for) and that therefore it was not just some kind of "striking alignment" but a meaningful message (from whom exactly?) to you and perhaps other fellow Americans, in order to influence the choices in your life?

I think the elites know all about how to use narrative and symbol and deception in order to maintain authority. I think they like to hide symbols in plain sight partly as a means of communicating to each other, partly to metaphysically shape the future, partly to plant ideas in the volitional elements (people) they wish to control, and partly as a dog hiking it's leg on every mailbox it encounters.

I am against the elite secret societies not because they are secret or into occult esoteric studies, but because I believe they have - like all human structures of hierarchy - grown corrupt and ossified as they have filled their ranks with psychopaths and I do not like the dystopian novel they are writing for humanity.

As such I am voting for Trump, not because I totally agree with him on everything, but because he is not beholden to the interests of these secret societies. As Bonesman and Bohemian Grove member Newt Gingrich said the other day, the establishment is coming after Trump because he "hasn't been through the initiation rights and hasn't been a part of the secret society."

I'm sure my choice for president will be anathema to many here, but that's okay, we can politely disagree. :) I'll reiterate I don't agree with everything he says.

I would have gazillions of other questions but I'll stop here for the moment. Thank you so much for enabling me to ask these questions which are of great importance to me. I appreciate your take on these things.

Thanks for your thoughts and a good discussion. :)
 
First of all, experiments have only shown that precognition becomes tangible in a small time window (10 seconds in Bem's experiments), so I believe that trying to justify events that happen in an undetermined amount of time into the future may be pushing those test results too far.

I think that the "cause and effect" basis of this hypothesis can only attempt to explain a particular subset of synchronicity. If we are to assume that that synchronicity is "nothing more" that the interconnected brain interacting with future/expanded "states" of its own self, then we could try to explain away this kind of synchronicity: Subject A thinks of Subject B/particular event/object and this person/event/thing appears before him shortly afterwards in one way or another. I can fathom that this could be precognition; the mind preparing itself for something emotionally important or relevant.

However, I don't think that all instances of synchronicity could be explained that easily. Some involve the alignment of events so unlikely that even if the experiencer could gain access to it via some future state, there is just no way to explain it in reductionistic (subjective experience is exclusively internal, we grant meaning to things) terms *unless* the person is causing the circumstances themselves. Synchronicities that involve multiple people *plus* a combination of events/objects within a short amount of time involve the odd coordination of multiple circumstances to materialize; even if one (or even all) of those involved was able to predict the outcome, that *still* requires a number of unlikely circumstances to align themselves in just the right timeframe.

On that same vein, let's talk about the times that these kinds of synchronicities gain a repetitive nature, the so-called "clusters". Are we to assume that in these we are simply "remembering" and "orienting ourselves" towards a number of very unlikely chains of events? When do statistics fall apart? How can we account for the people and events/objects being caught in a repetitive loop? Sure, we can have a "future state"-induced deja vu, but the elements are still there; the defiance of chance and its uncanny is still apparent, which indicates that this is clearly more than simply a form of pre-access or recall. I doubt that you can control serendipity.

And not only that... But clusters can be experienced in short, very active periods of anomalous activity lasting anything from a few days to a few months, but what about those that don't? There are also long-term clusters, where there is an initial cluster involving a certain person or event that keeps recycling every once in a while for a few decades. We are constantly filtering information; a year seems like a lot of time to us, so I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that my brain states would extend a decade or two into the future.

Lastly, not all synchronicities are pleasant; personal tragedy (or general unpleasantness) is also a common theme. If the individual was "directing itself" towards something based on feedback from the future, why on Earth would they go *towards* the unpleasant stuff? Personal tragedy is not "excitement", and surely some survival instinct would mediate to veer away from it.

----
Additional observations... Max, are we to assume dual (past and future) arrows of time? If so, then that makes the past as concrete as the future... How could there be anything resembling death (as in annihilation or oblivion) if the past is still there and the future can interact with it? Even if no new "states" could be found down the line (after the future brain ceases to function), the past ones are still there and you have already established that they would interact in a retrocausal manner... What follows death then? Perpetual stasis? Replay? You can't assume retrocausal influence and then cite the arrow of time as a justification for only one particular timeframe being concrete; either moves in only one direction, and information along with it, or it doesn't.

I am still inclined to favor that these events would be more simply explained by an underlying web or network of patterns that can be very hardly explained unless "something", be it the observer/experiencer or a higher form of consciousness, is directly influencing their outcomes. But, well, this contradicts the inherently reductionist approach of Eric's hypothesis.

----
I don't think that neither Eric's nor Max's ideas explain the "mystical" parts of NDEs. They could try to explain the OBE aspect, but these two are very frequently paired together as part of a single experience. Not all veridical content is "seen" in the OBE part, there is a common trend where people report meeting somebody on "the other side" that they meet later in life, occasionally someone yet to be born, and these are usually interactive experiences. Hyper weak fields and third-party perception does not account for that.

As far as super psi goes... Mediumship is not exactly my cup of coffee, but I can say that some of its literature discusses information that neither the medium nor the client could know and that is later verified. Whereas the "fake ghost" experiments which are often used to justify super psi as some sort of silver bullet featured "ghosts" that only knew what those involved in the experiments "knew", which sounds an awful lot like "regular" telepathy and nothing particularly "super".

Don't get me wrong, I am almost sure that some form of super, large scale and coordinated psi is possible and even likely if "regular" psi is a taken, but it hardly is the answer to everything. The questions posited by synchronicity and survival research are not among those that fall under its umbrella.

Also, why on Earth would children that are unrelated to me in any shape or form be somehow assessing my memories 50 years down the line (as in the Hollywood extra case), wouldn't it be a *lot* likelier that they would access the states of more recent individuals if we are to assume that this is precognition? Why go that far back?

-----
Edit: About RNGs... I think that the global project needs to process all of the data (in other words, rummage trough all of the mundane days as well instead of being selective and checking those adjacent to important events) *before* coming to a conclusion. If the peaks are only found when attached to certain events, then battery fluctuations and "faulty" equipment become less of an issue. However, I do think that we should try to find better ways to gauge PK (which seems like the most elusive of all psi phenomena) than the old Princeton methods.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I am wondering why the fact that experiments have only shown that precognition becomes tangible in a small time window (10 seconds in Bem's experiments), so I believe that trying to justify events that happen in an undetermined amount of time into the future may be pushing those test results too far.

I think that the "cause and effect" basis of this hypothesis can only attempt to explain a particular subset of synchronicity. If we are to assume that that synchronicity is "nothing more" that the interconnected brain interacting with future/expanded "states" of its own self, then we could try to explain away this kind of synchronicity: Subject A thinks of Subject B/particular event/object and this person/event/thing appears before him shortly afterwards in one way or another. I can fathom that this could be precognition; the mind preparing itself for something emotionally important or relevant.

However, I don't think that all instances of synchronicity could be explained that easily. Some involve the alignment of events so unlikely that even if the experiencer could gain access to it via some future state, there is just no way to explain it in reductionistic (subjective experience is exclusively internal, we grant meaning to things) terms *unless* the person is causing the circumstances themselves. Synchronicities that involve multiple people *plus* a combination of events/objects within a short amount of time involve the odd coordination of multiple circumstances to materialize; even if one (or even all) of those involved was able to predict the outcome, that *still* requires a number of unlikely circumstances to align themselves in just the right timeframe.

On that same vein, let's talk about the times that these kinds of synchronicities gain a repetitive nature, the so-called "clusters". Are we to assume that in these we are simply "remembering" and "orienting ourselves" towards a number of very unlikely chains of events? When do statistics fall apart? How can we account for the people and events/objects being caught in a repetitive loop? Sure, we can have a "future state"-induced deja vu, but the elements are still there; the defiance of chance and its uncanny is still apparent, which indicates that this is clearly more than simply a form of pre-access or recall. I doubt that you can control serendipity.

And not only that... But clusters can be experienced in short, very active periods of anomalous activity lasting anything from a few days to a few months, but what about those that don't? There are also long-term clusters, where there is an initial cluster involving a certain person or event that keeps recycling every once in a while for a few decades. We are constantly filtering information; a year seems like a lot of time to us, so I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that my brain states would extend a decade or two into the future.

Lastly, not all synchronicities are pleasant; personal tragedy (or general unpleasantness) is also a common theme. If the individual was "directing itself" towards something based on feedback from the future, why on Earth would they go *towards* the unpleasant stuff? Personal tragedy is not "excitement", and surely some survival instinct would mediate to veer away from it.

----
Additional observations... Max, are we to assume dual (past and future) arrows of time? If so, then that makes the past as concrete as the future... How could there be anything resembling death (as in annihilation or oblivion) if the past is still there and the future can interact with it? Even if no new "states" could be found down the line (after the future brain ceases to function), the past ones are still there and you have already established that they would interact in a retrocausal manner... What follows death then? Perpetual stasis? Replay? You can't assume retrocausal influence and then cite the arrow of time as a justification for only one particular timeframe being concrete; either moves in only one direction, and information along with it, or it doesn't.

I am still inclined to favor that these events would be more simply explained by an underlying web or network of patterns that can be very hardly explained unless "something", be it the observer/experiencer or a higher form of consciousness, is directly influencing their outcomes. But, well, this contradicts the inherently reductionist approach of Eric's hypothesis.

----
I don't think that neither Eric's nor Max's ideas explain the "mystical" parts of NDEs. They could try to explain the OBE aspect, but these two are very frequently paired together as part of a single experience. Not all veridical content is "seen" in the OBE part, there is a common trend where people report meeting somebody on "the other side" that they meet later in life, occasionally someone yet to be born, and these are usually interactive experiences. Hyper weak fields and third-party perception does not account for that.

As far as super psi goes... Mediumship is not exactly my cup of coffee, but I can say that some of its literature discusses information that neither the medium nor the client could know and that is later verified. Whereas the "fake ghost" experiments which are often used to justify super psi as some sort of silver bullet featured "ghosts" that only knew what those involved in the experiments "knew", which sounds an awful lot like "regular" telepathy and nothing particularly "super".

Don't get me wrong, I am almost sure that some form of super, large scale and coordinated psi is possible and even likely if "regular" psi is a taken, but it hardly is the answer to everything. The questions posited by synchronicity and survival research are not among those that fall under its umbrella.

Also, why on Earth would children that are unrelated to me in any shape or form be somehow assessing my memories 50 years down the line (as in the Hollywood extra case), wouldn't it be a *lot* likelier that they would access the states of more recent individuals if we are to assume that this is precognition? Why go that far back?

Yeah, I'm not assuming time goes both ways... I'm suggesting coherence (in the form of a pattern in space-time) goes both ways...

...it's just that it's not easy to experience an unhappened observation further away into space-time, unless present patterns happen to stumble across it. So as activated network patterns become similar (get closer) so does the chance of stumbling across a future event. Hence precognative stuff becomes more common the closer you are to your current space-time location.

One example... Perhaps because your going to think about it a lot in the future (example: say you dream an image of your brother dying in your arms), therefore this observation might have lots of thoughts over a period of time, which compress into emotions, which compress into feelings. Suggesting plenty of coherence of that activated network pattern is going on across space-time.
 
First of all, experiments have only shown that precognition becomes tangible in a small time window (10 seconds in Bem's experiments), so I believe that trying to justify events that happen in an undetermined amount of time into the future may be pushing those test results too far...
No time to address most of your comment (or most of the new comments, unfortunately) due to new baby :-) ... but just briefly, about the brief time window of presentiment experiments: Good point, although this applies to the presentiment findings specifically, versus precognitive remote viewing findings that have a much bigger time window. Still, I think the presentiment effect is the building block of precognition as traditionally understood. My hypothesis is that precognitive/presentimental circuitry that are being detected in presentiment experiments would continually pass back "information" into the brain's past (in the form of altered neural/synaptic potentials) almost like a relay race. So for instance a RV-er "sees" a target, which may really be the exciting/rewarding confirmation he gets in his future, and this acts the same way a salient stimulus in the individual's past would. In memory, we are really remembering our remembering, not remembering the event. Same way with precognition.
 

Attachments

  • Slide35.jpg
    Slide35.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 4
Back
Top