Talk:Synchronicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Attunement

something is up with 11:11 and synchronicity ther is something happening soon. While I think the first two sentences are correct, I think the remainder:

The process of becoming intuitively aware and harmonious with these forces is what Jung labelled "synchronicity." Jung purported that a person that reached this enlightened state could actually shape events around them through the enjoining of one's awareness with these universal forces.

Would be closer to correct if it read:

The process of becoming intuitively aware and acting harmoniously with these forces is what Jung labelled "individuation." Jung said that an individuated person would actually shape events around them through the communication of their consciousness with the collective unconscious.

In fact, I'm convinced enough I'll change it for now. -- Someone else 06:37 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

While I see the reason for the dissatisfaction with the previous version, I don't feel satisfied with the update, particularly without references. 'The process of becoming intuitively aware and harmonious with these [cosmic] forces' is arguably the opposite of individuation. I would prefer 'attunement,' but whether 'Jung said' that is another matter altogether! Etaonsh 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easy Definition

I'm a fairly smart guy, but as I read the definition of synchronicity I still can't tell what makes it different from coincidence. Can this article begin with a less technical definition, then expand on it using the big words?

The Example, though intriguing, also seems like coincidence; what makes it synchronicity instead?

ShawnVW 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How's that? --Mjformica 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
As bad as before. If I meet M. Fontgibu while eating plum pudding, then M. Dumas while eating potatoes, then M. Dupont while not eating anything, that's not synchronicity because it's not meaningful, but it's not a coincidence either. (Or would you say, after M. Dupont enters the room, "Oh! What a coincidence!"? I wouldn't.) I guess there simply is no difference. --Hob Gadling 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no defined difference between synchronicity and coincidence. A coincidence is an observation that there are no causal connections between two events. Since two events with a synchronistic connection have no causal relationship, the connection is indeed a coincidence. But let's say a coincidence can be a "mere coincidence" (meaning no synchronistic connection between the events) or something more than a coincidence (meaning also a synchronistic connection).
The theory of synchronicity states that such coincidences can have an acausal connection. If one imagines cause-effect relationships as following straight vertical lines, then synchronistic relationships would be horizontal. Since they don't follow cause-effect, they are probably by their nature unprovable.
Taking the theory further, it may be that all coincidences have synchronistic connections. Mathematicians like Rudy Rucker actually believe that synchronicity is a crucial part of what makes up the physical universe, and that it is all-prevalent, like causality itself. There are many more interesting aspects to the theory, such as how it relates to the collective unconscious and symbols and gods etc.
(Looking at the article now, I think it actually is a little misleading. It states that synchronicity is "not just a happenstance", but causally speaking it is just that, and most people would think about words like "happenstance" and "coincidence" in a causal way. But of cource, the trouble is in explaning this without using such words. It's a bit like describing how a timeline could change as a result of time travel, words like "before" and "after" don't suffice anymore.) 193.91.181.142 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (Nick Knutsen)

[edit] Should Love be mentioned?

[edit] Of Course It Should...

For what is it we are really searching for? If not love then what? It is a question we need to ask more, I should think. For what are we truly capable of, when we are confident in the ones we love? Confident that they will be there for us no matter what. Even when all hope is lost, someone will always be there. Even when you think every possible force in this universe has left you, or turned against you or has just simply confused you, it will always be made clear to you how love is the most natural expression in the world. It is the expectation of nothing. The anticipation that something is always born. This is the true relevance of the world myth of a virgin birth.

Remember, friend that Jung's primary interest was what lay beyond the symbol, the force that animated it. That gave, what Jung called a numinousity. I hope my addition is not considered grafitti, or worse simple tom foolery. My intention was simply to add a reminder where one least expects it.

[edit] Causal or Acausal?

Did Jung say synchronicity was "a causal connecting principle" or an "acausal connecting principle"? Both versions are given at different points in the article. P Ingerson 17:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Acausal" it is. To me, the sentence
"Although not scientifically provable in the classical sense, a scientific basis for the phenomenon of synchronicity may be found in the principle of correlation, in so far as a more precise scientific term for Jung's expression 'a causal connecting principle' is 'correlation'"
does not make sense. As said in the next sentence, correlation does not imply causation, but neither does it exclude causation. So, correlation does not help defining synchronicity. I'm in favor of removing the whole correlation section, since all it does is confusing people. --Hob Gadling 19:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Correlation is a useful principle in illustrating another instance where acausality is scientifically studied, plus it describes well the subjective experience of synchronicity.
Isn't that an irrelevant analogy, like astrologers saying "tides are caused by the moon, so planets can influence humans"? "Correlation is not concerned with causes, so synchronicity doesn't have to be either"? Correlation is a more or less well-defined statistical term, but synchronicity is just "Aww - lookitthat!" No connection here. --Hob Gadling 14:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't correct to define 'correlation' purely in statistical terms. Evidence correlates, its statistical aspect being just that, an aspect. Your belittling tone distinctly implies US swank 'debunking' school POV, and your reduction of 'correlation' to 'statistical correlation' indicates reductionism. Etaonsh 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So you have your own definition of "correlation" which contains more than statistics, and you claim that the standard definition is "not correct". But that is your own POV and does not belong into an encyclopedia. The things you detect in me are indeed there (if I ignore your POV wording of some of them), but I don't see anything wrong with either debunking bunk or reductionism. So, your problem with my deviation from your opinion does not belong into an encyclopedia either. --Hob Gadling 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not using my own definition of correlation, but the standard one. Correlation is the observed outcome of one or more causes acting upon more than one separate object, the use of statistics in said observation being a pedestrian, time-serving distraction which happens to dominate the 'Correlation' entry in wayward Wiki. The problem with debunking and reductionism is the familiar danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.' If you genuinely weren't aware of any such dangers, the only immediate response which springs to mind is, 'Welcome to planet Earth.' --Etaonsh 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so you are right and everyone else here is wrong about correlation. I can't say "welcome to planet Earth" back to you because you are obviously somewhere else.
So you think that my position contains dangers and your position does not? I am aware that every position, including the neutral one, threatens to color one's perception. I find it amusing that you are only aware of that in others, but not in yourself. Actually I think your anti-skeptic and anti-reductionism rhetorics is just a transparent trick that allows you to ignore what I say. --Hob Gadling 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's as simple as Etaonsh cuts it out to be. "Correlation" is no more a "scientific basis" for synchronicity than pirates cause global warming. In order for correlation to be put forward as a scientific explanation, a little more evidence is needed. It's not so much a matter of POV as definitions of words. Byrgenwulf 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was simple, but I am trying to point out that correlation is a long word for a very ordinary and mundane part of everyday life. When someone says, 'Everybody round here seems to be using marg these days - perhaps because it's on special offer at Tesco,' they are correlating - no statistics, no hocus-pocus, just part of everyday life. There is an acausal relationship - everybody round here using marg - with an underlying likely cause - a special offer. The difficulty arises when the underlying cause is unknown and/or hard to establish, as is often the case in these situations. --Etaonsh 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so your version of correlation is just a less accurate little brother of the statistics version. People can suspect a correlation but if one looks closer (by statistics), it may turn out not to be there. One common example is childbirth and full moon - lots of people, including midwives, believe that during full moons, more children are born, but statistical papers show it's just a cognitive illusion without a real correlation, causal or otherwise. I think your concept of correlation is indeed the same as the statistical one, but your methods of sniffing out correlations are less reliable. --Hob Gadling 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes 'little brothers' are despised and abused, only to rise up out of their pits to rule all Egypt and their erstwhile abusers. --Etaonsh 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup. "Correlation can also be described as an 'acausal connecting principle' " is nonsense. Correlation does not connect things. Correlation is just an indicator that things may be connected. That whole paragraph is nothing but hot air. --Hob Gadling 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Correlation does by definition connect things and events, and as you say, there may or may not be an underlying cause. 'Nothing but hot air' can be seen as epitomising the very contradiction inherent in debunking reductionism. --Etaonsh 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You could as well say that connection connects things and events. It's just a word describing that there may be a connection, not an acting agent. --Hob Gadling 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right in saying it's not an 'acting agent,' it's an organising agent. We organise together similar objects and events, and look for underlying causes (or, in the case of Jungians, underlying acauses, which are ultimately transparent nonsense and don't exist, apart from the correlation which can indicate and assist in tracking down common, underlying cause).
I think that paragraph should, perhaps, just be deleted. The knowing references it makes to quantum nonlocality/EPR stuff are meaningless: there is absolutely no reason to believe that nonlocal entanglement of the spin states of two photons can explain why my mother phones me just when I'm thinking about her. The paragraph, as it is, doesn't say anything: it reads like someone thinking out loud: "could it be this? no, it couldn't" and hence doesn't inform in any way. Byrgenwulf 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that in focusing on the 'quantum nonlocality/EPR stuff' in the paragraph you are getting warmer in hunting down its weakness. When Einstein first realised that nuclear physics was getting out of the control of its great minds, the subject lost its nerve and started going downhill. Modern theories of parallel lives and Littleworlds, where normal cosmic rules needn't apply, are transparent poppycock of the worst order. --Etaonsh 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

"In the d20 Modern supplement Urban Arcana, there is a spell known as 'Synchronicity', which subtly alters the laws of reality to make the mundanities of life more convenient for the caster, such as altering bus and taxi schedules so that they always appear within a maximum of four minutes after the caster begins waiting for one, and subtly moving pedestrians on crowded streets out of the way of the caster." I think this part should at least mention the context of a role-playing game. I was quite confused when i read it after the other text. 82.139.89.146 23:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Rather than 'trivia,' I think your contribution has possible elucidatory value, if this isn't straying into original research. ESP is among the hypothetical possible explanations for synchronicitous phenomena. 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Etaonsh 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "awkward silence"

Is the "awkward silence" (i.e. several conversations in close proximity all finish at the same time, and as a result the whole room goes quiet" an example of synchronicity, or merely a bog-standard coincidence? Chris talk back 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I would move that this falls more under the auspices of orgiastic union, herd behavior, and/or mob psychology than synchronicity. Unless a survey of the conversations revealed that they had a relationship to one another that was significant to one or more persons involved. --Mjformica 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Those unfamiliar with astrology are likely unaware that it provides natural explanations for seemingly unrelated coincidences - i.e., a macrocosmic explanation of seemingly unconnected events in the microcosm. I think Jung was aware of astrology as an explanation of synchronicity, but I'm not sure whether he explained the connection as clearly as that(?). It would be unfortunate if clear explanations are ruled out of order on original research grounds, as I have no current plans to make clear explanations elsewhere(!). Etaonsh 23:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but astrology does not provide any explanations for anything, since it itself does not have any theoretical basis. It's like synchronicity in that respect - it claims connections but does not really explain them. Explanation means reducing to already known facts - it always contains an element of information compression. Before the explanation you have a lot of unconnected facts (say, 100 GB, zipped), afterwards, you have a few basic rules (say, 1 kB, zipped) from which you can derive all those facts. Astrology does not do this - it generates "rules" and "exceptions" from them every time an astrologer does "research". The rules and exceptions still have 100 GB, zipped. --Hob Gadling 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What one can say is that astrologers as a group are peculiarly closed to the public, statistical methods you and those like you espouse. But this is not to say that they are wholly unscientific, stupid, or barren of research. Perhaps they fear empowering scientific reductionism, and who can blame them? --Etaonsh 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Introductory Definition: 'Simultaneously'?

The definition seems faulty because, as examples on the page testify, events don't need to occur 'simultaneously' to constitute coincidence, meaningful or otherwise. I'll therefore alter to 'coincidentally.' Etaonsh 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that just cause you cant see it, touch it, smell it or any of that sort of thing that science says it dosn't exist. The non physical dimensions of reality have been run out of town. Why it it that talking about synchronistic events can create them? Luke

[edit] Alternative explanations

I am not too certain that the wording in the paragraph about correlation is correct. I cannot see how correlation, judging from the explanation giving there, can account for synchronicity...what I mean is, I know the argument, but it isn't particularly well expressed in the article. Moreover, it is by no means certain that quantum non-locality a la EPR and Bell is merely a correlatory relationship; furthermore, I would like to see a (plausible) citation for how this can account for synchronicity...because while the spin-entanglement of two photons is amply described by these states, so far as I am aware there has been no rigorous study extending this concept to macroscopic "co-incidence".

So if someone with more knowledge of this specific field could provide citations, etc and clarify the wording, please? Byrgenwulf 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to say that EPR cannot be responsible for synchronicity simply because there is causality involved in quantum nonlocality; if synchronicity is caused by some "spooky action at a distance" through a means that wasn't understood in Jung's time (or, indeed, today), it would be more appropriate to tweak Jung's definition by adding the phrase "apparently acausal", which would allow us to explain the exact phenomenon Jung was describing by applying modern science. If an early chemist defined "combustion" as the release of phlogiston, we wouldn't say that oxidation wasn't a form of "combustion" because oxygen is involved rather than phlogiston. If we reach the point where we can replace Jung's metaphysical shared archetypes with real physical explanations, we'd have a better theory of synchronicity, but it would still be a theory of synchronicity. Geoffrey Spear 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely...I have removed the EPR stuff, and replaced it with a bit of an explanation of causality and acausality. I wasn't quite sure exactly how synchronicity was being described here, but I think I have a good feel for it now, and to me the use of nonlocality is definitely speculative, and probably misplaced. Do let me know if the edit I made was too rash. Thanks! Byrgenwulf 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain the following statement, please: 'However, the link between two correlated events which are known to be causally unrelated is not generally the subject of scientific investigation'? --Etaonsh 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It means that, if we have events A and B which are known not to be related, then no matter what the statistical correlation is, a scientific investigation won't yield results, so there is no need to bother...for example, the graph I linked to in the above discussion, with lack of pirates causing global warming. It is known that even though there is a significant statistical correlation between the two concepts (decrease in number of pirates, increase in global temperature), the relationship is not a causal one, and I don't think any serious papers have been, or will be, published showing why the low number of pirates has nothing to do with environmental crises. Byrgenwulf 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no such scenario I'm aware of. Altho pirates causing climate is as absurd as you say, it's not so absurd the other way. --Etaonsh 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 11:11

Why does 11:11 re-direct here?

I'm wondering the same thing...
11:11 used to have its own page and was explained by synchronisity but I guess someone decided to remove it. A great shame, I think it deserved its own space and it is not even mentioned here. KittensOnToast 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I actually came to the 'Synchronicity' page by entering '11:11' in search. Scanning the entry I couldn't find any reference at all to '11:11' and figured it must be, er, synchronicity that had steered me to this page. I'd be interested to see the original entry, and know why it was deleted.Brownm 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If some unrelated word (in this case number) redirects to a page then there should be at least a short paragraph on it; I think the article was a victim of overediting.


[edit] Synchronicity in Jane Eyre?

For those who have read the classic Bronte novel of Jane Eyre, towards the end of the story where Jane hears Rochester's voice (and later finds out that he heard her voice as well) would that be an example of synchronicity and if so what would it be caused by? Their love for each other or something completly different (such as Jane now being equal to Rochester)? "The archetypes in the unconscious is what allows synchronicity" perhaps this was it, but if so which archetypes?

"Baader-Meinhof phenomenon"


I heard this term and was unable to find it on wikipedia because it redirected to this article but is never mentioned, meaning it's page rank is like zero. Someone needs to explain "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" and why it redirects to this article so the term is associated with this page.

[edit] just happened to me today

I believe this is original research, but that was for real, maybe worth your look.

So, around 6pm in my university, I suddenly remembered one particular song (for no reason absolutely), that had words "..wish you are here". I recalled voice singing this words. I didn't know either title of this song, or author and I heard it very long ago. So, I thought, maybe i would get it via file-sharing software, but first I should find the full title. I came back home several hours later, and logged into irc-channel around 22pm (related to some online game), there I talked with some known to me person, in the process of discussing _he_ switched discussion to music. He mentioned "Blackmore's Night" (I never heard that name before) as a good one. Just for curiosity I searched in that file-sharing software on this words. First result was "Blackmore's Night - Wish You Were Here. I got it. It was exactly that song... It was very weird feeling to see exactly the same words and then hear them soon after my brain for some unexplained reason thought about it" DFighter100 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/y/n/Talk%7ESynchronicity_1cb0.html"