How to explain synchronicity?

[Jim Cross]

Because, quite simply, there is no such thing as "random chance" under idealism (and I am not even sure there is under any other ontology).

That's seems like a somewhat odd position to take since BK's argument relies so much on QM. In QM, nature at its lowest level is either actually random or effectively random in that it is beyond our ability to precisely predict. The randomness of classical probability derives from this lower level.

The authors of the paper I’m talking about today think that we should stop thinking of this kind of thing as simply classical. By this, they mean that they think all classical probability is fundamentally rooted in the randomness of quantum mechanics.

The importance of this is that flipping a coin is an example of quantum mechanical probability. That’s right – the most plainly obvious example of classical probability is actually not classical at all! The authors argue that this is the case for all applications of classical probability.

https://stoove.wordpress.com/2013/01/15 ... ignorance/

[Jim Cross]

Of course, it really isn't a question of randomness or causality. I think Jung thought of synchronicity as something acausal. It is two or more events occurring - one usually in thought - that are in some way in sync with each other. For example, the cat food commercial occurring shortly after someone thinks of Schrodinger's cat. The cat food commercial could have its causes. The thought of Schrodinger's cat could have different causes.

The question is whether the occurrence of the two events together is simply a matter of chance or the two events have some special significance. What that significance would be isn't clear. In any case, any number of permutations of similar events could have happened around the same time and, as Dana acknowledged, there is no way to know which combinations (if any) would be examples of synchronicity and which ones weren't.

[AshvinP]

Of course, it really isn't a question of randomness or causality. I think Jung thought of synchronicity as something acausal. It is two or more events occurring - one usually in thought - that are in some way in sync with each other. For example, the cat food commercial occurring shortly after someone thinks of Schrodinger's cat. The cat food commercial could have its causes. The thought of Schrodinger's cat could have different causes.

The question is whether the occurrence of the two events together is simply a matter of chance or the two events have some special significance. What that significance would be isn't clear. In any case, any number of permutations of similar events could have happened around the same time and, as Dana acknowledged, there is no way to know which combinations (if any) would be examples of synchronicity and which ones weren't.

This becomes much more simple when we acknowledge that there is nothing we perceive in the world which is not directly connected to our 'inner' qualities of experience. What we think about the world structures the meaning of everything we perceive (and meaning is what we fundamentally perceive, not "objects"). It is an acausal relation as you say, because perceiving-thinking are inseparable poles of the same underlying power which is present in every experience we have. "Causation" itself is a meaning that we impose on the world, not a fundamental attribute of it. All of those conclusions I just stated naturally flow from idealism. Obviously if are speaking of any other ontology, these things do not hold.

[Jim Cross]

This becomes much more simple when we acknowledge that there is nothing we perceive in the world which is not directly connected to our 'inner' qualities of experience.

I can agree mostly with that but that applies to everything not just synchronicity.

[SanteriSatama]

Of course, it really isn't a question of randomness or causality. I think Jung thought of synchronicity as something acausal. It is two or more events occurring - one usually in thought - that are in some way in sync with each other. For example, the cat food commercial occurring shortly after someone thinks of Schrodinger's cat. The cat food commercial could have its causes. The thought of Schrodinger's cat could have different causes.

The question is whether the occurrence of the two events together is simply a matter of chance or the two events have some special significance. What that significance would be isn't clear. In any case, any number of permutations of similar events could have happened around the same time and, as Dana acknowledged, there is no way to know which combinations (if any) would be examples of synchronicity and which ones weren't.

"Acausal" should be here understood in the technical definition of consecutive events as cause and effect. The consecutive qualia does not exclude intentionality, and causal in the sense of 'intended'.

Synchronous qualia, simultaneous as opposed to consecutive, is not empirically a point-like moment, but a duration. This raises the question, is it coherent to say that synchronicity consists of separate, countable events - or rather various (interdependent) perspectives of same event/duration?

The cat add example includes at least following perspectives: linguistic thought, audiovisual experience and intensity of meaning. The intensity of meaning could be characterized as attending perspectival relations with strongly synthetic qualia.

This brings to mind the story of blind men and elephant, the blind men as analogue of various sensual etc. perspectives, and synchronicity analogous to the blind men going together "Aha! We are touching etc the same elephant from different perspectives!"

[AshvinP]

Because, quite simply, there is no such thing as "random chance" under idealism (and I am not even sure there is under any other ontology).

That's seems like a somewhat odd position to take since BK's argument relies so much on QM. In QM, nature at its lowest level is either actually random or effectively random in that it is beyond our ability to precisely predict. The randomness of classical probability derives from this lower level.

I wouldn't say BK's argument (by this, I presume you mean Jung and Pauli's arguments as related by BK in DJM) relies on QM. It uses QM as indirect support, but idealism should never rely on an abstract mathematical system to derive its conclusions, and certainly Jung was not relying on it. QM does not tell us anything about the essence of Nature by itself, only about potentially measurable quantities which appear through Nature. Jung relies on human experience as recounted through his many patients, dream analysis, and his own experience. It is a phenomenology of how meaning presents to us in the world, both 'inner' and 'outer' worlds. And, through that phenomenology, he recognizes there is a deep relationship between inner and outer meaning which transcends cause-effect and he labels that relationship with principle of "synchronicity". Personally, I think that principle can be explored in much higher resolution, but nevertheless it is a valid low-resolution conclusion.

[Brian Wachter]

...there is nothing we perceive in the world which is not directly connected to our 'inner' qualities of experience.

This is bolstered by the neuroscience reported by Rovelli himself in "Helgoland." He admits his shock in discovering research that shows visual information is processed in the brain in reverse of what we expect; the brain normally sends information to the visual processing center and not the other way around. The brain uses existing inner conceptions to map reality. Rovelli admits this means we essentially live in our inner worlds.

[Jim Cross]

...there is nothing we perceive in the world which is not directly connected to our 'inner' qualities of experience.

This is bolstered by the neuroscience reported by Rovelli himself in "Helgoland." He admits his shock in discovering research that shows visual information is processed in the brain in reverse of what we expect; the brain normally sends information to the visual processing center and not the other way around. The brain uses existing inner conceptions to map reality. Rovelli admits this means we essentially live in our inner worlds.

Brian,

This is a really valid point factually. But to try to use this to explain synchronicity actually demonstrates, I think, the opposite of your intent. We do live in our own inner worlds but we are constantly testing the predictions of our inner world against what we find through senses from the external world. What synchronicity represents is in essence a false positive. It appears to be something that confirms our predictions but is actually unrelated to our predictions. In some cases, a person will actually act on the false positive and this can cause the synchronicity to convert to a self-fulling expectation, which in turn can build faith in synchronicity and a search for new false correlations.

See apophenia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

[Brian Wachter]

Brian,

This is a really valid point factually. But to try to use this to explain synchronicity actually demonstrates, I think, the opposite of your intent. We do live in our own inner worlds but we are constantly testing the predictions of our inner world against what we find through senses from the external world. What synchronicity represents is in essence a false positive. It appears to be something that confirms our predictions but is actually unrelated to our predictions. In some cases, a person will actually act on the false positive and this can cause the synchronicity to convert to a self-fulling expectation, which in turn can build faith in synchronicity and a search for new false correlations.

See apophenia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

It is of no use pursuing the argument with you that inner experience has value. Re: apophenia, yes, the line between vision and madness is soft, but it seems in addition to discounting synchronicity, you would discount all of Jung's work based on inner experience. Am I right? Do you believe in the descriptive power of archetypes, for instance? What do you think of Jung's visionary, "Septem Sermones ad Mortuos?" A mere hallucination?

[Jim Cross]

Brian,

This is a really valid point factually. But to try to use this to explain synchronicity actually demonstrates, I think, the opposite of your intent. We do live in our own inner worlds but we are constantly testing the predictions of our inner world against what we find through senses from the external world. What synchronicity represents is in essence a false positive. It appears to be something that confirms our predictions but is actually unrelated to our predictions. In some cases, a person will actually act on the false positive and this can cause the synchronicity to convert to a self-fulling expectation, which in turn can build faith in synchronicity and a search for new false correlations.

See apophenia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

It is of no use pursuing the argument with you that inner experience has value. Re: apophenia, yes, the line between vision and madness is soft, but it seems in addition to discounting synchronicity, you would discount all of Jung's work based on inner experience. Am I right? Do you believe in the descriptive power of archetypes, for instance? What do you think of Jung's visionary, "Septem Sermones ad Mortuos?" A mere hallucination?

Where did I ever say inner experience has no value? You seem to want to make it the only thing that is of value.

I used to be a fan of Jung as a teenager. I've moved on.