"Possibilities, odds, probabilities - all very interesting to note and comment on, but you are not going to find some unknown power or 'mind' behind all this, are you."
At the moment, the most relevant step is to see if we can track such a power's movements, or this effect's occurrences and relational patterning. As I've said, I favour the informer interpretation but that's secondary to the study of synchronicity. To your second question then:
"But what is the aim, the goal, the desired theory (it could not possibly e with a capital T), of all this? Do you think you are going to be able to establish some rule, some law of nature, which will enable secure predictions to be made of future coincidences? "
My main objective is to provide evidence of what appears to be a recurring non-random effect, whose presence - as seen in this example - is much more ubiquitous than people presently think. In my investigation, I generally only look to the biggest of events. I have found, with high consistency, that when such events show one sign of a synchronicity, they turn out to display many others.
In general, and this is important, the connections extend beyond high improbability. They usually connect to things of clear magnitude - not based on one researcher's whims, but on consensus thought (such as Leicesters' season-winning goal and turn-around one right after Richard's burial).
The mystery, is whether or not I am able to consistently pull data like what I've shared here because these events are special. Adding to this mystery is the fact that similarly special events in common settings are often juxtaposed temporally in ways that mimic the pyramids at Giza and the belt of Orion. There is clear orderliness when it comes to what I call 'relational synchronicity,' but by relative occurrence rather than relative location.
Or, is this random? Am I simply pulling these kinds of results because they are everywhere? Will most Premier League goals show results that are comparable to what I found with these two? Sure, they are special ones according to group narratives, but that can't make any difference when it comes to Chance.
As far as I'm concerned, we're a long way from presenting any kind of definitive probability assessment at this point. I tried to show why in the King example. Considered as a particular outcome, it's convergence elements appeared to be something on the order of 1 in 1 billion. However, as I mentioned with substituting king with "richard", there are other ways to make comparable examples. In that light, the particular outcome is seen to be one of several which leads to lowered, adjusted improbability.
You can see how nuanced the task might be through that one example, Susan. So there would also be need for much discussion. In the long run, a search engine would be necessary, as all investigative methods could be applied to each example.
My aim is to present why I think this question deserves other, serious thinkers', attention. Each case study is unique, symbolically eloquent, and often seems to appear extremely well-scheduled, relative to similar events. But is that scheduling really just a reflection of a higher, more integrated order? By respecting this mystery for what it is, I hope to encourage atheists to take a look, because these result's don't have to necessarily be 'design' if they are indeed non-random.
Thanks for saying that you found this was interesting, Susan. I would say so too, but that the main point is that I've found this sort of thing to be oddly normal! PB
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03-Oct-18 19:19 by Poster Boy.