> Poster Boy
> Interesting post. I take the point that
> synchronous and coincidental are not exact
Yes Susan, and both are arbitrary in nature. Chance works so extremely well that we too often take this for granted, that we enter situations with a strong presumption that Chance is the root cause. It's highly reliable, because it works so well.
Synchronicity implies a deliberate and
> pre-planned connection between events, designed to
> make people think there is some hidden meaning.
Not necessarily, and this is one instance of how under-evolved our understanding of synchronicity is. Personally, I tend to favour the 'designer' interpretation, but this is only one possible explanation. Another very intriguing possibility is that our mind somehow shapes and times certain outcomes. That explanation and others like it would tend to fall under the domain of quantum effect. Way to early to say if this is the cause, but for a century we've known that mind influences reality on some level.
> If something supremely improbable happens, then it
> still has a probablity of 1, because it has
> happened. Whatever the odds are, if it happens, it
> immediately changes the odds from XXX-0 to XXXX-1
> - or something like that!
You are absolutely right, Susan. There is always a 'chance' that something extremely improbable can occur. The Chance hypothesis is extremely accommodating. However, I don't think you would get very far, were you to raise this kind of argument in a court of law, as a means of overcoming damning DNA evidence, would you!? There's a huge difference between the practical and theoretical applications of Chance.
Nice to hear from you Susan. I've been waiting for months now to hear back from you on your video idea. I submit that you owe it to your friends and family. Always at your service! Mark