> Thanks, Ray. So much to ask...
See my comments below.
> Let me start with one of the main generalizations
> I have at this point of my investigation... I am
> mainly interested in focusing on the odds, usually
> compounding odds, because I don't think I'm
> equipped to empirically address the matter of what
> causes syncs presently, if they are indeed
> That said, I am encouraged that the results
> strongly suggest that Chance is a weak explanation
> in many of the instances I present, based on odds.
> A second generalisation before I move on with
> something specific. If syncs are caused by
> design, what if the situation is like this kind of
> card game. Suppose a bunch of people were playing
> Poker one night with a shady or playful dealer.
> In the first hour several highly improbable hands
> appear. The experienced player's know something
> is up because of this, but there are exceptions.
> Let's say that someone at the table refuses to
> believe that any person is interfering with the
> otherwise-governing laws of Chance. They offer up
> some predictable defenses: anything can happen
> according to the laws of Chance, sometimes these
> streaks happen. You've heard them all before
> So, on the next draw this person receives a
> two-pair hand, a 50-50 kind of result, but one
> that consists of two 3s, a 2, a 6 and a 8. No
> officially recognized hands appear on the table,
> but this relatively ordinary hand, dealt to your
> naysayer, happens to spell out his or her
> birthdate, as the 23rd or March aka March 23 in
> Although not officially an improbable hand, it's
> appearance is both timely (given the current
> discussion) and relevant (to the main detractor).
> Let's say that for the rest of the evening that
> there are no more officially highly improbable
> Poker hands, but that this sort of personal result
> happens on a recurring basis, here the cards
> reference things, symbolically, that were
> discussed earlier in the evening.
> I submit that all reasonable people would agree
> that something 'other than Chance' is affecting
> the game, even if nobody could actually prove it.
> Because of this, the designer is seen to be
> imposing its terms on a series of outcomes that we
> would normally measure according to clearly
> defined parameters - those that classic Poker
> deems significant.
> So, here's my first question Ray. If syncs are
> the result of design, it seems to me that this is
> often the designer's preferred method. Get
> people's attention with truly improbable outcome
> of outcomes, then add to that but in ways that
> don't necessarily fit in the boxes we like to work
> with. Can you please comment on how you might
> approach this sort of thing, at least if you were
> willing to address a complex event or events
> overall improbability?
The single most powerful proof in science is replication. And the number of replications that defy chance is five, according to the binomial expansion. Example: I meet old classmate Sally at the airport, and she introduces me to her five daughters. Then, she pulls me side, and indicates that she and her husband would go for another child if there was a chance of having a son. By chance she has a 50/50 chance of one girl, 1 chance in 4 (1/4) having two in a row, 1 chance in 8 (1/8) of having three in a row, 1 chance in 16 (1/16) of having four in a row, and 1 chance in 32 (1/32) of having 5. If the probability of any sequence is less than 5 per cent, the usual scientific decision rule would be that her five daughters are rarer than would be expected by chance. If we adopted a more conservative decision rule of 1 per cent, we would need six consecutive daughters, having 1 in 64 (1/64) likelihood.
With five (or possibly six) daughters, and my usual decision rule, I'd tell her that it might be that she always would have daughters. She and her husband should have a genetic evaluation. If it were four, I'd suggest she give it a shot.
The decision rule helps me decide whether or not chance is involved.
> Secondly, I will return to something that I had
> said to Daniel, which is that I have found it
> surprisingly fruitful to look to moments within
> public storylines that are clearly prominent.
> This approach, I am certain, entirely defeats that
> claim that I am being subjective, just looking to
> some places in order to make a case for
> For example, let me turn to the
> t-football-story-of-all-time/]Greatest Footballing
> Story[/url]" that I had mentioned earlier: I
> finally heard about this 1.5 year unfolding a
> couple of months before the 2015-16 English
> Premier League ended. What grabbed my attention,
> was that this turnaround began in Leicester City's
> first match after King Richard III was buried
> there on March 26. No reasonable person can deny
> that this was a significant point in the Leicester
> City story. All claims that I am being subjective
> or arbitrary in looking to that specific time are
> irrelevant. On the contrary, I am being highly
The statistic that works here is called a regression analysis: "wins X time" One line would be chance, and the comparison line (the regression line) would rise. The decision rule would be the same as the earlier example I gave.
> So, according the 'template' I mentioned to
> Daniel, this was a logical place to look for hints
> of intervention, or hints of the non-random, since
> the April 4 game was THE turning point. As I show
> in the essay I posted online, a number of
> King-related themes "converge" on that match.
> This is one of the say I have found that syncs
> unfold: in ways that are clearly uniquely
> relevant to the main event and, or seemingly, very
> In that sub-example, I would say that the
> turnaround features a 'convergence level of 4'
> based on the King cluster. This is what I call
> thematic redundancy, and I have found that
> redundancy comes up with surprising frequency.
> Staying with my template that, when the Greatest
> Footballing Story was finally over, I decided to
> find out when exactly Leicester had actually won
> the Premier League. Everybody celebrated the
> victory in early May, but in fact the Foxes had
> clinched a few weeks earlier. That made an
> earlier game, and likely its winning goal, another
> 'logical' place to look for non-random indicators,
> since it was clearly 'salient' or stood out in
> this storyline.
> The results are posted in the link. Not only did
> this goal take place at a very English time, the
> winning goal proved to be highly significant with
> respect to three related settings - LC's history,
> the European League and the Premier League. This
> is another kind of redundancy, based on unarguable
> 'significance' rather than kings...
> These results were not surprising Ray. On the
> contrary, they appear to be oddly normal. The
> best-synced events display a lot of unique
> redundancy, and here I will remind you of that
> essay I sent where the number 87 came up a dozen
> times, in or in clear relation to another very
> well known even.
> I am beginning to think that I may be asking the
> right questions. While I can't say what causes
> syncs, I often treat them as if they were design.
> For example, So, Leicester City's amazing
> turnaround began in the match just after Richard
> was buried, and everyone's talking about that over
> in the UK? Let's take a closer look at that, with
> the 'King' theme in mind...
> To come full circle, I suspect that I may be being
> rewarded for following breadcrumbs that have been
> left there to pique the curiousity of those
> willing to pause and reflect.
> I would appreciate it if you would take a look at
> the Leicester essay with attention to these key
> events. As a stats man, can you comment on how
> regression might come into play with those
> examples? I can't think of any yet. Really Ray,
> know my limitations. I did stats in university
> and went as far as calculus, but I'm well aware
> that I'm a layman. My hope has always been to
> present data that may be of interested to
> professionals like you, who may be able to sort
> out where I've hit and missed, and build that that
> something that I seem to be on to. Looking back
> over the years, I would say that I'm batting over
> 90 percent when it comes to turning to events that
> seem to be synced for whatever reason: that is,
> the events usually reveal multiple other
> meaningful data - and in all cases we are talking
> about events that loom just as large, in their own
> settings, as the world's most prominent structures
> do in their respective settings.
> A final thought, if syncs are the handiwork of a
> designer who chooses to conduct himself as our
> aforementioned card reader might - installing
> highly improbable outcomes on its terms, not ours
> - then how far can we run with a statistical
> analysis? Can that be done, Ray? Or, - my
> present hope - can we establish reasonable ranges,
> where the likelihood of non-randomness is
> reasonably established? Is it not better - at
> least until we have a suitable search engine,
> perhaps - to seek only to assess the
> non-credibility of Chance, rather than try to do
> that AND determine the root cause of
> Please take your time on this, Ray. And thanks.