Thank you for the detailed reply. Your problem is, though, that you are assuming the *power*, without any observation, let alone independent observation. All the effects you refer to can be explained by other means and there is no need for adding the complexity of some power.Quote
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.
But the definition of synchronicity is clear. There is no such thing as synchronicity, it is simply a word to describe a humanly imagined purpose or meanng behind coincidental events.Quote
As I've said, I favour the informer interpretation but that's secondary to the study of synchronicity.
‘appears to be a non-random effect’ The first word in that phrase says it all. It doesn’t matter how many groups of coincidences appear to be connected, as always the numbers of incidences do not a fact make. The chances of something happening may be billions of trillions to one against, but if it happens that makes the probability one. (Ditto for any kind of god/spirit/etc!!!)Quote
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.
Well, yes, we humans are very good at spotting patterns and because we have language, we can talk about them. This stems from a basic survival trait.Quote
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.
And, yes, it is an interesting hobby, and anything that involves lively discussion is a good thing!!Quote
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.
The bottom line is that they are random.Quote
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.
Yes, normal because coincidences, random events, occur all the time and some are noticed if they are new, or unusual or quirky or something. To take the coincidence as something with any mystical significance is a step leading nowhere.Quote
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