It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

page: 10
12
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 01:45 PM

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: spygeek

It is a probabilistic certainty that a string of coincidences will be experienced by more than one person at some points in time, it would be more unusual if this never happened..

I studies probability (including confidence levels and standard deviations) when I did maths. All very interesting. However, I disproved it all not long after.

For example , I trained myself to throw a coin three times so that it would always be Head, Head and Tail. No matter how many times I did it, it would always fall in that sequence. I would then do it in front of others and succeed. I would even ask someone else to throw the coin and get the same result.

The problem with probability is that , when the rule does not hold , the mathematician moves the goal post. Let's say I am able to make a coin fall Head ten times in a row. The mathematician would probably say : "Ok , but if you threw it 500 times , about 250 times would be Head and 250 would be tail . That the law of probality".

a reply to: crowdedskies

Can you make a video of you flipping a cooling to make it land on heads 20 times?

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:07 PM

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: spygeek

hehe you make a logical point. But have you forgotten that what you are experimenting is outside of logic and science ... for now. Therefore your mind should have an appropriate mindset to include as much as possible. Or else this experiment is a bit rigged from the start, you only use the variables science can measure after all, not even considering the possibility of the unknown. : )

actually, what i am experimenting is not outside of logic and science. that's the point of the experiment, to demonstrate this. it will clearly show that a failure in logic and evident psychological bias is what fundamentally causes the synchronicity misconception. now, if my experiment fails to produce the expected results, then yes, it could be said that something else may be at play, or it could be said that my methodology was flawed etc..

In my opinion real experiance is more valid than what science can measure. So you should approach this from different angle. Start with various human conditions to simulate a real environment just like other people who had similar experiences and if something ( or nothing ? ) happens apply scientific thought to figure it out what is going on.

At least this is my suggestion how I would go experimenting.
But otherwise as long as you have fun doing it, all is good and good luck

this is exactly what i am doing. i am attempting to simulate the experiences of people who claim this phenomenon is metaphysical, in a completely natural and non-metaphysical way. if i experience the same phenomenon with my chosen numbers, it can logically be said it is not an objectively special or metaphysical occurrence, but rather a psychological illusion.
edit on 18-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:10 PM

originally posted by: b14warrior

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: spygeek

It is a probabilistic certainty that a string of coincidences will be experienced by more than one person at some points in time, it would be more unusual if this never happened..

I studies probability (including confidence levels and standard deviations) when I did maths. All very interesting. However, I disproved it all not long after.

For example , I trained myself to throw a coin three times so that it would always be Head, Head and Tail. No matter how many times I did it, it would always fall in that sequence. I would then do it in front of others and succeed. I would even ask someone else to throw the coin and get the same result.

The problem with probability is that , when the rule does not hold , the mathematician moves the goal post. Let's say I am able to make a coin fall Head ten times in a row. The mathematician would probably say : "Ok , but if you threw it 500 times , about 250 times would be Head and 250 would be tail . That the law of probality".

a reply to: crowdedskies

Can you make a video of you flipping a cooling to make it land on heads 20 times?

good luck. when i asked him to do the same thing he refused on the grounds that we would automatically claim it is edited or staged in some way.

does this suggest that the only way he can do this is through fraud? indeed so, i suspect.
edit on 18-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:31 PM
a reply to: spygeek

He is either deluded or full of bull crap.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 05:11 PM

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: spygeek

He is either deluded or full of bull crap.

I regret to have wasted my time on ATS recently instead of getting on with my daily exercises .
In my humility of saying we all have it in us, I have been perceived as big-headed, deluded and vain.

In that case, to those who cannot step out of the little box in the head, I say : bask in your ignorance.

edit on 18-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 05:13 PM

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: spygeek

He is either deluded or full of bull crap.

I regret to have wasted my time on ATS recently instead of getting on with my daily exercises .
In my humility of saying we all have it in us, I have been perceived as big-headed, deluded and vain.

In that case, to those who cannot step out of the little box in the head, I say : bask in your ignorance.

So instead of trying to prove us wrong and you right you have decided to call us ignorant?

Well played.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 05:14 PM
a reply to: spygeek

Are you suggesting errors in logic are in fact indicative of the concept of logic itself being false? Are you saying I need to provide data to show that sound formal logic exists, in order for these fallacies to exist? Are you suggesting that it is not an accepted "given" that logical fallacies exist and I need to prove that they do before commencing the experiment?

My Answer: Yes... lol, that is what I am Implying. Sorry... i know its kind of a riddle or conundrum of sorts. Call me crazy, I don't care.

Just because someone tells me those are logical fallacies... doesn't mean they 100% indeed are.

I have to find the answers myself, I can't just believe what someone or everyone else tells me just because they said it. I gota search and come to my own conclusion.

Which is what I think you are doing for yourself on this experiment. But the answer is going to be yours and yours alone. You can certainly share it with us (and I'm looking forward to the data/answers to your experiment). In the end we get to walk away with your answer and continue to believe what we already believe or change our mind or go off and do our own search.

leolady

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:36 PM

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

I intend to be as rigorous and thorough as possible in my reporting. I will endeavour to describe in as much detail as possible the coincidences and events that occur around 8:42, I haven't thought about the length of the experiment yet, but I suspect within 6 months I should have accumulated enough evidence to significantly undermine the claims of 11:11 phenomena and synchronicity advocates..

I look forward to it.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:42 PM

originally posted by: leolady
a reply to: spygeek

My Answer: Yes... lol, that is what I am Implying. Sorry... i know its kind of a riddle or conundrum of sorts. Call me crazy, I don't care.

Just because someone tells me those are logical fallacies... doesn't mean they 100% indeed are.

I do not mean to cause any offence at all, but that is like saying colour-blindness doesn't exist until it can be proved that colours exist in the first place, and it not acceptable to assume they do exist just because everyone with vision sees them.

Logic is the basis of all concepts of rationality, and sound reasoning. Without logic there is literally nothing that can be said about, or of, anything. Trying to "prove" logic exists is oxymoronic. You need to employ logic to deduct or induct anything at all. Logic is a fundamental principle and mechanism of thinking.

The logical or rational value of any given thought or concept is measured by its logical consistency. If a logical flaw or contradiction is found, the logic supporting the concept is not reasonable or rational. A logical fallacy is committed when sound logic is not adhered to and errors in reasoning slip in.

Logical fallacies are a common and universal feature of human thought. Everyone commits logical fallacies, every day, sometimes on purpose in an attempt to fool someone, but more often without even realising it. This is not to say that all concepts and theories suffer from logical fallacies, rather it is the goal of the logical thinker to eliminate any and all fallacies before considering a given concept or theory reasonable. If a concept or theory is totally dependant on logical fallacy, (such as the 11:11 phenomenon), that concept or theory is fundamentally flawed at the most basic logical level.

Practicing the skill of thinking critically will allow an individual to better recognise a logical fallacy when they see one, and help that individual avoid committing such errors of logic themselves. Still, there is no better way of discovering a flaw in your logic than presenting your logic to another rational critical thinker, as the blindspot cognitive bias affects everybody.

Whenever attempting a sound, logical, rational discussion about or appraisal of something, always remember the golden rule: thou shalt not commit logical fallacies!.
edit on 18-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:47 PM
a reply to: spygeek

Hi !

It began more than a year now, where I see these numbers 1111 or the 111... and let me tell you that it is more than coincidence. I saw it so many time in short period of time, I see it at least 3 to 4 time a week.(sometimes even more)
I began writing it down in a scrap book, what situation the date and time, where, and still doing it.
Pretty amazing, more than just seeing it in clocks, i paid last week i paid a car ticket of 111.00, a little more than a month, my minimum payment amount for credit card was 111.11 (this is no B#\$) 3 months ago never saw the movie
I origins i was in shock after the main character as the same situation, where i buys a lotto ticket with those numbers goes out and see the clock showing 11:11 and more.
I've talked to my family about this, seems pretty intrigued too. i've seen it a lot in short periods, I received a flyer to order pizza called pizza pizza with a big print special for pizza 11.11 and so many more...

Im not religious, don't believe in esoterical phenomenon, never happened to me before, it is just incredible.
maybe it is it a wake up call, or more conscious about my sourroundings, i do believe we are more than just flesh composed of mostly water and feel the vibe around us or are aware of things we cannot see. we humans knew these things but lost it, since we are more focused on my myself and i.

But let me sure tell you this is not mere coincidence.
I respect your point of view but you don't have any argument to disprove it.

peace.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 09:17 PM

originally posted by: Cuculkan
a reply to: spygeek

Hi !

Hullo !

It began more than a year now, where I see these numbers 1111 or the 111... and let me tell you that it is more than coincidence.

Argument by assertion.

I saw it so many time in short period of time, I see it at least 3 to 4 time a week.(sometimes even more)

Frequency illusion.

I began writing it down in a scrap book, what situation the date and time, where, and still doing it.
Pretty amazing, more than just seeing it in clocks, i paid last week i paid a car ticket of 111.00, a little more than a month, my minimum payment amount for credit card was 111.11 (this is no B#\$) 3 months ago never saw the movie
I origins i was in shock after the main character as the same situation, where i buys a lotto ticket with those numbers goes out and see the clock showing 11:11 and more.

Confirmation bias.
Cherry picking.

I've talked to my family about this, seems pretty intrigued too.

...

i've seen it a lot in short periods, I received a flyer to order pizza called pizza pizza with a big print special for pizza 11.11 and so many more...

Clustering illusion.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Im not religious, don't believe in esoterical phenomenon, never happened to me before,

Emotional appeal.

it is just incredible.

Argument from incredulity.
Hyperbolic fallacy.

maybe it is it a wake up call, or more conscious about my sourroundings, i do believe we are more than just flesh composed of mostly water and feel the vibe around us or are aware of things we cannot see. we humans knew these things but lost it, since we are more focused on my myself and i.

Ad hoc reasoning.
Argmentum ex culo.
Appeal to ancient wisdom.
Magical thinking.

But let me sure tell you this is not mere coincidence.

Appeal to confidence.
Slothful induction.
Holmesian fallacy.

I respect your point of view but you don't have any argument to disprove it.

Negative proof fallacy.

argument to disprove it.

Self-refuting idea.
Apophenia.
Cognitive Bias.
The OP.

peace.

Have a nice day.

edit on 18-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 09:45 PM

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: spygeek

He is either deluded or full of bull crap.

I regret to have wasted my time on ATS recently instead of getting on with my daily exercises .
In my humility of saying we all have it in us, I have been perceived as big-headed, deluded and vain.

In that case, to those who cannot step out of the little box in the head, I say : bask in your ignorance.

Danth's Law.
edit on 18-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:15 PM
Of course your the one ho as the truth and know everything right , you think that because u cant explain it it is fallacy, well let me tell you you like a lot that word , good for you..

a reply to: spygeek

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:19 PM
not because u don't experience it means that it is not true, I think your just jealous something u cannot explain sorry.

reply to: spygeek

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:22 PM
All your arguments are ex culo sorry
a reply to: spygeek

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:55 PM
Coincidence can be very meaningful. Numerology by itself is borderline useless. Sure numerology can have some meaning, it's cool when it happens, but the interpretation is waaay too analogue. i would trust a witch doctor's divination before i considered numerology to mean anything. Math is the meaningful coincidence, numerology is only riding its coattails.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:18 PM
a reply to: Cuculkan

Are these your implied arguments?

originally posted by: Cuculkan
Of course your the one ho as the truth and know everything right ,

P1: Possession of the truth and knowledge of everything is required to recognise logical flaws or cognitive bias in my argument.
P2: Spygeek has suggested possible flaws in logic and cognitive bias supporting my argument.
P3: Spygeek does not possess the truth and does not know everything.

C1: There are no such logical flaws or cognitive bias in my argument as those suggested by Spygeek.

you think that because u cant explain it it is fallacy,

P1: If I do not agree with or believe an explanation, that explanation does not exist.
P2: Spygeek has suggested an explaination of how logical fallacy and cognitive bias may have lead to my conclusions.
P3: I do not agree with or believe Spygeek's explanation.

C1: Spygeek has offered no explanation of how my conclusions may be supported by logical fallacies.

well let me tell you you like a lot that word , good for you..

a reply to: spygeek

P1: Cognitive bias and logical fallacies are the topic of this thread.
P2: Spygeek started this thread.
P3: Spygeek defined the topic.
P4: Spygeek is taking part in discussion of the topic.

C1: Spygeek likes the word "fallacy" a lot.

originally posted by: Cuculkan
not because u don't experience it means that it is not true, I think your just jealous something u cannot explain sorry.

reply to: spygeek

P1: Suggesting that an experience may be a cognitive illusion is indicative of not understanding that experience.
P2: Suggesting that an experience may be a cognitive illusion is indicative of not having had that experience.
P3: Not understanding an experience renders any suggested explanation of it being a cognitive illusion non-existent.
P4: Not having had an experience renders any suggested explanation of it being a cognitive illusion non-existent.
P5: Suggesting an explanation of an experience while not understanding it is indicative of jealousy towards those who experience it.
P6: Suggesting an explanation of an experience while having not experienced it is indicative of jealousy towards those who experience it.
P6: Spygeek suggests an explanation of how my experience may be a cognitive illusion.

C1: Spygeek does not understand my experience.
C2: Spygeek has not had my experience.
C3: Spygeek does not explain my experience.
C4: Spygeek is jealous of my experience.

originally posted by: Cuculkan
All your arguments are ex culo sorry
a reply to: spygeek

P1: Arguments that question the logic of my conclusions are logically untenable as they consist of non sequitur ad hoc reasoning and nonsense.
P2: Arguments that question the logic of my conclusions are invented to support the assumed position that my conclusions are wrong.
P3: All of Spygeek's arguments question the logic of my conclusions.

C1: All of Spygeeks arguments are examples of Argmentum ex culo.

Have I inferred your meaning correctly? Do accept that these could be Reductio ad absurdums of your replies?

You haven't actually presented a logical argument yet, (other than an argument by assertion), so I admit I am effectively straw-manning in the dark here based on the possible logical inferences of what you have said..

I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly what you are trying to say or imply with these replies.
edit on 19-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:28 PM

originally posted by: MemeticHarvest
Coincidence can be very meaningful. Numerology by itself is borderline useless. Sure numerology can have some meaning, it's cool when it happens, but the interpretation is waaay too analogue. i would trust a witch doctor's divination before i considered numerology to mean anything. Math is the meaningful coincidence, numerology is only riding its coattails.

Coincidences that are meaningful are only so to the extent of the subjective meaning attached to them.
Objectively speaking, they are not improbable, meaningful, rare, exceptional or incredible, as some are so fond of asserting.

Mathematics itself is not coincidental so much as it is a means to describe the probabilistic nature of coincidental events.

There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).

Apart from this, I agree with you.

edit on 19-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:13 PM
a reply to: spygeek

So, we're three days into the "experiment". How many 8:42 references have you come up with?

I'm intrigued to see how many appear, i pointed out the first one for you.

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: EA006

So far, i have had one that could arguably be relevant, relying on the inverse 2:48, which I shared with a photo earlier. This was followed immediately by a similar "licence plate coincidence", when a car parked directly behind and across from me with a plate that, when I noticed it in the inverse view of my rear view mirror, spelled out my three initials.

Is the "universe" trying to tell me I should be focusing on 248 rather than 842? Is it making fun of my experiment by giving me coincidences that are the inverse of what I am looking for?

The problem I am finding is that the definition of synchronicity is so vague, pretty much anything can be made to fit it..

I have experienced one completely unrelated coincidence as well, last night a subject I was talking about with my fiancee popped up about 30mins later in a newsletter I had picked up and read while waiting for my take-out souvlaki dinner.. The horoscope in this newsletter also said "You may be inclined to make decisions using your gut instincts, always remember to follow your natural saggitarian intuition and curiosity. Conflicts could arise if you ignore what you know is right".

So it would seem at this point that coincidence is indeed random and undirected, although of course it is way too early to draw any kind of conclusion.

edit on 19-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

top topics

12