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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I'm guessing you forgot about all the other terrorist attacks between those 2 dates?

Certain numbers only work if you ignore other things.

No, I did not. That's like saying a serial killer cannot exist because multiple murders happen every day.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I'm guessing you forgot about all the other terrorist attacks between those 2 dates?

Certain numbers only work if you ignore other things.

No, I did not. That's like saying a serial killer cannot exist because multiple murders happen every day.


That was not what I said at all.

You picked terrorist events that had 911 days between them starting with September 1st 2001. What about the terrorist events that happened in 2001 after 9/11? What about 2002, 2003 and other 2004 terrorist events? Do they add up to 911 days?

This is what this thread is about. Cherry picking to suit what you want to see.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

Finally found your bible

rationalwiki.org...

You must have used the word "woo" more than a hundred times already and the word "Pseudoscience" half as much.

I had never heard that word in my life before. Apparently it was cooked up by skeptics to suit their own mindset.

It was strange that your OP should discredit Jung from the first paragraph. Now is all figures.

It is a real pity because some of the content of your OP was interesting but it seems that you are obsessed with rationality. I wonder how it must feel for you to live in a world where billions believe in a god .

It does seem that you are machine which keeps spitting this "requirement of fallacy "




edit on 17-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are basically saying that. Essentially you are arguing that no two events can be linked together without the individual cherry picking what they want to see as significant.



edit on 17/1/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are basically saying that. Essentially you are arguing that no two events can be linked together without the individual cherry picking what they want to see.

Does this reasoning extend to birthdays and anniversaries? I suppose birthdays don't exist and are just random occurrences?


Just wow.

Linking birthdays is easy. It's always a year apart. Even on a leap year. Always.

2 terrorist events with one starting on 9/11 that are exactly 911 days apart means you ignored all of the other terrorist events to get to 911 days. There's no significance to the days apart.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
You appear to have missed the point of my op and are mistaking the map for the territory. I have not suggested that every time you look at a clock you see 11:11, only that every instance of not seeing 11:11 is arbitrarily ignored.

Any "recognisable pattern" identified by synchronicity advocates is nothing more than apophenia and confirmation bias, as I have already explained. It does not exist outside of the individual's predetermined expectation. It is not chance, it is subconsciously cherrypicking a pattern from a dataset that does not actually exist.

I liked your analogy, well played. However, I still disagree with your arguments.

You say that any "recognisable pattern" detected by the subject does not exist outside the individual's predetermined expectation. Well, what if the recognisable pattern is detected by more than one person? Doesn't that discard your theory?


Multiple people committing the same logical fallacy doesn't change the fact that it is fallacious.


For example, 911 days happened to have passed between the 9/11 attacks (September 11, 2001) and the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004). What are the odds that two terrorist attacks of such magnitude would occur exactly 911 days apart?


This is not a pattern or a coincidence, it is numerology. What are the odds of any event event occurring at any time in any place? It isn't until an event occurs that you can retroactively claim it was improbable. This is not logical.

Furthermore, in my country, and many others outside the USA, the date of September 11th is written 11/9. Were there any terrorist attacks 119 days after the twin towers fell that you can cherry pick to support a claim of synchronicity that is not americentric?


I don't wish to derail your thread on the above topic, but you must admit that is one hell of a coincidence that more than one individual believes.


I fail to see any coincidence at all. I do see a blatant logical fallacy though. There is nothing special about more than one person experiencing a coincidence. In fact it is a probabilistic certainty that it will occur. It would be far more remarkable for it to never happen.



It seems like there is an improbable pattern when in fact it is confirmation bias, the clustering illusion, the gambler's fallacy and, in extreme cases, magical thinking, that leads to the mistaken perception of there being any kind of pattern at all.

I explained all of this in the op, please revisit it if it is causing confusion for you.

I find you tend to, probably not on purpose, convolute sentences by using long noun phrases that make your sentences appear intelligent and accurate, when in reality they are just long-winded to confuse the reader and make them less willing to challenge your arguments.


I apologise if my language confuses you. I will endeavour to be less long winded.



It is not "chance and randomness alone" that causes coincidences, it is a probabilistic certainty that they will occur. No coincidences at all would be far, far more unusual than any coincidences themselves could be. Coincidences have always and will always occur, according to the probabilistic and stochastic nature of reality. Improbable things happen, 100% of the time.

Improbable things do happen, but certainly not 100% of the time. Again how do you explain more then one individual sharing experiences of sychronicity?


100% of events that have occurred can in fact be said to be improbable, by synchronistic logic. This quote from Richard Feynman illustrates this point succinctly:

”You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!

Again, shared experiences of coincidences are not unusual or remarkable, they are to be expected. They require no more explanation than coincidences experienced by a single individual.



You also misunderstand the comparison to the lottery. Lottos often have incredible odds that seem impossible to beat, but indeed someone pretty much always wins. This is because of the sheer number of people playing. Even though an individual has a low chance of success, overall it's probabilistically almost certain that it will be won by somebody. Most people will refrain from submitting a ticket with six sequential numbers because of the rationalisation that such a draw is too improbable - despite the fact that all draws are equally likely, including sequential draws.

I don't believe I did. Your argument does not hold up to the fact that winners are NOT guaranteed for every draw.


I never made the claim that a winner is always guaranteed, only that there are far more individual winners than the odds of a single individual winning might lead one to expect.

in the same way, as there are far more coincidences in life than people think can be expected, they come up with synchronictic coincidences as an unnecessary explanation.



Winning the lotto is not "beating the odds", any more than a string of coincidences are "beating probabilistic chance".

Failure to apply statistical rationality to real-life situations is what causes the magical thinking fallacy of metaphysically synchronistic coincidences. This is something that you have so succinctly described as "chance and randomness alone cannot account for some coincidences". This is a perfect example of magical thinking.

Isn't applying "statistical rationality" to real-life situations troublesome, though? The nature of statistics involves only comparing portions from population samples and this does not allow for reasonable widely applicable conclusions to be drawn.


On the contrary, if the probability of an event occurring is evaluated by taking into account all previous events leading to it, you get a far more realistic probability of it actually happening.

If you ignore all the events that lead to one specific event, then the event appears to be far more improbable than it actually is.

The birthday paradox is a clear example of something that may seem completely improbable, and yet is actually a probabilistic certainty if statistical rationality is applied.

In this case and many others, not applying statistical rationality is far more troublesome than not.
edit on 17-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just wow.

Linking birthdays is easy. It's always a year apart. Even on a leap year. Always.

2 terrorist events with one starting on 9/11 that are exactly 911 days apart means you ignored all of the other terrorist events to get to 911 days. There's no significance to the days apart.


Way to the miss the point...

What about every one else's birthday that occurs between the time of your own one? How do you explain that?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just wow.

Linking birthdays is easy. It's always a year apart. Even on a leap year. Always.

2 terrorist events with one starting on 9/11 that are exactly 911 days apart means you ignored all of the other terrorist events to get to 911 days. There's no significance to the days apart.


Way to the miss the point...

What about every one else's birthday that occurs between the time of your own one? How do you explain that?


And what exactly has that got to do with synchronicity? Or the fallacy of?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
And what exactly has that got to do with synchronicity? Or the fallacy of?


Every single day of each year, multiple people wish you happy birthday for only 1 of 365 (or 366) days. Why does that happen exactly? Surely it's just coincidence...



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TerryDon79
And what exactly has that got to do with synchronicity? Or the fallacy of?


Every single day of each year, multiple people wish you happy birthday for only 1 of 365 (or 366) days. Why does that happen exactly? Surely it's just coincidence...


Because many, MANY years ago someone realised it took roughly 365 days for the Earth to do a full orbit of our Sun. Each birthday is 1 year closer to the time you meet your God(s) (look up origin of birthdays). So each year, on the same date of your birth, decided by whichever calendar was used at the time, your birthday is celebrated.

But I guess if you're into numerology, synchronicity and whatever else, you would only celebrate your birthday because someone "willed" it to happen?
edit on 171617/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: Forgot a capital E for Earth. Shocking, I know



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies
a reply to: spygeek

Finally found your bible

rationalwiki.org...

You must have used the word "woo" more than a hundred times already and the word "Pseudoscience" half as much.

I had never heard that word in my life before. Apparently it was cooked up by skeptics to suit their own mindset.

It was strange that your OP should discredit Jung from the first paragraph. Now is all figures.

It is a real pity because some of the content of your OP was interesting but it seems that you are obsessed with rationality. I wonder how it must feel for you to live in a world where billions believe in a god .

It does seem that you are machine which keeps spitting this "requirement of fallacy "



So you are not prepared to have a rational discussion of the topic, and prefer ad hominem attacks and meaningless generalisations? Classy.

If you like I can use another resource for reference, there is nothing in any of the rationalwiki articles I have linked that is not basic accepted logic, and can't be found in a myriad of online resources elsewhere. I just find rationalwiki convenient and often rather humourous.

Employing sound formal and informal logic is a necessity if you want to make rational sense, and be understood..

Woo is a useful term, it covers all manner of unscientific and unsubstantiated claims. I'm happy to abandon the use of it if it would make you more agreeable?

My insistence on being rational is not due to any kind of "obsession", it is due to me being a logical, rational human being.

I feel fine living living in a world where billions believe in a God or gods. There are plenty rational and logical reasons for holding such a faith.

Are you a follower of discordanism or something? What's wrong with insisting on rationality and sound logic? If you want to embrace logical fallacies to uphold your beliefs, this is not a thread that you find agreeable at all.
edit on 17-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek


Are you a follower of discordanism or something? What's wrong with insisting on rationality and sound logic? If you want to embrace logical fallacies to uphold your beliefs, this is not a thread that you find agreeable at all.


I don't embrace logical fallacies. That is you way of classifying that which you do not understand. Perhaps, if you opened you mind and just make a small effort to take some concepts on board, you would make a big progress in your understanding of what we are.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek



Carl Jung....
In other words, it's unsubstantiated woo.






This is because, after the first few occasions of the coincidence, and the conscious acknowledgement of it, the subconscious begins seeking out more instances of the coincidences to fulfill the expected pattern


This would also explain why psychiatrists still talk bout the elusive:"chemical imbalance of the brain" They've repeated the lie so often they believe it, keeps them in business and Pharma making money

all psychiatry is woo



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Sometimes other phenomena happen like energetic body states (kundalini awareness) like a vibrating third eye sensor package and telepathy happen before people ever have seen synchronicity in the clocks.

The 11:11 phenomena is like a game the unconscious mind play with the conscious mind. And it is connected to entanglement where 2 part of space time can exchange information as a wormhole phenomena. It is not magic. It is explainable by logical reasoning if you want to go down the rabbit hole. It is called quantum physics. The science where reality is manifested/decided by probability waves as seen by the double slit experiment.

And here you have people with theories that can explain how it works on cellular level.
www.quantumconsciousness.org...

How about we leave materialism behind and go for theories that include Quantum phenomena instead of ignore what was observed as far back as 1935. Science should go where observation leads not ignore flaws to their ideas.

A blog where Stuart point out how Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer shy away from debating these theories that are counter to their materialistic point of view.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
edit on 17-1-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You need to get more into detail about probability. I m still waiting a mathematician to prove that probability is just alibi method.

Something to occur with some probability will happen or never happen since there is no limit of it happening. So how can you use probability in scientific research?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

(Phys.org)—Ever since Austrian scientist Erwin Schrodinger put his unfortunate cat in a box, his fellow physicists have been using something called quantum theory to explain and understand the nature of waves and particles.

But a new paper by physics professor Andreas Albrecht and graduate student Dan Phillips at the University of California, Davis, makes the case that these quantum fluctuations actually are responsible for the probability of all actions, with far-reaching implications for theories of the universe.


Link



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: spygeek

I can't believe you, sorry. And here's my reasons why.

Every time I look at my analog kitchen clock it says the same number. It's always the same time and I go in there about 10 times a day, if not more. Has done for about a week. My wife says the battery needs replacing, but I'm not so sure.

Also, someone said clock numbers mean something and, as we all know, clocks were invented before humans and the universe were. Which means that there's always been someone who's special with regards to clock times repeating.

So there's my logic


People freak the # out when I tell the story about how I stopped the time.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
11:11 is just number that stands out to the mind, nothing more than that. You won't remember all the other times you observe on a clock unless there's a pattern to them such as my clocks being 24 hour clocks and I recall seeing 21:21 for example but never assume I should be headed to the casino to play blackjack. 22:22 is another 'stand out' time but it's just the time, not a signal to go changing my lifestyle or a sign of impending doom or whatever


Probability is a big part of forecasting all sorts of things based on previous outcomes and observation of contributing influences. We usually express such forecasts in terms of %POE (percentage probability of exceedence) EG. 10%POE 50%POE etc or what most would call educated guesses. Random things happen at random times like when you just happen to notice at a clock face for no particular reason, the probability of a particular number being displayed being very calculable.

edit on 17/1/2016 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: spygeek


Are you a follower of discordanism or something? What's wrong with insisting on rationality and sound logic? If you want to embrace logical fallacies to uphold your beliefs, this is not a thread that you find agreeable at all.


I don't embrace logical fallacies. That is you way of classifying that which you do not understand. Perhaps, if you opened you mind and just make a small effort to take some concepts on board, you would make a big progress in your understanding of what we are.


No. A logical fallacy is a demonstrable flaw in logic. I do on fact understand everything you have told me, and I have identified flaws in your logic. If you open your mind to the point of accepting and embracing fallacies, you are no longer being logical. I understand what we are very well without the need to conjure up any new age explanations.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: spygeek



Carl Jung....
In other words, it's unsubstantiated woo.






This is because, after the first few occasions of the coincidence, and the conscious acknowledgement of it, the subconscious begins seeking out more instances of the coincidences to fulfill the expected pattern


This would also explain why psychiatrists still talk bout the elusive:"chemical imbalance of the brain" They've repeated the lie so often they believe it, keeps them in business and Pharma making money

all psychiatry is woo


A chemical imbalance in the brain is not elusive.. It is identifiable and remedial with medication. People who are sociopaths have been identified as lacking or being deficient in a chemical, and similarly a bipolar person's brain chemistry has been shown to be different to a non-sufferer's.

I do however agree to an extent that a lot of psychology and psychiatry is essentially woo. Biochemistry and neurochemistry, is not woo.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join