Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

That's fine.
As is your personal interpretation that the Universe is trying to make you do anything. But science and logic are not going to back you up because that is not the realm of science or logic.

a reply to: Phage

your logic relies on the idea that the universe is just a thing that exploded from nothing for no reason and there is no intelligence in anything since we cant measure it.

your science doesnt bother with anything that cant be proven. so questions like "what happened before the big bang" and "what is consciousness" are completely ignored.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

your science doesnt bother with anything that cant be proven. so questions like "what happened before the big bang" and "what is consciousness" are completely ignored.

Yup. Exactly. Who cares what happened before the Universe? I don't.

And your world view depends on personal perceptions and interpretations which you cannot prove to be real to anyone but yourself.

Now what?

But, without science and logic we would not be having this conversation, would we?

a reply to: Phage

now what? well thats up to you. i dont care what you do with your sentience.

but it makes no sense to argue someones personal view on how this whole thing works when your idea of how it all works is fundamentally flawed.

i have a basis for why i think synchronicity can work. the universe is just a function of consciousness and the whole thing is alive and thinking, and if it is theres no reason to assume its not gonna try to communicate with us. your argument against that is you dont believe it because no one can prove it. end of story.

But, without science and logic we would not be having this conversation, would we?

without intelligence we wouldn't have science and logic.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

but it makes no sense to argue someones personal view on how this whole thing works when your idea of how it all works is fundamentally flawed.

What a wonderfully silly statement. I said you are perfectly welcome to your personal view. I never argued otherwise, but how do you know it is my ideas which are fundamentally flawed and not yours?

your argument against that is you dont believe it because no one can prove it.

That's not why I don't believe it.

a reply to: Phage

i just said how i know.

your logic relies on the idea that the universe is just a thing that exploded from nothing for no reason and there is no intelligence in anything since we cant measure it.

your science doesnt bother with anything that cant be proven. so questions like "what happened before the big bang" and "what is consciousness" are completely ignored.

wait so your not arguing that synchronicity is BS pseudo science? so what are you doing here?

That's not why I don't believe it.

then what is it?

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

wait so your not arguing that synchronicity is BS pseudo science? so what are you doing here?

I am saying that it nothing but a matter of personal perception and interpretation as and such, has no place in science or logic. I am say that if you personally put significance in it, that's your privilege but you should understand that it is your personal perception and interpretation.

then what is it?

What is what?

a reply to: Phage

ok? thats cool.

What is what?

the reason you dont believe it... i figured after I quoted you saying "That's not why I don't believe it" and then asking "then what is it" it would be clear i was asking what the reason(it) was...

it has no place in science or logic isnt an acceptable answer.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason
Oh.

I don't believe it because I have had no personal experience with it, seen any convincing evidence for it, been provided with any explanation for it, or have any other reason to believe it. I don't tend to believe in things because it would be cool if they were real.

Yes, I've picked up the phone before it rang once or twice. But far more often do I pick it up and hear a dial tone. As I mentioned earlier, I also notice when my clock says 7:47 but that's because I like airplanes.

a reply to: Phage

AVoiceOfReason you might not be a physic but just because you do not know how it is built up do not mean that you are in this case the one who is following observation of "what is" instead of believing a dogma of "what is".

There are people on this planet that are seeing the connection with synchronicity and entanglement and many people do not like the idea that free will can be influenced by worm hole like phenomena and keep following a learnt in model even if it has already been proven false. All the mysterious are in fact not really mysterious when you look at how it is implemented.

They keep saying entanglement is a left glove, right glove even when they get proof it fluctuates. Einstein could not handle it and these people cannot handle it either. Atheism has created it's own faith religion where they ignore observation. Materialism. And "scientist" slowed down the potential of understanding everything that is when they push this dogma. Funny that "science" can fall for the same trap that Christianity fell into when it would not allow the sun to be in the center of this solar system.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: spygeek

ahhhh. so we get to the nitty gritty. in other words you haven't done any research..

I've read all three of his T.O.E. books. Hypocritically, you don't seem to have done any research, as you defer to his YouTube channel instead of personally answering from the position of someone who understands what he is talking about. I know what he says, I wanted to know what you think he says.

What it says, how it reconciles quantum mechanics and relativity, metaphysics and consciousness, and please provide the physical formula and mathematical formula that support this claim.

watch this video.

This videos does not answer how he reconciles these things, and contains no mathematical proofs or physical formula to support the claim. Much like his books.

Please explain which concepts in particular make perfect sense to you, and the implications these concepts have for the future of scientific advancement.

his theory says that we are inhabitants in a simulated reality. this reality runs on rule sets(physics). the purpose of the simulation is so that consciousness(us) has a place to experience itself. without physical reality we cant be aware of anything other than our own consciousness. we dont learn anything. we dont know anything. we dont do anything. without a place to play we are just intelligence without a purpose.

This strict dualism philosophy has serious problems regarding how consciousness is able to affect physical reality and where and how the interaction between material and immaterial takes place. There is nothing in the videos or his books in the way of explanation of these problems; they are ignored. There has to be a mechanism involved, none is ever offered.

Similarly, a simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable in that it is impossible to determine that reality is a simulation from inside the simulation. Again this issue is sidestepped and the blunt assertion that reality is simulated is enforced without logic or justifiable cause. The question of what is outside the simulation is also ignored.

Please detail in what ways this theory diverges from current understanding, and explain why this divergence is necessary.

well the current understanding(or more specifically your understanding) is that the universe is created from nothing by random chance for no reason. and it isnt necessary. what you believe has no impact on anything.

This is false. The current understanding is that it is likely that quantum fluctuations produced the big bang, or prior to the universe two other universes may have collided to produce the big bang.

"Nothing" does not exist, and nothing comes from nothing. If the multiverse exists, (which is probable), then for all intents and purposes, universes have always existed, and ours is likely one in a long generational line stretching back into what for us would be infinity.

Physical science is not concerned with the reason or why of existence, and conflating such philosophical questions to the realm of material science is illogical.

The T.O.E. offers no alternative to the current understanding of how the universe was created.

Please reference directly from the theory what revelations elevate this above all other accepted theories of understanding of the physical universe.

elevate it in what way? does it have to be superior to be true? i dont know what you mean.

If we are to abandon current material understanding in favour of his theory, then the theory must do a better job of explaining everything we currently can explain, in addition to what we can't.

Again, this does not happen within the T.O.E. Not only does it not actually give us any new information, it doesn't even define the hole in current knowledge that it is meant to fill.

Please illustrate what predictions this theory makes and how it can be tested for falsifiability in general.

i think he talks about it in the video i linked. and if not its in one of his other videos. you dont have to buy his books to learn about his theory. which makes your petty little comment about his books being available for the low price of 30 dollars irrelevant.

I've already read the books. Not a single prediction is made. Nor are there any in any of the videos I have seen on the theory.

My comment might have been petty, but it's still true. He is directly profiting from the uninformed public through lying about his product. It is not a theory of everything, it is not even a scientific theory, yet this is exactly what he claims, deliberately misleading people into shelling out for it.

Scientific theories aren't a commodity to be bought and sold like a self-help book. Science does not work that way. Pseudoscience however, works exactly that way.

i gotta be honest im not a science guy. im not qualified to speak about physics.

Exactly. You are precisely the target demographic for these shams of pseudoscience.

i know only what ive experienced and what makes sense to me based on those experiences. when i wake up on the ceiling looking down at myself in my bed and assume ive died i start asking questions. and i know youre knee jerk reaction is going to be to call me crazy and say im on drugs or whatever else you people say in these situations. so just save it. if theres one thing id like from you it would be to live outside of your beliefs for atleast a little bit and entertain the idea that you dont know everything.

I'm quote happy to entertain an idea. But if I do and I find a glaring problem or irreconcilable contradiction, I'm not going to continue to entertain it.

Obviously I do not know everything. I do however know enough to be able to confidently identify fake science and flawed logic when I see it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

wait so your not arguing that synchronicity is BS pseudo science? so what are you doing here?

I am saying that it nothing but a matter of personal perception and interpretation as and such, has no place in science or logic. I am say that if you personally put significance in it, that's your privilege but you should understand that it is your personal perception and interpretation.

then what is it?

What is what?

I can agree with your view here. The subjective should be measured on a quantum probability scale so that the information becomes objective.

If the probability field is A how will reality manifest. We need tools to measure A so that we can make truth full models that are 100% accurate and can be verified 100% of the time by measurement.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Phage

You did not avoid the interview due to your own decision but because the Universe caused you to.

no i didnt say whether or not i went through with the interview or not.. ill rephrase then. the universe tries to lead me in another direction if it sees a reason to do so. its my choice whether or not i follow.

You still suggest that the universe has a vested interest in you and your life to the point of influencing the events around you to lead you.

But you ignore everybody else with this suggestion, apparently starving third world citizens and ruthless dictators fall outside of the universe's jurisdiction, or it just doesn't care? Does it offer them alternative paths, which these people ignore?

What exactly is the level of the universe's intervention and how exactly can an intervention be defined? How can this not be a simple retroactive attachment of metaphysical significance to a perfectly natural occurrence?

What makes you so special that the universe itself will go out of it's way to provide you with a specific choice of path? A choice you might not even take anyway, rendering the whole thing pointless to begin with.

Logical fallacies. Confirmation bias. Magical thinking. Correlation implying causation. Arguments from ignorance. Special pleading. Argmentum ex culo. Slothful induction. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The list goes on..

a reply to: spygeek

Or what is AVoiceOfReason doing differently that makes something intervene and make AVoiceOfReason notice synchronicity on a conscious level?

Look at all the variables. Just because you do not understand the variables and how they are connected do not mean it is illogical.

Also you need a science to measure suffering that is objective and look at a quantum level who are getting intervention and who are not. Maybe measuring the state of entangled particles on a quantum level would be a good start to know how much of the particles that are entangled and what kind of information flow gets manifested thru the different consciousness?

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: spygeek

Or what is AVoiceOfReason doing differently that makes something intervene and make AVoiceOfReason notice synchronicity on a conscious level?

I wonder that too, I suspect what he is doing differently is training himself to expect and notice it through confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning.

Look at all the variables. Just because you do not understand the variables and how they are connected do not mean it is illogical.

Ignorance of the variables does not change the fact that synchronicity only exists as a psychological construct.

Also you need a science to measure suffering that is objective and look at a quantum level who are getting intervention and who are not.

Maybe measuring the state of entangled particles on a quantum level would be a good start to know how much of the particles that are entangled and what kind of information flow gets manifested?

This is just silly quantum woo. No offence, but that is simply not how quantum mechanics works. It doesn't translate to the macro world in this manner.

Studying quantum particle entanglement will give no indication of how synchronicity can intervene in the life of an individual. Synchronicity is a subjective, personal, psychological illusion.

a reply to: spygeek

You call it silly Quantum woo because you do not like it and say Quantum Mechanics do not work this way, but from my point of view you are not interested in measuring if you are correct or not. You do not believe Quantum physics manifests in the makro in this way. Confirmation bias from my point of view ignoring every measuring you do not like.

Give it 50 years and it will be interesting to see how you will think about the ideas you have today.

I sometimes put my phone on Airplane mode at night to conserve my IPone's battery. I like it still on for its flash light if I need it.

Anyway, I picked it up the other day and seen the Airplane mode Airplane icon at the top of the phone with the time 9:11am right next to it.

Not a big deal, it was just a weird coincidence, but it still felt very strange. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: spygeek

You call it silly Quantum woo because you do not like it and say Quantum Mechanics do not work this way, but from my point of view you are not interested in measuring if you are correct or not.

I called it silly quantum woo because what you described doesn't have any basis in actual quantum mechanics at all.

Throwing the word "quantum" around like this is meaningless and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the field.

You do not believe Quantum physics manifests in the makro in this way. Confirmation bias from my point of view ignoring every measuring you do not like.

There simply is no possible measuring to speak of. You seem to think quantum theory overrules relativity, and that quantum mechanics is somehow representative of the behaviour of matter on the macro-scale. This is just plain false.

Give it 50 years and it will be interesting to see how you will think about the ideas you have today.

I'm sure quantum mechanics will be reconciled with relativity at some point in future. This does not mean the laws of physics will suddenly become different, or the current nature of reality will suddenly change, as you seem to be suggesting.

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. : )

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