[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |

Dec 11, 2002 08:25 PM

by Mic Forster

I stumbled across some data the other day which I completely forgot I collected. The data was of men who walked past a certain point and I recorded whether or not they had facial hair. The purpose of collecting this data was to find patterns similar to Kammerer's seriality. And indeed it showed some of the patterns Kammerer observed way back early last century. Nothing too exciting there. But as I was looking at the data something was twigging in my brain as if I had seen this pattern somewhere before. And then it occurred to me: this pattern is a fractal and probably follows a power law distribution. Sure enough it did with a regression coefficient of 0.94 (in other words, very very accurate). But how would one explain this pattern in a coherent observational and functional model? Well to do this is actually quite simple and you can try this at home. All you need is a pack of playing cards and a computer package such as excel that can analyse the data. Here is what you do: 1) get your cards and shuffle them so that they are completely random; 2) place your cards face down and then pick one from the top; 3) in excel record in column whether it was a heart, diamond, spade or club; 4) continue this process until you have gone through all 52 cards; 5) now go down your columns and record the number of successive cards that match (so if I had the series club, spade, spade, spade, heart, heart, club, diamond; the number of successive cards that match would be 1,3,2,1,1); 6) sort these numbers from largest to smallest and graph so that the number of matches appears on the y-axis and the rank of that match appears on the x-axis. This should follow a power law distribution. So, what is the theory behind this simple model? The theory is that events that occur in our lives are self-organised at what has become known as the edge of chaos. Events occur randomly but in such a way as to form a coherent whole. The above is suppose to generate a very simple model that explains how events occur to an oberserver or experiencer. In this model the "universe" consists of 4 "species" (club, spade, heart, diamond) and 13 "individuals" per species. The universe lasts for 52 time-steps where one time step is the equivalent to the turning of one card from the deck. Kammerer's seriality manifests itself through a succession of similar cards (eg spade, spade, spade). So this model is effectively saying that an observer lives in a closed universe where all the events that are to occur in that observer's life are already known and have been organised so that they appear at random, though organised, throughout the observer's life (hints of the 11-dimension universe here??). So with my seriality data this theory works well and I am in the process of collecting more data that will either confirm this statement further or refute it. But what has this to do with synchronicity? Jung grouped all synchronicity phenomena into 3 groups and the theory I am developing here works well with his first group: "The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous, objective, external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content" (Jung, 1960; p. 526). Here synchronicity is exactly the same as seriality except a psychic state is invoked for synchronicity. Nevertheless that psychic state is in effect an event in an observer's life. With events occuring in an observer's life according to a power law an observer will have many moments when a psychic state does not coincide with an external event. But sooner or later, due to the very nature of complex systems, a psychic state will coincide with an external event. That some "scientific" or "universal" principle is behind synchronicity should not come as a surprise as Carl Jung said himself: "The term [synchronicity] explains nothing, it simply formulates the occurrence of meaningful coincidences which, in themselves, are chance happenings, but are so improbable that we must assume them to be based on some kind of principle, or some property of the empirical world." (Jung, 1960; p. 531). Although complexity science may offer an explanation for how synchronicity occurs it may not be able to offer an explanation for the profound effect a synchronicity event can have on an observer. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

**References**:**Re: Theos-World Re: The movie COMA***From:*Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>

Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application