Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00461)

Previously I showed that seriality has the signature
of complexity and I then assumed that synchronicity
also has this signature. However, obtaining data,
experimental or observational, to conclusively prove
that synchronicity is a self-organised, complex system
is very difficult. Carl Jung himself recognised this
limitation and called upon the law of analogy to at
least warrant synchronicity with a scientific
standing. The analogy between the patterns found in a
deck of cards, seriality and synchronicity, was
intended to supply this allegorical function. 

In presenting this analogy one of the assumptions I
used was that an observer must exist in a closed
universe (this is not a strict criterion for
synchronicity to work, rather an assumption that
simplifies a model that can be used to demonstrate the
process behind synchronicity). The universe with the
deck of cards was closed by the choice of suites and
the number of cards in the deck. The universe for
seriality (in my example) was bounded by a man either
having or not having facial growth.

Why does there need to be a boundary? As stated this
is not a strict criterion but one of convenience. By
bounding your universe you are effectively aiming to
eliminate noise that clouds any patterns that would
otherwise be found. You are saying that these are the
objects that can exist in an observer’s universe.
Sure, they occur stochastically but only these objects
can exist. With the seriality example of men with and
without facial growth this distinction (bounding, if
you will) is necessary so we know what we are looking
for. If I were to sit there and say, alright I will
record the details of every man that walks past, get
their appearance, likes, dislikes, political
attitudes, philosophical beliefs etc, and then graphed
the results all I would get is a jumble of
nothingness. There may still very well be a pattern
reminiscent of complexity but this is the equivalent
to studying olfactory functioning by following the
direct path of each and every atom from a pungent
liquid to an inquisitive nose. By placing a boundary
around the universe we are merely making life easier
for us all. 

In regards to synchronicity, where should, or would,
the universal boundary exists? A unique feature of
synchronicity is that it occurs between a psychic
state of an observer and an external event or object.
Therefore the universal boundary exists with the
limitations of an observers psyche. What places
limitations on a person’s psyche? I’ll leave that one
to all the psychologists out there. But an important
point from all of this is that each observer will have
different boundaries where synchronicity can be
played. Here is another sticking point: how can one
make repeatable observations on a phenomenon that is
different in every situation? Jung lamented this lack
of quantifiable evidence and instead favoured the
position that synchronicity should be studied
qualitatively. The qualitative approach is certainly
dynamic enough to deal with the sheer diversity of
psychic states in humanity (ie six billion unique
states). Quantifiable evidence of synchronicity can
now be theoretically gathered using the techniques I
outlined in my previous post. However, one must know
the entire psychic content of an observer and the
content that an observer may one day have. With real
life subjects this would be outright impossible. But
like most phenomena in complexity science results are
best obtained through computer simulations. As we know
that synchronicity is defined by the psyche of an
observer this gives us a working basis to create a
virtual universe where the observers in that universe
experience synchronicity. 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com