# Synchronicity, Randomness

1. Sep 10, 2007

### LeoYard

Can we quantify synchronicity and randomness ?

2. Sep 11, 2007

### wuliheron

By it's ordinary definition randomness is a quality, not a quantity. To say that something is random is to declare that we can observe no sense of order, be it quantitative or qualitative. Thus, by the ordinary definition of randomness there is no way to quantify the concept and the same holds true for the idea of synchronicity, which is also a quality.

3. Sep 11, 2007

### momentum_waves

There are a few good books discussing 'synchronicity'.

An example is:
Synchronization: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences (Cambridge Nonlinear Science Series)

4. Sep 12, 2007

### lllll

Randomness is in synch with randomnization and synchronicity is randomly occuring with itself and randomnization. Who can ever know the future? Yet it continues to flow because its synchronicity is perfect allowing for the continuum of existence. If any particle, atom, element etc. were to ever be out of synch then the perfection of existence would instantaneously cease to exist. All is natural. Randomness and synchronicity are both qualities and quantities, and not at the same time. The result of which depends on the data extracted from analysis and examination of a closed system contrary to an immeasurable system.

In closed systems predictions can seemingly be made and expectations had due to predetermined status and limited outcomes. In an immeasurable system there are both expectations/predictions and neither expectations/predictions considering that the immeasurable contains the measurable, thus simtultaneously being the attributes of both and neither.

Last edited: Sep 12, 2007
5. Sep 14, 2007

### momentum_waves

Knowing something about coupled wave phenomena would make your search a little simpler.

6. Jun 7, 2009

### wittgenstein

Suppose that I wake up and randomly open an encyclopedia. On the page is an article about Selkirk Ontario. My wife walks in and says," Our friends just moved to Selkirk Ontario." 5 minutes pass. My painting of Napoleon falls for no apparent reason and shatters on the floor. On the front page of my newspaper is the headline, " Napoleon's birthday celebrated at the park." Obviously meaningless coincidences. However, suppose that these meaningless coincidences keep happening every 5 minutes for 7 years. I think that it would be rational to believe that something is going on. Now, when ( on what day of what year) do we say that randomness becomes synchronicity? How do we quantify the point at which randomness becomes sychronicity?

7. Jun 8, 2009

### baywax

The two states, randomness and synchronicity, fundamentally belong together as "perceived states" that are relative to each observer and each state. This qualifies them as relative states. They are "symbiotic" in that our perception of them relies on there being a perceivable difference between them.

The two states only exist because of the system that supports a universe existing in the first place.

The two states can exist together, somewhat "symbiotically" in one synchronized system where random synchronicities take place. Ironically, in my view, the two cannot exist separately because... "you can't have one without the other" (Doris Day).

8. Jun 9, 2009

### Anticitizen

Isn't it true that from certain moving frames of reference, those two actions could appear to NOT take place at the same time, and destroy any notion of synchronicity?

9. Jun 9, 2009

### baywax

Yes, that's why I'm calling synchronicity a relative and perceived state.

edit: Not that I'm the authority on the subject. But would anyone recognize a synchronized event if they'd never-ever seen a random one?

Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
10. Jun 10, 2009

### wittgenstein

Position in time does not effect the notion of synchronicity. I open a book randomly at the library to page 22 of the Bible. I go home ( a twenty minute walk) and see my wife . She has the Bible open to page 22. That would still be synchronicity.
Also, your argument would destroy the notion of cause and effect. One can even say that the example you gave could be seen as cause and effect. I do not see cause and effect as a necessary connection and so like synchronicity, both are only patterns.

11. Jun 10, 2009

### wittgenstein

See my posts in the thread below called simply " synchronicity". There is a fuller explanation there.

12. Jun 10, 2009

### baywax

I see, so if you open a book in the library at page 22, then you die 48 years later and someone else opens a book at page 22 this is sychronicity. Don't think so. Synchronicity is thoroughly time dependent. It must be perceived to have happened simultaneously or within a frame of reference... thus the relative nature of the event(s).

13. Jun 12, 2009

### baywax

What are the similarities between Sychronicity and Coincidence?
Are they the same thing?