From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 16:56:25 GMT
> Erin,
> Thanks for the quotes. Do you agree with this re-wording:
>
> Two events are said to be acausal if they are related, but not
> causally. And synchronicity describes acausal events that occur
> at or near the same time but not by chance.
>
> Also, do you think that
> - events described by synchronicity should be freighted with
> significance on par with causal events?
> - as an explanatory principle synchronicity is on the same order
> as causality, as Jungian theory claims?
> - there is some similarity between the mindset that sees significance
> in unlikely events and one that treats all events as happening in a
> moral-based reality?
> Glenn
>
Erin, Glen, Wim, All,
Wim, thanks for the recap.
Is there something besides "innumeracy" that is supposed to be at work in
the adding of meaning to an event considered to be a coincidence in a way
that is inversely related to the likelihood of occurrence (i.e. The less
likely, the more meaningful)?
Which poker hand is the least likely to be dealt from a well-shuffled deck?
A. all 4 Kings and the queen of spades
B. 2 of hearts, 2 of diamonds, jack of spades, jack of hearts, jack of
clubs
C. 5 of diamonds, 6 of diamonds, 8 of clubs, 4 of clubs, queen of clubs
D. all have about a 1 in 2.5 million chance of occurring
(hint: the correct answer is D)
It would be silly to look at every poker hand and think, "this is just too
weird, there is only a one in 2.5 million chance that I would get this hand,
some mysterious force must be at work here." But in effect, this is what
people do all the time who look for meaning in coincidences.
It doesn't make sense to compute such a probability after the fact unless
you were looking for the specific occurrence ahead of time.
Q: How likely is it to flip a coin and get 5 heads in a row?
A: Just as likely as getting HTHTT or any other particular sequence.
Every particular event that you can imagine is unlikely to occur. The more
specific you are, the less likely it is. But such a probability would only
apply if you thought to compute the probability before the event happened
and were looking for it at a specific time.
Another example, someone told me that the lottery number in New York on the
anniversary of 9/11 was 911 and wondered what the probability of that
happening is. On the one hand, you could say that the probability is 100%
since it already happened (assuming it's true). On the other hand if you
thought to assess the likelihood of the occurrence before it happened (which
this person did not), the only number I think you could come up with is
1/1000, the same as every other number on every other day. So what? The
small probability would not add any extra meaning than it would had the
number been 912 instead, it would have had the same probability.
According to Jung, what is recognition of such a connecting principle
supposed to do for us? I don't see how it could be considered an
"explanatory principle."
President Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy and President Kennedy's
secretary was named Lincoln. More evidence of a connecting principle? If
one assumes that coincidences point to meaning, I still can't understand
what such a coincidence is supposed to mean or how a coincidences meaning
can be discerned.
For some it is evidence of a mysterious force in the universe that wants to
make itself known through improbable occurrences. I find that many people's
spirituality is based in large part on proving God through coincidences. If
the lottery is a tax on the people who are bad at math, then synchronicity,
astrology, and the like may be religion for the same people.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 16:45:49 GMT