Synchronicity; Apophenia and the 11:11 fallacy

a reply to: Phage

really? thats not even relatively close to what i meant. but hey instead of being open minded mock me. its the cool thing to do.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason
Instead of being defensive, explain yourself better instead of leaving so much room for interpretation.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

The universe pulls strings for your personal benefit huh?

Does it just ignore all the people who are starving and dying in third world and war torn countries? Did the universe pull strings for Hitler? Mandela? Pol Pot? Ghandi?

At what point do you know the difference between what is the universe pulling string, what is random chance or coincidence? How is it even possible to entertain such an idea when there is literally nothing objective to support it?

You're welcome to believe "the universe" gave you a flyer, or brought you and partner together, or stopped you getting a boring job, or whatever. That's all well and good, no harm done.

Don't think for second though, that anyone who looks at this belief critically will not find multiple logical issues with it.

a reply to: Phage

Look into what? What can be measured? What can be tested? That's what science is.

maybe you should actually look into his work. he doesnt call it a theory because he thinks it makes it look better. hes compiled tons of evidence and done all the math. there are a slew of youtube videos where he gets into the specifics of his TOE. instead of being reactionary maybe you should go watch them.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Phage

Look into what? What can be measured? What can be tested? That's what science is.

maybe you should actually look into his work. he doesnt call it a theory because he thinks it makes it look better. hes compiled tons of evidence and done all the math. there are a slew of youtube videos where he gets into the specifics of his TOE. instead of being reactionary maybe you should go watch them.

We have looked into his work. It is nonsensical. That's what we are trying to make clear to you. It is not even wrong.

His paper says nothing of substance, it is all fluff and woo. If it actually made a falsifiable claim, we would have something to work with. But it doesn't even do that. It's a hodgepodge of metaphysical nonsense with no clear logical propositions, hypothesis, experimentation, or conclusion.

It's a void of words and meaningless conjecture, dressed up as scientific principle. There's nothing concrete to pick apart, it's the epitome of fractal wrongness.

a reply to: Phage

There are three major views one can have in relation to this topic:

1) Everything that happens is through random occurrence (only random occurrences exist)
2) Nothing that happens is through random occurrence (random occurrences do not exist)
3) Some things happen through random occurrence while other things do not

Just so we are clear from where you are arguing from, can you please choose one you would select as most applicable to objective reality?

a reply to: Dark Ghost
3)

And to clarify, I do not think that our actions (or thoughts) have any effect on otherwise random events.

a reply to: spygeek

just because you dont understand it does not make it illogical. the universe very well may have put hitler in power. why not? it was a huge lesson learned for the whole world. it fundamentally changed our history. but did it? i doubt it. synchronicity is most likely very very rare.

starving children are starving because consciousness doesn't just control everything from the top down. theres no purpose if we dont have free will. consciousness isn't actively controlling every aspect of our lives. most of it is just probability.

and i dont need to believe anything. my perception of it has nothing to do with anything. whether something happens by random chance or through divine intervention doesn't really matter.

Don't think for second though, that anyone who looks at this belief critically will not find multiple logical issues with it.

being critical of something doesnt mean that you dismiss something without even putting a little bit of thought into it.

The universe pulls strings for your personal benefit huh?

NO! when the fk did i say that? it could. it could also pull strings to my personal detriment. it could do nothing at all, which is usually the case.

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for replying.

Ok, so you picked number 3 (some things happen through random occurrence while other things do not). Can you please now elaborate on what type of things, in relation to objective reality, are NOT random occurrences? What occurrences do you believe are NOT due to random chance?

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Phage

Look into what? What can be measured? What can be tested? That's what science is.

maybe you should actually look into his work. he doesnt call it a theory because he thinks it makes it look better. hes compiled tons of evidence and done all the math. there are a slew of youtube videos where he gets into the specifics of his TOE. instead of being reactionary maybe you should go watch them.

We have looked into his work. It is nonsensical. That's what we are trying to make clear to you. It is not even wrong.

His paper says nothing of substance, it is all fluff and woo. If it actually made a falsifiable claim, we would have something to work with. But it doesn't even do that. It's a hodgepodge of metaphysical nonsense with no clear logical propositions, hypothesis, experimentation, or conclusion.

It's a void of words and meaningless conjecture, dressed up as scientific principle. There's nothing concrete to pick apart, it's the epitome of fractal wrongness.

it makes perfect sense to me.

what im trying to make clear to you is i cant possibly see what problem you have with it if you cant actually tell me what about it you find illogical.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
For example, if I were launch my hang glider without attaching myself to it first, my death would not be random event. That is something which my actions caused.

If I were hang gliding and a large meteor were to strike me. That would be a random event. Something which my actions did not cause.

a reply to: Phage

i explained myself well enough. YOU inferred something that i never eluded to. in which part of my post did i claim that the universe pulled all the strings and i had no personal responsibility for my actions? when did i say this?

what is so vague about outlining a possible case of synchronicity in action?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Phage

Look into what? What can be measured? What can be tested? That's what science is.

maybe you should actually look into his work. he doesnt call it a theory because he thinks it makes it look better. hes compiled tons of evidence and done all the math. there are a slew of youtube videos where he gets into the specifics of his TOE. instead of being reactionary maybe you should go watch them.

We have looked into his work. It is nonsensical. That's what we are trying to make clear to you. It is not even wrong.

His paper says nothing of substance, it is all fluff and woo. If it actually made a falsifiable claim, we would have something to work with. But it doesn't even do that. It's a hodgepodge of metaphysical nonsense with no clear logical propositions, hypothesis, experimentation, or conclusion.

It's a void of words and meaningless conjecture, dressed up as scientific principle. There's nothing concrete to pick apart, it's the epitome of fractal wrongness.

it makes perfect sense to me.

what im trying to make clear to you is i cant possibly see what problem you have with it if you cant actually tell me what about it you find illogical.

I have told you what I find illogical about it; everything. It isn't even a theory. It makes as much logical sense as the timecube "theory".

Let's turn this around.

Please explain to me the big T.O.E.
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.

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

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

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

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

a reply to: Phage

Would your death be a guaranteed certainty, though, if you launched it without attaching yourself first? Perhaps you meant to say "if I ended up dead" instead of "my death"? Even so, wouldn't your act of deciding to take a risk by going hand gliding constitute a random occurrence of death?

Just to clarify what I attempting to say, consider this example: crossing the street at an intersection. No matter when crossing, there is small risk of experiencing death or serious injury. I could be knocked over by a car or slip and crack my head open. Basically, I am expanding my risk from 0% (not crossing at all) to probably something like 000.1% risk (crossing say when the pedestrian crossing is green, all cars are stopped and it's a dry day).

At what point does random chance end in this scenario?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Would your death be a guaranteed certainty, though, if you launched it without attaching yourself first?

Near enough. Based on the characteristics of my prefered launch site.

Even so, wouldn't your act of deciding to take a risk by going hand gliding constitute a random occurrence of death?

Hang gliding. There is an element of risk, yes. Managable risk. I manage that risk by my actions. If the change of random death were significant I would not engage in hang gliding.

At what point does random chance end in this scenario?

It never does. That's why I selected #3.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

i explained myself well enough.

Apparently not

in which part of my post did i claim that the universe pulled all the strings and i had no personal responsibility for my actions?

This part is where I could that make that inference.

say i have a job interview and this would lead me to a stagnant life where i dont learn much. so the universe pulls some strings and it leads me in another direction.

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

a reply to: Phage

Manageable risk is a tricky term. The point I am attempting to make is that the line separating calculated, reasonable risk and uncalculated unreasonable risk can sometimes be very thin (non-existent even) indeed.

a reply to: spygeek

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The point I am attempting to make is that the line separating calculated, reasonable risk and uncalculated unreasonable risk can sometimes be very thin (non-existent even) indeed.

Indeed. Wing suited base jumpers get about as close to that line as you can get, and often cross it. I don't, as a result I've been hang gliding for 2/3 of my life without a serious accident.

But this has sort of diverged from the topic. Assigning meaning or purpose to random events has no logical basis.

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.