This is a very plain Home Page. I made a bunch of clever structure with illustrations and hidden jokes.  You can see it here.  Original Home Page

​

But, you deserve a sincere answer to your curiosity, upfront with no BS.

​

You and I know we are seeing something real.

​

I can do it quick or I can do it exhaustively, not both at once.  For exhaustive, explore the website. Here's quick. 

​

These coincidences are created by an intelligent being that results from the universe trying to create a more complex future by sending influence back in time to change subatomic events very strategically.   This results from the fact that reality is infinite, so that precedents for complex futures must be more common, producing effects backwards in time.

 

I'm suggesting this is natural, and thus possibly something science will learn about someday.  So this page is mostly about epistemology.  This knowledge was revealed to my distant ancestors in a dream.  Just pulling  your leg.  Like you, I'm making inferences from small samples of human scale effects that can't be replicated or placed in controlled conditions.  Separate events seem to coordinate, so I've proceeded by exploring the idea that that coordination produced itself by influencing events in the past.  If such a process is possible, then each coincidence must create its own antecedents under the influence of  something in its own future.  After all, why would it stop with the present affecting the past, why wouldn't the future affect the present?   In turn, that means the causality cone extends to the whole universe, or multiverse, and I add that it seems to be acting strategically to produce "meaning" or "consequences," which suggests intelligence.   If I'm right, then someday science will discover some kind of force that is even weaker than gravity, and even longer range, but which works backwards in time.   

 

I don't have a detailed theory of how this fits inside of science, because what I'm really proposing is something science might fit inside of instead: a metaphysical theory about how universes get sorted.    The Standard Model is great, but does everything have to fit inside it, or can it fit inside something else?  Saying, "This is true, therefore everything outside this is false" is a logic error.  Stick with me while I think outside the box. 

​

Here's the landscape of explaining the phenomenon. Religions and science both fail.  Let's call it synchronicity, for now, because long ago a dead end branch of psychology coined that word.  And made up a bunch of nonsense that didn't explain it.  Human minds were the only instrument getting a reading, so the phenomenon must be something to do with minds.   "If they're all getting the same results there must be something the minds have in common," they speculated.  "Like being in the same reality?" I ask.   Modern scientific psychologists say "You are being tricked by a quirk of your mind. You are cherry picking patterns.  Improbability is inevitable because so much happens.  Plus there's apophenia and confirmation bias."    They blame faulty instruments.  Which all have the same faults.  

​

It doesn't look like that from here.  If it wants you to know it's there, and you start to doubt what you are seeing, it will make itself very clear.  In religious terms, it says very clearly, "I am."   In quasi-scientific terms the improbability won't be cherry picked from a limitless uncontrolled collection of possibilities, it will be about only that moment and very improbable.  Which is just to say a slightly more complex coincidence was cherry picked from a vast set of possibilities, one involving not just two events coordinating but a third event: the pair being observed.   That could always be true, though.  You could always say, "Yes, but there are infinite events and of course 20 things coming together happens now and then, you're cherry picking."  The bar is potentially infinitely high. 

 

Yes, I have heard of confirmation bias but things often shadow each other.  I didn't want to see this stuff at first, I found it annoying.  The things that haven't been seen are hard to see because they look like other things.  One might be inspired to say, "Two events from among all the events in the world seem to coordinate, so what?"  But something similar is the fact that we get total solar eclipses because the moon and sun are the same apparent size.   How do you determine the sample size of such a thing?  How is confirmation bias coming into play there? 

 

Something acting for effect would look like confirmation bias.  I'm suggesting this stuff doesn't act just on minds, it acts where it will have profound knock on effects, and meaning in a mind tends to have profound knock on effects that make it the best kind of detector for this phenomenon.  For those of us who are prepared to respond to it, when specific need is met that precision of positioning kind of limits the sample set to things that address that need, and such is the closest we can get to a test tube, a controlled condition.  But you'll never prove it because it doesn't perform on command.   It always seeks efficient expression, takes the path of least resistance, uses the least improbable possibility from the busiest environment.  In seeking efficiency it comes to look just like overactive imagination, something that can be explained away.  Yes, that sounds like an excuse, like, "We haven't seen Big Foot because it's shy."   But by that token any proposition that has exceptions must be making excuses.  But I've got more excuses, I'm just getting started.   Coming from so many dimensions, it can evade any controls other than those it subjects itself to, once in a while when it wants to impress and gets a good price on it.  Yes, I recognize "it can't be directly observed" and "it always tries to look natural" sounds exactly like something a charlatan would say, but things often shadow each other.  Maybe nobody respectable talks about it because nobody respectable is willing to sound like a charlatan.  A skeptic could say it's all very convenient that the unexplored land is so far away, but that's where the remaining unexplored lands are. 

​

Anyway, that's my story.  While "synchronicity" is constantly replicated all over the world,  picked up by numerous detectors (humans) the controlled aspect of the conditions can't be replicated.  It can only be observed in the wild, by the majority of people who haven't been trained to ignore it. "So" we'll be told,  "it must not exist".  The closest we can get to predicting it is that it happens exactly when it will be most efficiently effective, and that is unique to each situation.  When it can be isolated, what makes it properly isolated also makes it impossible to replicate.  It's like a particle we can't know the momentum and position of simultaneously. Like bigfoot being dodgy.  

 

It's shouldn't be surprising that science will come to this point in some places.  There will be things not susceptible to its methods.  If you are in the category who believe "synchronicity" is real, you can't turn to science for explanation because science, by its nature, is compelled to reject your "data," and it's good for us all that it does.  Science is valuable and respectable because it knows its proper scope.  Scientists can't look at synchronicity so non scientists have to be the ones to do it.  Some things can only be understood by inference and extrapolation and we should accept that that's the best we're going to get and do our best to get out of it what we can, then take our own guesses with a grain of salt, maintaining readiness to consider new information.  Let  us be ascientific, not unscientific.  It's just that there are two classes of people, those who know synchronicity is real and those who don't.  There's nothing to be done about that.   We can proceed, for those who do know it's real, to think about it otherwise rationally.  If it were real, what then?

​

One fact comes to the fore immediately.  Most people in the world believe in religions of some sort.  I propose that these religions were inspired by synchronicity.  But they have many different ideas.  Why do people believe any particular religion?  Most people just follow their parents or local culture.  For all I know, synchronicity obliges and confirms their delusions.  The existence of religion is a data point, no one religion has compelling answers.   So if  you sincerely believe in what you are seeing, but wonder what it is, you are truly between a rock and a hard place.

​

If you are seeing it as "coincidence" or even "synchronicity" rather than "God" or "the devil" or "a spirit" then you are probably what I once was: an atheist or agnostic confronted with an unexpected phenomenon you considered impossible.  You will most likely want to return to the faith, to explain away.  There are plenty of priests of that particular faith standing by to help you.  

​

But if you are truly a free thinker you want a real explanation.  You will want that explanation to match up with known science because you respect science as a process for improving knowledge--you believe there is truth and that by thinking and testing we can improve how closely our own map of the world matches it.  And you understand others have been doing this and have built up a lot of knowledge that should be considered reliable: the bounteous products of science that make our lives better.  So, whatever the explanation for synchronicity you will want it to not conflict with science and ideas strongly suggested by past processes of science.  Fortunately science leaves room to operate, and we find it in the form of the "quantum stuff".  Some have accepted that inch and taken a mile.  But you can't just allude to indeterminacy and then take it as license to build whatever fantasy castles you like.  To be an explanation, your explanation has to only be able to produce the outcome you are claiming to explain with it.  If you say "indeterminacy means anything can happen so ...." then you are not explaining anything you are just adding a magic turtle to the stack of magic turtles.  As an alternative to both extremes (ignoring inconveniently wiggly evidence and leaping to overly specific conclusions) here's the metaphysical core of my "theory."  

Reality is infinitely comprehensive.  Everything that can be must be.  So mostly what exists is stuff that makes for more making (given invisible constraints).  So reality is growing and that is time, all possibilities becoming real but the more probable ones being made more profusely and encountered more often.  So turns of events tend to lead to conditions that create cosmic complexity (such as sensitive arrangements of matter like human civilizations that have technology and also pay attention to synchronicity).

​

In multiverse terms, worlds in which a "random" outcome leads to a more complex future are more numerous than those that lead to a simpler future.  Most of us would call that being more "probable".  The entire future is constantly affecting probabilities in the past, trying (from our perspective) to teleologically promote a preferred type of future.  All this entirely stemming from the simple first principle that reality must include all possibility and yet it never can have it for more than an instant.  What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?  A new dimension each time.  

​

 Original Home Page

​

Any explanation will have to offer a way to handle contradictory evidence.  It will have to provide for exceptions in a way that lets the explanation continue standing.  So let's talk epistemology.  We know a conceptualization can be true as long as experience agrees with it.  But what about when it doesn't?  The fact that a ball stops falling when it hits the ground doesn't disprove the theory of gravity.  The fact that there are warm days in winter doesn't disprove the axial tilt theory of seasons.  The fact that additional explanations can be brought in for exceptions doesn't make a theory overly variable.  It makes it limited in scope.  

 

Exceptions just redefine the scope of an explanation, they don't demand that it be completely discarded.  If the exception handling comes from within the theory itself, rather than from its acceptance of limits, then you may have a problem.  Cheating is when it's like this: you say "Zeus did it" and then when confronted with the fact that Zeus wasn't there at the time the explanation isn't "then Apollo did it" but "Zeus can do it remotely."  One thing that makes an explanation durable is that it plays well with other useful explanations.   Being independently omni-adjustable is bad because it makes a theory a bad team player.  Far from making it durable that just makes it hard and brittle.   It doesn't matter whether you use Zeus or Apollo as your cheat card, what matters is that the "gods theory" doesn't stay in its proper scope.  It can't be used for just some things, if you have it then it must be used for everything or else discarded.  

​

If a theory admits there are other theories and explanations that come into play when conditions are not sufficiently isolated and purified (so that only the one theory is in play) that's fine.  It's may be untested, but it's not necessarily cheating.  But my "theory" is untestable in practice.  If you could know the entire (infinite) future you could disprove it and it would need to come up with an excuse.  That's a high bar, but then, no theory ever has infinite confirmation and the next test result could always contradict any theory's predictions, demanding that the theory be modified to handle the exception.  Like all theories, mine presumably has limitations, but practically it's like with the "data."  If you accept it you accept it, if you don't you don't. 

​

It can't qualify as science, but it aspires to reasonability, so there are limitations to its ability to make claims.  One is the simple fact that it aspires not to contradict science.  It postulates only in areas where science leaves wiggle room,  Miracles of a type it doesn't consider likely would tend to disconfirm it--mostly because they would pose a problem for science too, but in other ways as well.  For example,  I claim that the probability distortions that cause synchronicity are costly in terms of interfering with other chains of events.  Which accords with the multiverse interpretation and observation of photons.  So very probably there will be no levitating.  Within the bounds of possibility, but not probability, synchronicity could be used to levitate, if that were uniquely necessary to create a much more complex future.  But it's hard to imagine how such necessity would exist when there are so many other ways to produce the same result.   We can generalize about the entire future to that degree: cosmic complexity is not likely to require levitation so badly at any one point that the side effect costs are worth it.  It would never get to that point, because other ways of preventing such concentrated necessity would be "cheaper."  My cheat (it's lazy) is a virtue (miracles would disprove it): synchronicity seeks its level, evens out pressure, and always takes the path of least resistance in pursuit of efficiency.   The necessity for the appearance of a magical event could be avoided by bending many more widely spaced historical paths ever so slightly, starting from way back in time.  Even the same consequences, like the validation of a major religious innovation, could be produced by doing a few well aimed micro interventions in convenient locations (brains?) rather than by concentrating a mind boggling number of them together to tunnel energy to a lake where a prophet is trying to impress his friends by walking on water.    And speaking of lakes, even though water seeks its level, lakes exist in mountain ranges anyway.  So unlikely things don't disprove.  My excuse that hallucination could explain levitation is equivalent to explaining the existence of water above sea level as a result of evaporation and metastable basins.

 

Exceptions define the limits of a theory.   Though every fact that must be accommodated limits alternative possibilities, exceptions can often be deferred by new adjustments to the theory.  In an arbitrarily omnipotent theory, such adjustments can defer the limits of the theory's scope indefinitely.  Faced with evidence of levitation, someone defending my theory might say levitation (if real rather than hallucinatory) proves something was really important.  That would be a suspicious cop out, thus casting doubt on the theory as formulated without much needed exception handling modifications.  The fact that such a stretching of the theory isn't very consistent with it means the theory does not have the particular weakness of omnipotence.   The theory says coincidences resulting from the collisions of chains of events coordinated by efficiently selected instances of quantum tunneling can act teleologically, not that gravity can be suspended.   So it doesn't disprove itself by its own omnipotence.  This isn't positive evidence for it, this just means it passes the "isn't totally absurd" test.  

​

It's reasonable.  Nevertheless, it can only be religion.  It's something believed not because it's compelling but because it's the least worst choice and there is some compelling reason to believe something or other.  You accept it as a working theory because it's the least objectionable option, including the options of choosing not to theorize (or guess, if  you will) or of rejecting observation (by using motivated reasoning, aka skepticism).  Call that discomfort with agnosticism "faith" if you must.  Those of us who see these coincidences and still wonder, we can't accept remaining agnostic because we want things to make sense even if we have to use an unproven placeholder, a consolation prize of an explanation.   Faith would be choosing to retain such a working theory in the face of contrary evidence.  Open minded, best-guess based belief is a thing and it lives between agnosticism and certainty.  What should we call it?  Inclination?  What should we call the set of ideas we're inclined to?  A "hypothesis" is a proposed model defined in a way that makes it testable, and the only test we're planning is being open to new evidence (knowing what we are inclined to is not incontrovertible).  "Theory" formally means a properly formulated hypothesis that has valid experimental support,  so calling a non-scientific "model" a theory is improper.   What I present here is a doctrine.  It's a set of ideas some people subscribe to, and if you don't subscribe to it you aren't in that group of people.  This particular doctrine also claims to explain something.    

​

I believe the world needs this explanation.  There's a real phenomenon, there are questions beyond science, and there are human psychosocial needs--and it addresses all those elegantly and productively.  In terms of one popular frame, I've synthesized a new metanarrative from aspects of traditional religion and the grand futurological narrative of science fiction: eternal progress (with caution and foresight).  

 

I also believe my narrative requires well designed social organization to go with it.  You can believe a set of ideas all alone, but people join religions for a reason, to fill a need. They join religion because what I call scale continuity combats the alienation of being an individual in mass society, which has no intermediate layers, no primal band or greater tribe, just family and next above them vast institutions and social forces.  They join or stick with religion, despite its flaws, to be with good people rather than "random" people; to select rather than be selected.  They join religion because the human superpower is expanding the tribe, but consensus meta-narrative is necessary for that.  Modernism failed due to incompleteness, but we've seen what postmodernism did: in the absence of metanarrative, there is fragmentation.  Nothing better serves the beneficiaries of atomization--be they profiteers or fifth column accelerationists.  And traditional religion, despite its supposed humanity, betrays and uses people because it hasn't got the organizational system figured out right, not just because it has the wrong theory of reality.  Just exchanging blind faith for pure reason doesn't fully liberate.  I don't want to replace science, but I want to replace traditional religion with something more responsible.  Science doesn't like to go down into the neglected basement and clean things up, but we will.  We'll straighten out the metaphysics and do something useful while we're at it.  The sweep of history, and its extrapolated future, must be accounted for realistically but in an inspiring way.  And just loving nature isn't good enough.  We need progress back, and purpose that is part of what has gone before but better.  

​

Original Home Page