178. Robert Perry on the Science of Synchronicity (Podcast)

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by David R

Has nothing to do with specifically calculating the measurements where something intervening sets them at odds.

When you talk about probabilities and chance, you need to show how your interpretation is more plausible than someone elses.

If you cannot do that, you should admit it instead of raising pot calling kettle black noise.

I'm not sure I follow you. I've tried to set out what I mean as clearly as I can. I'm not saying that the events Robert, or platobird and others have described were at rates above or below expected chance. What I'm saying is that in order to even begin to assess that question, one needs a very good understanding of what the chances are of proximate events having common characteristics. In other words: one needs to understand what the null hypothesis is. Otherwise, you're just basing it on gut instinct or common sense which studies have shown that humans are not terribly accurate with when it comes to statistics involving large datasets.

[troutrun33]

My wife and I stopped at the local Trader Joe's to get a few things last night after our weekly meditation class. As is usual those 'few' things turned out to be quite a few things since we made the mistake of shopping while we were hungry. My wife was bagging the goodies and was joking with the checkout lady that we only stopped to get a few items and now look. As the cashier was ringing the last few items she remarked "looks as though you have a hundred items here" and my wife promptly said while bagging that I bet it will be a hundred dollars though and she said this whil not even being within eyeshot of the register. When the check out lady finshed the last item we all stood there and stared at the total. $100.00. Not $100.01 and not $99.99! We saved the receipt and stopped and bought a lotto ticket on the way home. What are the chances? I am not a mathemetician but I think you could try that trick for a very long time with different food items and it would take a very, very long time to repeat that performance.

[Philemon]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

wow... amazing, but come on, I wanted the big hollywood ending... wedding... happily ever after

I hear ya - and a few other people I shared this with said the same thing. However, the feeling hovering over the whole thing was rather blah... it just didn't feel right to push for anything beyond that.

The great thing is that the guilt I felt from the time I was 18 was lifted off my shoulders. One could speculate that the whole thing was arranged simply to heal any unresolved wounds between the two of us and allay my guilt!

[platobird]

Originally Posted by Arouet

I'm not sure I follow you. I've tried to set out what I mean as clearly as I can. I'm not saying that the events Robert, or platobird and others have described were at rates above or below expected chance. What I'm saying is that in order to even begin to assess that question, one needs a very good understanding of what the chances are of proximate events having common characteristics. In other words: one needs to understand what the null hypothesis is. Otherwise, you're just basing it on gut instinct or common sense which studies have shown that humans are not terribly accurate with when it comes to statistics involving large datasets.

The key...THE KEY...is to start noticing syncs. Initially ya don't have to accept that it's anything but pattern seeking, but you do have to allow for the possibility that it isn't! Once you've cracked that window open...then the 'proof' will poor in.

And I'm sorry all you statisticians out there...but most people would have to prove something like this to themselves, no matter how much data you collect! They just ain't going to accept such a paradigm shift.

I can also guarantee you that if a closed minded scientific materialist did this same sort study, the subjects would mirror his expectations. That's the nature of the beast! It's not the 'hockem trickster' thing...it's just how syncs work. It's how life works and that's why Robert is getting godly messages encrypted in his syncs.

TROUTRUN...thanks for sharing

[fls]

Originally Posted by platobird

The key...THE KEY...is to start noticing syncs. Initially ya don't have to accept that it's anything but pattern seeking, but you do have to allow for the possibility that it isn't! Once you've cracked that window open...then the 'proof' will poor in.

And I'm sorry all you statisticians out there...but most people would have to prove something like this to themselves, no matter how much data you collect! They just ain't going to accept such a paradigm shift.

I can also guarantee you that if a closed minded scientific materialist did this same sort study, the subjects would mirror his expectations. That's the nature of the beast! It's not the 'hockem trickster' thing...it's just how syncs work. It's how life works and that's why Robert is getting godly messages encrypted in his syncs.

TROUTRUN...thanks for sharing

I agree (and you made reference to this earlier when you mentioned throwing a wrench in the works). Once the information is collected under conditions where you are no longer dealing with selected samples, and steps are taken to avoid recollection, confirmation and attribution biases, that the syncs will annoyingly conform to 'materialist' expectations. I suspect that CMPE's follow a Decision Augmention Theory pattern.

http://scientificexploration.org/jou...e_09_4_may.pdf

Linda

[platobird]

Perhaps they will start conforming to materialistic standards...but I'm betting not. This isn't just a 'sometimes' thing...this is life itself. It does have to start to be accepted as a valid concept within global consciousness though, and I think that is happening.

This is kinda of a lame example so bear with me...

I look to that whole 'Secret' silliness. People ya just wouldn't expect to fall for it, dove in hook line and sinker. Why the hell did they...why was that a best seller? I think I know. Because the basic principle is sound.. barring all the fluff! Our global psyche knows that this is how reality works, it was willing to accept it to some degree.

ps...Maybe your asking why haven't I won the lottery then, If I'm so damn good at this thing? Haha. For one mth I actually did tried. I'm human after all!

I played the same 6 numbers over about a 6 wk span. In my area we have two draws for two different lotteries on the same day. Twice during that time period I got 4 out of 6 numbers!!! AND..get this...On one of those occasions 4 of the numbers came up on one of the draws, while on the same day the other two numbers came up on the other draw. Funny stuff eh. I gave up trying after that. It seemed damn shallow! Money's only pretty colored paper anyway (here in Canada that is...you yanks have boring money!)

[fls]

Originally Posted by platobird

Perhaps they will start conforming to materialistic standards...but I'm betting not. This isn't just a 'sometimes' thing...this is life itself. It does have to start to be accepted as a valid concept within global consciousness though, and I think that is happening.

This is kinda of a lame example so bear with me...

I look to that whole 'Secret' silliness. People ya just wouldn't expect to fall for it, dove in hook line and sinker. Why the hell did they...why was that a best seller? I think I know. Because the basic principle is sound.. barring all the fluff! Our global psyche knows that this is how reality works, it was willing to accept it to some degree.

ps...Maybe your asking why haven't I won the lottery then, If I'm so damn good at this thing? Haha. For one mth I actually did tried. I'm human after all!

No. Your not winning the lottery is just what would be expected with Synchronicity.

I played the same 6 numbers over about a 6 wk span. In my area we have two draws for two different lotteries on the same day. Twice during that time period I got 4 out of 6 numbers!!! AND..get this...On one of those occasions 4 of the numbers came up on one of the draws, while on the same day the other two numbers came up on the other draw. Funny stuff eh. I gave up trying after that. It seemed damn shallow! Money's only pretty colored paper anyway (here in Canada that is...you yanks have boring money!)

I'm Canadian.

Linda

[platobird]

Originally Posted by fls

No. Your not winning the lottery is just what would be expected with Synchronicity.



I'm Canadian.

Linda

Im on Vancouver Island..where are you?

Why would you say I shouldn't have won and contribute that to sync?...I have my own idea why not...but why would you say that??

[fls]

Originally Posted by platobird

Why would you say I shouldn't have won and contribute that to sync?...I have my own idea why not...but why would you say that??

Because you have to buy the right ticket beforehand to win.

DAT means a selected sample from an unperturbed distribution, which leaves you with an unbiased chance of buying the right ticket.

Linda

[platobird]

Ok...that's one perspective.

I'm a multiverse kinda girl. Everything that could happen, does happen ..somewhere! So the concept is that you pick the numbers first, then with your thoughts you draaaaaw the right 'universe' into your reality. Now I realize this is waaaay too out there in 'la-la land' for most of you, but so be it.

Somewhere in the multiverse is a fls that agrees with me. And somewhere out there is a Platobird that is cruising in a yacht, in the Caribbean, drinking a Mai-Tai, with a few million in her bank account!!