More on this please. Gracias. — TheMadFool
But we’re not talking about the abstract probability of an event occurring or not occurring within 24 hours here. The event is relatively improbable, sure. But it’s as improbable as any other specified five minute period. — Possibility
If in a general way you take an evolutionary or process view of reality - what exists is what is self-stabilising - then symmetry principles explain what is likely to be the case because it is the most stable and persistent outcome of symmetry breaking.
So a wheel emerges as the shape that exemplifies rotational symmetry. If you want something to roll smoothly and with the least friction, then a circle is as simple as it gets. It doesn't get simpler. The circle is the limit towards which all else tends.
This is the general story behind all physics - the search for the ultimate simplicity in terms of breaking possibilities down to the point where they have got as simple as it is possible to be. At that point, flux becomes stability.
So in a state of thermal equilibrium, all the particles are in busy motion. But it no longer makes a difference. The distribution of the momenta has converged on a stable Gaussian distribution. The system has a stable temperature and pressure.
Or if we are talking about Newtonian mechanics, reality boils down to the simplicity of zero D points that then have the irreducible freedoms of translation and rotation. Point particles are constrained to a location, but remain free to move inertially in a straight line or spin on the spot.
Symmetry principles - Noether's conservation symmetries - predict the limits of geometric constraint. You can limit the motion of a ball in many ways, but - in a frictionless world - you can't stop it rolling in a straight line forever.
Gauge or permutation symmetry in particle physics explains why protons and electrons exist. Again, starting with all possible arrangements, only some particular arrangement winds up being the simplest achievable. Once you arrive at that state, you can't go further. There is no north of the north pole, as they say.
Existence is change meeting its match in the shape of a limiting state of indifference. Change might continue, but it makes no real difference.
The particles of a gas at equilibrium are as restless as ever. But their distribution remains the same in terms of its collective average.
A wheel might wear with use, but it doesn't continue to evolve into another shape.
The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler. — apokrisis
Can we then say that simplicity ... is some kind of telos for the natural world. — TheMadFool
If yes, how does that relate to synchronicity? — TheMadFool
As a telos, it would be a material tendency rather than a sentient purpose - what Salthe calls teleomaty rather than teleology. — apokrisis
No doubt, but biases =/= "underlying theories ... metaphysics" which you conflate. Peer review, though not without implicit biases itself, and rigorous repeatable experiments mitigate the distorting effects of the "intention of the researcher and biases" as much as practically possible, which is a far greater methodological corrective than employed individually or collectively by any other non-scientific (or merely subjective) endeavor. I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. The alternatives, such as they are, do not work remotely as well theoretically or experientially, though, for most with a folk mentality, are more existentially sarisfying (like myths, fairytales, self-flattering ego-fantasies, and other fetish-like placebos). Idle, unwarranted, suspicions like yours (& other woo-seekers) tend only to stupify and not clarify matters as warranted doubts usually do.I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels. — Jack Cummins
No doubt, but biases =/= "underlying theories ... metaphysics" which you conflate. Peer review, though not without implicit biases itself, and rigorous repeatable experiments mitigate the distorting effects of the "intention of the researcher and biases" as much as practically possible, which is a far greater methodological corrective than employed individually or collectively by any other non-scientific (or merely subjective) endeavor. I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. The alternatives, such as they are, do not work remotely as well theoretically or experientially, though, for most with a folk mentality, are more existentially sarisfying (like myths, fairytales, self-flattering ego-fantasies, and other fetish-like placebos). Idle, unwarranted, suspicions like yours (& other woo-seekers) tend only to stupify and not clarify matters as warranted doubts usually do. — 180 Proof
:100: :fire:The problem for a metaphysics of order out of chaos is explaining why the evolution of unbound possibility arrives at bounded terminus. Symmetry maths explains that. Things get simple to the point that fluctuations can't produce an arrangement that is any simpler. — apokrisis
And your point is? — 180 Proof
I say "so what"? Scientists speculate and fantasize like everyone else because, belonging to the same species, all of us – Einstein & Pauli too – are congenitally afflicted with the same functional defects (including cognitive biases). "Synchronicity" is ex post facto confabulated confirmation bias – at most. In the final analysis, Fool, woo is still just woo. (Btw, I very much prefer "magic" when playing D&D or Traveller, don't you? :nerd:) — 180 Proof
"Synchronicity" is ex post facto confabulated confirmation bias – at most.
— 180 Proof
That's it. — 180 Proof
"Synchronicity" denotes correlating otherwise contextually disparate, coincidental, events by an "apparent" symbolic or empirical resemblance. The subsequent event "seems to resemble" the precedent event, and therein lies the "illusion – bias – of confirming" the precedent by the subsequent. — 180 Proof
I have read your recent posts and I can see the problem of bias, in interpretation of synchronicity as one aspect of life, but I think that the issue goes deeper than that. I think that what it amounts to is the fact that it may not be possible to go beyond bias completely at all. I would argue that in relation to the issue of chance, on the topic of chance, which is an area of speculation mostly people who believe that in the idea of synchronicity and those who don't believe in are probably both coming from specific vantage points which are laden with personal interpretations. I think that it is probably related to our basic philosophy premises and experience of how we have experienced life. For someone who experiences synchronicity, the idea makes sense whereas I am sure that for many, especially those who come from a scientific materialist perspective, I am sure that the idea probably appears as rather absurd. — Jack Cummins
Apparently.I fail to see the confirmation bias. — TheMadFool
I think that what it amounts to is the fact that it may not be possible to go beyond bias completely at all. — Jack Cummins
I think that it is probably related to our basic philosophy premises and experience of how we have experienced life. — Jack Cummins
While people like to believe that they are rational and logical, the fact is that people are continually under the influence of cognitive biases. These biases distort thinking, influence beliefs, and sway the decisions and judgments that people make each and every day.
Sometimes these biases are fairly obvious, and you might even find that you recognize these tendencies in yourself or others. In other cases, these biases are so subtle that they are almost impossible to notice. — Cognitive biases distort thinking
MATTHEW 7:3 KJV "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
For someone who experiences synchronicity, the idea makes sense whereas I am sure that for many, especially those who come from a scientific materialist perspective, I am sure that the idea probably appears as rather absurd. — Jack Cummins
I think your stubborn attempts at 'deflating the natural sciences' (more than fallibilsts-pragmatists do) is both gratuitous and unwarranted, Jack. — 180 Proof
The cognitive biases above are common, but this is only a sampling of the many biases that can affect your thinking. These biases collectively influence much of our thoughts and ultimately, decision making.
Many of these biases are inevitable. We simply don't have the time to evaluate every thought in every decision for the presence of any bias. Understanding these biases is very helpful in learning how they can lead us to poor decisions in life. — Cognitive biases distort thinking
The theory largely relies on metaphysics and the belief of a universal unconscious. It is for this reason that synchronicity seems similar to the Law of Attraction and the principle of vibration as their relationship shall be discussed later. Carl Jung believed synchronicity could explain and describe the universal dynamic that governed all human experience the social, spiritual, emotional, and psychological. — Synchronicity meaning and examples: Reality or Bias
The main reason why I chose not to do a degree in psychology was because I did 'A' level psychology and felt that experimental psychology was so shallow. — Jack Cummins
Jung recorded the response of his patients in word-association technique. He also, used to observe the time taken to answer. He recorded whether certain type of words lead to particular behavior or even perspiration. Jung believed that by word- association technique, he was exploring unconscious as Freud did, using free association and dream analysis.
Based on his experimentation, particularly word-association, Jung developed the concept of unconscious. His concept of unconscious, is fairly different from what Freud has proposed. — What is Analytical Psychology of Carl Jung ?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.