Synchronicity, Causality, And Acausality

Journal of Parapsychology, The, Sept, 1999 by Lance Storm

A less conservative scientific approach would mean accepting the fact that there is no reason to assume that (for example) a psi phenomenon is a mere coincidence. To do otherwise would mean making an unwarranted assumption prior to any form of measurement. Further investigation may reveal the phenomenon to be causally explicable, or, on the other hand, it might be placed in the more established categories of ESP or PK.

PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW

The Unique Case

There are a couple of problems with the Law of Large Numbers. As just stated it seems that the meaningful coincidence (the coincidence of a personal nature) is absorbed into the sphere of meaningless coincidences and treated indiscriminately from all other coincidences, which may well be meaningless. The uniquely personal precognition, for example, is not unique in a statistical sense because its qualitative (i.e., meaningful) elements are not, nor cannot be considered by the Law--it is merely "allowed" to occur because the Law of Large Numbers "admits" the probability of its occurrence. As rare or as unlikely as it may appear, it is not a statistical anomaly. The problem with the Law is that it explains too much in the single word "probability," but at the same time misses the point because it precludes the possibility of other explanations, such as certain forms of correspondence between the components of the so-called coincidence. [1]

Put another way, while there may be a great many people dreaming or having visions about neutral (i.e., non-personally relevant) events (such as earthquakes, tornadoes, or even fires in Stockholm), which can be "explained" by the Law, the power of the Law is greatly reduced when these precognitive dreams have contents which are personal or familial. Dreaming about the death of a loved one, for example, which then occurs in real life at the same time as the dream, is a phenomenon that cannot be justly considered within the probabilistic framework of the Law. The reason for this limitation comes from the fact that such a dream or vision has a meaningfulness of a nature that makes it unique when compared to only similar dreams by others who do not know and did not dream about that particular loved one's fate.

Upon reflection, then, it is still possible that Swedenborg's vision was a paranormal phenomenon. The continued accrual of details associated with the fire, as reported by Swedenborg, reduces the probability of the vision being a chance occurrence (against the Law, it becomes more and more improbable that other people could have produced similar reports like Swedenborg's in all its detail). The more particular and detailed the event, the less likely can precognition or clairvoyance of an event be explained by the Law.

The Retrieval Cue

Hines (1998) also appeals to the Law to justify the same argument that "if an event is given enough opportunities to occur, sooner or later it will occur" (p. 51) Furthermore, the "retrieval cue" mechanism plays a part. When an event in the real world does match a "forgotten" dream, it is immediately recalled (p. 51). Hines believes such dreams are "reliably prophetic" only because they have been "selectively" remembered by real life cues and thereby "come true" (p. 51). Dreams that are irrelevant to real-life events are suitably never remembered.