Does synchronicity validate superdeterminism?

Post Reply New Topic

I'll keep this one brief but I think it's an interesting question - at least for those who've at least had enough run-ins with it in sharp enough relief to suggest that it's not apophenia.

The question is this - when we think of how any concept of free will seems dependent on capacity to have made a different choice in time and being that, just on how we experience the flow of time or order thoughts this seems genuinely impossible, do you think it's equally possible that synchronicity is actually something like a ripple in what one might call a Minkoswski block universe?

About twelve years ago I came to superdeterminism as my default position on the free will question, largely because it seems like the relationship of time, mind, and matter, forces those relationships to behave a bit like a 4D solid in some sense (I mostly agree with Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky on this but I also think what Sam is angling at reduces to the orientation of time and information where you can't do something that isn't in your list of available options or know that a problem is solved before its solved). That might not be a perfect analogy, for example I haven't been able to think through all of the implications of gravity and various ways that time gets stretched or played with by spacetime curvature but it doesn't seem to do that much violence to the idea as far as I can tell.

That makes me wonder if synchronicity might be one of those symptoms of dynamics in the system flowing from one place to another and hitting us along their arc. I could also see where people who are particularly fond of free will might have reasons not to like phenomena such as synchronicity - largely for the reason that it seems to demonstrate things similar to choice studies where some part of your brain knows what you're going to do seconds before you actually do it.

Another failed attempt to associate coincidence with quantum effects.

Superdeterminism may be true, but not for the reasons you've stated here.

There is no "meaning" in the universe, that is fundamental. All "meaning" really means is that a bunch of atoms, when reacting the right way they create consciousness and thus "meaning". Meaning is an emergent phenomenon rather than a fundamental thing.

That said, superdeterminism probably isn't true anyway, for the reasons of the 2018 Entanglement Experiment testing Quantum Entanglement using light emitted from Quasars.

That makes it highly unlikely (if not impossible) that any classical explanation can predict the outcome of Quantum Entanglement - and therefore superdeterminism ultimately fails as a valid explanation for the universe.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114121.htm