Corlindale said:
It's just that most people who use the "scientists are soo set in their old ways"- argument are advocates of non-scientific ideas like ID or Creationism, and merely uses it to mean "scientists are dumb because they do not accept our baseless theory", and so it tends to switch on my annoyance reflex.
I get tha same annoyance reflex from that and also from when people don’t give any other explanation to certain phenomena but that is “just coincidence” or "we don’t need such knowledge".
Corlindale said:
Why "for sure"?
Couldn't we have two independent events,
This is one possibility and I personally think it could be the case here, but for me these kind of things are ever important notions how we construct our reality and how we seem to put lot of emphasizes into certain kind of happenings as important while others are mere “coincidences”. What I’m mostly interested is the predictability of certain scenarios, thought patterns and in overall patterns of certain events in life. It has to do with chaos theory and game theory. If we go further we end up into quantum mechanics and I have also hunch that even Rupert Sheldrake is on to something talking about morphic fields (or morphogenetic fields).
The problem with the physical science example in this case is that it very quickly becomes reductionistic which causes certain possible scenarios to be overlooked because they aren’t simplistic enough or don’t follow certain order of fixed rules. I find this being probably many consider still mathematical ability being some sort of example of one’s intelligence and logic. Unfortunately pure brute calculating power and direct evidence isn’t enough. We need leaps of faith. We need people who can connect two dots that seem to be miles apart at first from each other but when looked from certain angle are in fact in same line. That is the work of genius, putting things together that seem for other people have no connection at all. Entirely different case is, could we find such connection here. One connection is "for sure" and it exists in our mind which makes it psychological one.
Birdjaguar already covered this with his message by saying how important these kind of anecdotes are for human life as inviduals. But I believe they serve also very important duty by working as "vessels" moving our consciousness from one "reasonable" event to another one. And like we know work of brain predates action which together create our behaviour.
Now here comes the part of the theory why I consider this important and fascinating. Someone dreams about something that later becomes reality are two events inside the same system. This doesn’t mean they have direct causality but they are both parts of the system, they share similarities. The internal world and the external world share similar qualities and that’s why I’m interested about this kind of phenomena. So if we could consider area of New Jersey being “one system” (or environment) which part Bozo is, it would mean that since he lives there, his brain would have gathered knowledge of conditions inside the system. Now, using law of probability inside that system there’s possibility someone can predict possible events inside the system based into certain changing variables in the environment. The most interesting part is why
Bozo was the person especially since he mentioned it to his friend. So example question is are some people more likely to predict the changes inside the system because their brain somehow can create connections subconsciouscly while other brains don’t. One thing I’m sure and it is that some people consider these kind of connections being non-important and you can see it even in this thread. In other words some people’s thoughts have fixed orbits and other people don’t. Or let me rephrase it, we all have fixed orbits of thoughts but there isn’t right or wrong about them, they are just different kind of orbits. And this again brings us how our thought patterns and behaviour models are based into our enviroment and how we could predict it, and what it tells about our concept of reality.
What I would like to see unified theory that combines internal and external world and I belive the notion of these worlds as separate are mere illusion. They share similar qualities and by understanding the gaps and connections between the events that happen in the internal world and external world will be instumental in our race to understand the reality as it is.
Maybe the term could be as much "many-interpretations world” as “many-worlds interpretation”
I answer some points little bit later.
And I know my text might be little bit hard to understand, but I'm pretty sure you get the picture where I'm getting at.
If you don't, I'll try to explain later in more detail.
Coincidences aren't fascinating and they don't need further study.
