While the phenomenon of synchronicities is widely known and routinely experienced by numerous people – as meaningful coincidences seemingly springing spontaneously in their lives – it still defies a proper integration in both cognitive psychology and physics. This is due to the fact that it contravenes Einsteinian physics laws, notably the locality principle of sequential causality and the obsolete assumption of a local mind restricted to the 4D-brain’s biochemistry and biophysics.
This discrepency, as we know, is a basic problem met by all psi capacities, which are mental ones and instantiate nonlocality – connections at a distance both in time and space, without material causality such as an EM signal. Nonlocality has indeed been proven in the entanglement of particles by the conclusive experiments conducted by Alain Aspect in 1982-84, which moreover demonstrated a Faster-than-light (FTL) speed. These were designed to test the “EPR paradox” – a thought experiment that Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen proposed in order to disprove the QM predicate that particles could remain correlated and entangled at great distance. Moreover, Einstein was a proponent of the idea that “hidden variables” (e.g., yet undiscovered deterministic forces) were keeping the universe ordered, thus barring the quantum indeterminacy and probabilistic behavior postulated by QM. Following Aspect experiments, the entanglement of particles precluded any explanation based on classical (i.e., local) signal transmission by spacetime. Markedly, when one of the particles was bounced on the moon, the distance between the two entangled particles was so great that the exchange of information was proven to be at 10,000 times C and established that the “weirdness” of quantum processes is real, and not just apparent.*
Interestingly, it is at 74 years of age that the Depth psychologist Carl Jung fathomed and modelled a whole new set of phenomena and processes based on acausality and meaningful simultaneous occurrences, which he called synchronicity.
The threefold definition that Carl Jung gives of synchronicity (in his 1952 namesake book) covers what psi researchers call “informational psi” except telepathy. Having defined synchronicities as “The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer and an outside event (Synchronicity 1960, 110 & 25), Jung then lists three types of coincidences: (T-1) with a simultaneous, objective, event; (T-2) “with a corresponding (…) external event taking place (…) at a distance, and only verifiable afterward” (thus clairvoyance); and (T-3) “with a corresponding, not yet existent, future event” (thus precognition). And the examples he gives are mostly spontaneous cases of precognition and J.B. Rhine’s early experimental psi research.
Let’s note that, with this definition, Jung was thus attributing not only to synchronicities, but also to psi phenomena, the same set of ‘acausal’ dynamical processes and laws, namely an independence from time and space, and was signaling their belonging to some other dimension of reality than the 4D material and spacetime one. Besides, he thought that synchronicities involved an archetypal (thus symbolic) content. While the symbolic content, in itself, is far from intrinsic (as we’ll see in my real-life examples lacking any), they mostly clearly imply the Self (soul, Atman) that Jung deemed as belonging to the archetypal dimension (as distinct from spacetime).
Indeed, Jung’s major breakthrough with synchronicities was to posit them as acausal, “transtemporal” and “trans-spatial,” in the same way he postulates the Self (the transcendent subject of the unconscious) and psychic processes to be. (The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche 413, pg. 813) Commenting Rhine’s findings that accruing the sender-receiver distance (in telepathy tests), or even asking the subjects to predict the order of test cards (a “time displacement” used to study precognition) didn’t impede the positive results, he writes (1960, 17-8): “In these [experimental] circumstances the time factor seems to have been eliminated by a psychic function or psychic condition which is also capable of abolishing the spatial factor.” Then he goes on deducing that psi rules out any explanation in terms of energy (since there is no decrease of the effect with distance), and therefore psi “cannot be considered from the point of view of causality.” Let us specify that it does effectively rule out any electromagnetic (EM) energy or force, but not quantum processes that are known to exhibit nonlocal properties and retrocausality (see Costa de Beauregard, 1975; Peat, 1987; Hardy, 2017), nor an unknown type of energy such as the hyperdimensional syg-energy that I postulate.
Some experiments also showed that psi was functioning despite strong electromagnetic shielding such as the ocean depth or Faraday cages. As I have argued (Hardy 2017, 2000), the bulk of experimental psi data buttresses the fact that psi works nonlocally, being non-dependent on spacetime parameters or EM waves (although these may possibly act as contingent or reinforcing factors).
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Look for the other posts within label SYNCHRONICITIES “Rare types of synchronicities” (2025)
Read the full article on Academia-edu: https://independent.academia.edu/ChrisHHardy/Papers
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
