First of all, we note that the phenomenon of nonrandom coincidences under consideration has various names. Here are just a few of them: synchronicity, the law of paired cases, and the Baader-Meinhof effect. However, deliberate attempts at scientific understanding are only associated with the first name.

The term synchronicity [1], which was introduced by C. G. Jung and denotes the noncausal principle of coincidences, it now quite well-known. “Although the overwhelming majority of random coincidences can be given a causal explanation, cases must nonetheless exist in which no cause-and-effect relationship is observed”. C. G. Jung did not limit himself to emotional, qualitative examples, but attempted to prove the existence of synchronicity. However, his so-called astrological experiment did not yield conclusive results. It would be very useful for us to hear C. G. Jung himself explain the reasons for his lack of success. Referring to the successful results of Rhine’s parapsychology research, C. G. Jung writes: “As compared to Rhine’s work, a tremendous shortcoming of my astrological statistics consists of the fact that the entire experiment was conducted on only one subject, myself. I did not experiment with a large number of subjects; a diversity of materials sparked my (and only my!) interest. Thus, I was in the position of a subject who is at first full of enthusiasm, then cools down as he becomes accustomed to the experiment. Therefore, the outcome got worse as the number of experiments increased, which in the case at hand, corresponded to the emergence of new materials, so that the large numbers just washed away the ‘favorable’ initial result”. Thus, C. G. Jung directly linked synchronicity to factors in the unconscious sphere. But in order to reinforce these factors, the “continuous renewal of interest and emotion” are needed. And if interest fades, then the synchronicity effect also wanes, and as a result, the probabilities of observable coincidences will not be so low.

In summing up. let’s say that C. G. Jung left us the following legacy. You want synchronicity to emerge, packets to originate, you work with the spiritual sphere, reinforce the emotions, and stimulate the interest of experiment participants. Without interest or emotions, there is also no possibility for the unconscious to emerge and no packets. But how to get there, to this unconscious? Is this path suitable for us? Let’s suppose we somehow develop certain abilities and learn to churn out packets. What’s next? Scientists try to reproduce it, but they get nowhere – what then? Compel all scientists to learn to deal with the unconscious? So nothing is left.

Kammerer [2] collected many examples of coincidences. “When I am faced with the fact that the number on my tram ticket is identical to the number of the theater ticket I purchased that same day, then that evening I get a phone call and this same number is mentioned over the course of the conversation, this time as a phone number, the causal relationship between these events seems to me quite impossible, although each of them separately has its own causality”. Both C. G. Jung and Kammerer emphasize that coincidences with an inexplicably low probability do exist.

The study conducted by S. E. Shnol, et al. [3], is worth mentioning. These authors found a similarity in the shape of bar charts of the results of measurements with different natures: biochemical reactions, chemical reactions involving the participation of low-molecular-weight compounds, and the radioactive decay of different isotopes. The authors believe that the bar chart shape change frequency detected of 24 hours, 27 days, and 365 days indicates a common cosmophysical cause. But it is totally unclear, for example, how can the Moon or the Sun exert such a considerable influence? Although the authors also did not propose a natural traditional factor capable of explaining what was observed, the study is extremely valuable. Why? Because the hope emerges of the objective scientific analysis of a phenomenon. Because packets can be objective and the role of the observer in this instance is almost invisible. I would not like to think that observing packets is the destiny of a chosen few.

Read more:Proposed Approach

or return to the Сontents