| Xenology - Synchronicity - Jung - Simultaneous - Telepathic link
Take a phenomenon widely discussed by the xenologers: Synchronicity. Everything I say below applies equally to many of anomalous phenomena -telepathy, precognition, spontaneous combustion, electronic voice phenomena, poltergeist...-, but let's focus for now on this, as an example. The Synchronicity occurs in cases of "extreme chance", that defies the law of probability. We all happened some time: think of a person and in that moment, that person calls us. This would be the typical case, but there are more spectacular, which resist much more to an explanation based on the coincidence. It is important to clarify that the synchronic is not in the context of parapsychology, a synonym for "simultaneous". The Synchronicity is a term coined by people like Carl Gustav Jung, who comes to make sense of the simultaneous. The simultaneity of two events is something testable empirically in our everyday experience -that is, leaving aside all reservations imposed by the Theory of Relativity-. The Synchronicity, by contrast, is an interpretation of this simultaneity. I chose the Synchronicity because I think the anomaly more significant. We can always suspect that behind almost any other. For example, if we do not presuppose causality in the precognition or telepathy, that is, a causal link between message and subject receiver, we may easily explain the hypothetical 'connection' with a timely synchronicity. Pinocchio think of a strawberry ice cream, and Geppetto think of a strawberry ice cream is nothing abnormal. What is surprising is that they do so at the same time and so I do know each other -if they not verbalize, the match would go unnoticed-. In this case we find: first, a fact (the coincidence in time of two thoughts are identical) second, with an interpretation of this fact (synchronicity), third place, with an interpretation of interpretation (the link telepathic), and so on. Conclusion: The act itself does not challenge any natural law, it is perfectly normal for somebody think of a strawberry ice cream and have someone else do so too, especially if both are queuing at the counter of an ice cream shop. What characterizes it as anomalous is the interpretation we make of it (although, of course, the interpretation most suited to the real causes need not be the most conventional, which is based on chance: maybe there is a telepathic bond ). This phenomenon (anomalous interpretation while "anomalizante" of a fact), can be represented as a curve on a two dimensional space using a Cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 01), and on that representation involves two factors: real (a), empirically verifiable, and conforms perfectly to the laws of physics as is done simultaneously in the time -Pinocchio are thinking about Geppetto when Geppetto calls Pinocchio- and other imaginary (b) that is, the interpretation we make of this. If we call z the phenomenon of synchronicity, we then have z = (a, b) in its representation within the system of two-dimensional coordinate (call IOR: O is the point of intersection of the two axes, I is the imaginary axis, and R is the real axis).
0 ≤ a <r We agree that not deserve the same score the total absence of evidence (a = 0) that completely contrasted casuistry, where (a) store the maximum (a → r). The first point would be located at the intersection of the axes IOR, whereas the second point would be located on the horizontal axis OR, away from the axis OI. The length of the coordinate axes is by definition infinite, which comes in handy as a reminder that absolute certainty does not exist, the perception of an event not longer, and somehow always a subjective interpretation of that fact, subject therefore a discussion. Then us to book site on the axis OR to determine the peak of the farthest-certainty OI-axis will inevitably be provisional, and (a) may tend ar, but never be equal to r (be directed toward him, but it can achieve it). The imaginary factor (b) is another variable between two extremes, the minimum 0, maximum, i. 0 ≤ b <i This variable, (b) is subject to the grading that conventionally do the different interpretations of the act. It is a gradation more qualitative than quantitative. In this sense it can remind the Richter Scale, which classifies the magnitude of an earthquake rather than by the measurable data of the seismic vibration, but the visible effects it has on the objects (if you move the lamp, if the tiles fall walls, buildings crumble if ...). Establish some magnitudes indicative of the variable (b) of time: b = 0: The fact synchronous is rare, but likely, is not an anomaly, just casual, it's extraordinary, but only in that rare. Only the interpretation we make is determined as an anomaly. We often think of many people, not so we phone instantly. When one does, we believe that it is a wonder (Skeptical Interpretation). b → 1 / 3 i: We established some kind of telepathic communication between Geppetto and Pinocchio which has caused the coincidence (Parapsychological Interpretation). b → 2 / 3 i: The will -consciously or unconsciously- of Geppetto -or Pinocchio- influences reality and alters it (Magical Interpretation). b → i: There is a cosmic arrangement underlying -"God?", "Fate"?...-. The match meets a need of higher order. Geppetto and Pinocchio are predestined. The chance did not exist at all (Transcendent, or Religious Interpretation). The gradation factor chosen here for b responds to the dominant scientific paradigm in the West today, attracting more materialist explanation that based on mere "chance" - to the axis OR. I have noted that it is a conventional choice. If we were to adopt the medieval mind, dominated by a religious paradigm, transcendent interpretation occupy the lowest place on the shaft OI (b = 0), and the skepticism the highest, probably. Curious rearrangement, which we would find the idea of "God" in the crossover exact axis IOR (a = 0, b = 0), ie in the center of the axis of coordinates, which will surely satisfy the expectations of a xenologer the twelfth century (Fig. 2).
(Fig. 2) In the description that concerns us, I drew the curve from four points P1, P2, P3 and P4, determined by the scales previously stated (Fig. 3). Consider why the magnitude of each point.
(Fig. 3) P2 = (½ r, 1 / 3 i). Factor imaginary: Parapsychological Interpretation, where (b) → 1 / 3 i. I have assigned a medium real factor (to) → ½ r, halfway between denial and total observation. I base it on scientific studies that have attempted to demonstrate the existence of telepathy have been inconclusive. Rather, their results are still subject to controversy, as there is no widespread agreement on the interpretation of statistical data. This is the reason for assigning a medium value to the real factor is a Solomonic solution, halfway between the denial of the skeptical and credulous enthusiast cry. P3 = (1 / 10 r, 2 / 3 i). Factor imagery: Magical Interpretation, where (b) → 2 / 3 i. I have assigned a real factor very low, 1 / 10 or less than 1 / 10, since the psychokinetical capabilities -the term used here squeaks, no doubt, but I look to him to give a name to the ability to alter reality through the sheer force of will are even less substantiated the telepathic abilities of human beings-. Weak evidence, some guesswork, and verifiability of the phenomenon, not yet sentenced, have prevented me give a value of zero. P4 = (0, i). Factor imagery: Transcendent, or Religious Interpretation, where (b) → i. The nature not verifiable, by definition, religious beliefs, and therefore refractory to empirical approach, requires placing the real factor at absolute zero. As shown by the curve provides a descriptive xenomethod of a type of highly elusive phenomenology. Not only that, it also proposes a starting point from which to develop a debate perhaps more rational among self-described skeptics and described as gullible, too used, both these and those, in a weary anger among deaf. Comparing the curves proposed by some and by others, can focus much better level of discussion. The conclusions that can be inferred after the location of a phenomenon in xenospace vector are for the time unexpected, and perhaps for that very reason promising. It remains to define what role the three negative quadrants, left axis I and below the axis R. Can we dare to speculate about the existence of anti-empirical demonstrations beyond mere denial of a fact? ... Can we guess, also, about the existence of anti-imaginary interpretations, beyond the pure skepticism? ... Suddenly springs an idea encouraging: if the imaginary axis orients its zenith, I, to the idea of a cosmic transcendent some may identify with the divinity, it could direct its nadir -I, to an anti-cosmic , which some might identify with the devil-. Midway, of course, in the crossing of the axis of coordinates, we would still find the inherent chaos and material, such entropic disorder, which might call "existential" -quantifiable, but totally meaningless. It can be better from now, an arduous task not only descriptive, comparative study of all anomalous phenomena through xenocurves, but finding a universal grading operations and to optimize and justify the quantities used. The intrinsic heterogeneity to the anomalous phenomenology does hard to establish an universal scale, but I hope that this difficulty can be overcome. Achieving this, the simple graphic evidence will clear the degree of existence of every phenomenon in this new framework of expanded reality into the imaginary just opened, and probably some 'case studies' commonplaces of paranormal investigation is seed lost in the mists of imagination, freed completely from any connection with reality. Those, however, stubbornly continue to show a curve of time bulging, as is clear from the case of synchronicity, they have earned a prestigious status of verisimilitude. That is, the xenology have discovered what is worth studying, and what not. What is not enough, given the boldness with which some still dizzy partridges patent absence, falsification or irrelevance. I can not conclude this article without a double allusion to a good friend, L., scientist equipped with a brain much better equipped to logical reasoning than mine. First, to thank him for his unrelenting criticism and suggestions, which have forced me to rewrite the entire text and abandon ineffective and absurd some dalliances mathematicians I doomed inexorably to confusion and disaster. Secondly, because it should be noted here the comment of his, I received via email, and relates to the ultimate meaning of the description method based on curves xenologers: "It seems that your goal is to bring the metaphor to describe a method. The method is described at the end of a somewhat confusing for my taste and I would need to see how this method of representation is so beneficial for one either, for example, with pieces blandiblub set with pins, which pins representing discrete reality facing a classic empiricism blandiblub that binds the discrete events in a continuum of which our senses can hardly make an objectified description. I'm not saying that I believe more in the blandiblub but the article should show some usefulness of the method, not only its beauty by the similarity with a mathematical tool, right?. " What can I say?... You're right. But here I stop myself, for the moment. In fact, what I throw into the air is just a metaphor, the first form and a little vague for a method. Hopefully someone will be useful, and will inspire a practical development. Do not rule out further work on this in the future, but I know my limitations, and these are that the ideas I run away. But we are not soothsayers, maybe God provide inspiration. Everything will come. Carlos Atanes Barcelona, 2003
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
