0 Shares

Chance or synchronicity ? 4/4

feedback-et-synchronicite


Last part of the series dedi­ca­ted to syn­chro­ni­ci­ty ! It fol­lows articles on the his­to­ry of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties and the role of the uncons­cious in the appea­rance of these phe­no­me­na. Having also decryp­ted a few per­so­nal examples high­ligh­ting the quan­tum com­mu­ni­ca­tion at work when syn­chro­ni­ci­ties occur, I broa­den the frame of refe­rence to the uni­verse here. And I am par­ti­cu­lar­ly inter­es­ted in the entan­gle­ment and feed­back present at all scales, which are pre­re­qui­sites for the mani­fes­ta­tion of quan­tum communication.

                       

Quantum entanglement and synchronicity

Links to standard physics

systemes-isoles

The stan­dard model in clas­si­cal phy­sics consi­ders the uni­verse as com­po­sed of iso­la­ted sys­tems. Although phy­si­cists reco­gnize that iso­la­ted sys­tems do not exist, they do not take this rea­li­ty into account in their work. They ignore the connec­tion bet­ween sys­tems when they stu­dy the uni­verse. Moreover, they are only inter­es­ted in repro­du­cible events. For all these rea­sons, they per­pe­tuate a model that is not only incor­rect but par­ti­cu­lar­ly unsui­table for the stu­dy of synchronicities.

In the infi­ni­te­ly small, on the other hand, the obser­va­tion of entan­gle­ment phe­no­me­na reveals a well-connected uni­verse. Is this why some quan­tum phy­si­cists have also become inter­es­ted into syn­chro­ni­ci­ties ? This was the case, indeed, of one of the foun­ding fathers of quan­tum phy­sics and Nobel Prize win­ner in 1945, Wolfgang Pauli. He also wor­ked direct­ly with Jung.

In 1949, Pauli wrote :

 

« I believe that syn­chro­nis­tic coin­ci­dences are des­troyed when all uncon­trol­lable and uncons­cious fac­tors are eli­mi­na­ted in order to obtain repro­du­cible expe­ri­men­tal condi­tions. » [1]

 

Thus he illus­tra­ted the fact that syn­chro­ni­ci­ty leads us into ano­ther way of thin­king, where the uncons­cious has a place of choice. In 1952, after a long cor­res­pon­dence with Pauli and many revi­sions of the concept of syn­chro­ni­ci­ty, Jung publi­shed Synchronicity, the prin­ciple of acau­sal rela­tions [2].

               

Links to the connected universe theory

It is the entan­gle­ment of the para­me­ters sha­ping the syn­chro­ni­ci­ties that makes it pos­sible to esta­blish an ana­lo­gy bet­ween what quan­tum phy­sics gives to observe and this type of events. Whether it is the signi­fi­cant coin­ci­dence bet­ween the psyches of two or more indi­vi­duals, which is explai­ned by the entan­gle­ment of the psyches of these people. Or the signi­fi­cant coin­ci­dence bet­ween a men­tal state and a phy­si­cal state, which can be explai­ned by the inter­t­wi­ning of peo­ple’s psyches, the col­lec­tive uncons­cious and matter.

When Jung wrote to Pauli : « it is more like­ly that both (mat­ter and psyche) have in fact the same pro­per­ty, that they are both contin­gent at a dee­per level and impinge upon each other without regard to their res­pec­tive cau­sal deter­mi­na­tion » [3], he was refer­ring to the uni­ty of rea­li­ty, the « Unus Mundus », i.e. the single field of infor­ma­tion. From the point of view of stan­dard phy­sics, this field com­bines the quan­tum field – in which the infor­ma­tion is embed­ded – and the mate­rial inter­ac­tion fields. There are three of them since gra­vi­ty is not explai­ned at the infi­ni­te­ly small level in cur­rent quan­tum theory.

From the point of view of the connec­ted uni­verse, it is quite dif­ferent. Indeed, Nassim Haramein’s theo­ry responds to the entan­gle­ment condi­tions neces­sa­ry for the emer­gence of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties from the quan­tum to the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal scale since eve­ry­thing is connec­ted at all levels. Thus, at all scales there is a single uni­fied field of infor­ma­tion at the source of two — and only two – quan­ti­fied and entan­gled mate­rial fields : the elec­tro­ma­gne­tic field and the gra­vi­ta­tio­nal field (see article on quan­tum gra­vi­ty).

                

Feedback and synchronicity

Receiving and transmitting information

feedback-information

The inter­ac­tion of these two fields results on the one hand in the feed­back neces­sa­ry for the infor­ma­tion to cir­cu­late and reach the level of com­plexi­ty obser­vable in the uni­verse. And on the other hand, the feed­back neces­sa­ry for conscious­ness to emerge as self-awareness. Nassim Haramein explains that :

 

« To be self-aware, you need a feed­back. Consciousness is a feed­back bet­ween the out­side and the inside. It is fun­da­men­tal to all things. Then all things are conscious. All things send infor­ma­tion into the vacuum and the vacuum sends infor­ma­tion back. Your abi­li­ty to power the sys­tem is direct­ly rela­ted to your resis­tance capa­ci­ty, i.e. the amount of infor­ma­tion that can enter you. » [4]

 

I have lite­ral­ly expe­rien­ced that sta­te­ment. I expe­rien­ced it concre­te­ly when the aneu­rysm, having rea­ched the end of its resis­tance capa­ci­ty, rup­tu­red (read My Story). Note that if the word « resis­tance » sug­gests a notion of rigi­di­ty, it is rather flexi­bi­li­ty that condi­tions our capa­ci­ty for resis­tance. The less flexible the tis­sue, the less able it is to withs­tand the blood pres­sure. And in my case, this phy­sio­lo­gi­cal obser­va­tion found an echo at the level of my conscious­ness : it simul­ta­neous­ly esca­ped from the rigi­di­ty of the men­tal. This is one of the things that my expe­rience has taught me. And the awa­re­ness that later allo­wed me to be able to receive more infor­ma­tion, and thus trans­mit more, through this blog.

                    

What is the timeframe for feedback ?

While feed­back under­pins the pro­cess of crea­ting the uni­verse, the time­frame for feed­back is more or less rapid. From this point of view, per­haps the par­ti­cu­la­ri­ty of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties lies into the fact that when they occur, the feed­back is imme­diate, or at least takes place within a very short per­iod of time.

On the other hand, the reci­pro­cal is not neces­sa­ri­ly true : if I put my hand on a very hot plate, I will burn myself imme­dia­te­ly, and in gene­ral it will not be syn­chro­nic. Although this could be the case if, for example, I woke up one mor­ning after drea­ming that I was bur­ning myself, I would walk into the kit­chen and tell my dream to the per­son there. Still numb from sleep, I would put my hand on a hot­plate, una­ware that this per­son had just hea­ted it up. Feedback infor­ma­tion would be instantaneous.

And even more, per­haps this ins­tan­ta­nei­ty would, in this spe­ci­fic case and in the case of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties in gene­ral, explain the spon­ta­neous appea­rance of sense in the obser­ver. French phi­lo­so­pher Michel Cazenave speaks of a double move­ment spe­ci­fic to syn­chro­nis­tic events which, in my opi­nion, can be part of this reflection :

 

« It is a chain that forms bet­ween the sub­ject who observes and the sense that imposes itself on that sub­ject, and which makes that sub­ject a par­ti­ci­pant in the event who, in a double move­ment, receives and gives sense to the scene he per­ceives. » [5]

                     

Self-organizing systems

Sometimes the feed­back trans­lates for the sub­ject into ordi­na­ry events, see­min­gly only sub­ject to deter­mi­nism. Sometimes it is intui­tion, coin­ci­dence or syn­chro­ni­ci­ty. These two phy­si­cal mani­fes­ta­tions – deter­mi­nis­tic or syn­chro­nis­tic – call for a dif­ferent level of unders­tan­ding of the pro­cess by which they are crea­ted. Thus, syn­chro­ni­ci­ty, unlike deter­mi­nism, can­not leave any doubt as to the source of the infor­ma­tion. That is to say, there is no doubt that there is a wider field of conscious­ness than the one we believe we are inter­ac­ting with. In fact, syn­chro­ni­ci­ty is clear­ly the proof, accor­ding to Nassim Haramein, that the feed­back neces­sa­ry for the advan­ce­ment of conscious­ness leads to the self-organization of sys­tems in the universe.

                 

Resonance and synchronicity

feedback-et-resonnanceIf eve­ry­thing is mani­fes­ted accor­ding to the feed­back of infor­ma­tion that ope­rates bet­ween vacuum and mat­ter, it is always a co-determination bet­ween the infor­ma­tion we send into vacuum and our inter­pre­ta­tion of what vacuum returns to us. This co-determination mani­fests itself in the form of encoun­ters, cir­cum­stances or events. Our inter­pre­ta­tion depends on the state of conscious­ness from which we inter­act with vacuum. And the feed­back from the vacuum depends on the inter­ac­tion that occurs bet­ween the infor­ma­tion sent and the infor­ma­tion from all other points of view. The reso­nance bet­ween the infor­ma­tion sent and the infor­ma­tion recei­ved may thus reflect a grea­ter or les­ser degree of cor­res­pon­dence. It would seem that in the case of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties, the reso­nance is imme­diate, and the degree of mat­ching is maxi­mal. Then the inside and the out­side express the same thing.

For Nassim Haramein, eve­ry­thing out­side of us is lag­ging behind our expe­rience. Only our cen­ter is on time. Everything hap­pens as if syn­chro­ni­ci­ty brings us back to reso­nance with our exact time, that is to say with the point of immo­bi­li­ty.

          

                 

                     


Key points

  • The stan­dard model in phy­sics is par­ti­cu­lar­ly unsui­table for the stu­dy of synchronicities.

  • The uni­fied field theo­ry responds to the condi­tions of entan­gle­ment, feed­back and reso­nance neces­sa­ry for the emer­gence of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties at all scales.

  • Instantaneous feed­back of infor­ma­tion could explain the spon­ta­neous appea­rance of mea­ning in the obser­ver when he expe­riences synchronicity.

                      

              

                     

                     



Notes and references
    

[1] PAULI Wolfgang in a let­ter of October 22, 1949 to Markus Fierz (quo­ted after von Meyenn (1993), let­ter n°1055, p.703), quo­ted by meta​psy​chique​.org, free trans­la­tion
[2] JUNG Carl Gustav, La syn­chro­ni­ci­té, prin­cipe de rela­tions acau­sales [Synchronicity, prin­ciple of acau­sal rela­tion­ships], in Synchronicité et Paracelsica (1952), Paris : Albin Michel, 1998.
[3] JUNG Carl Gustav, quo­ted by GOMEZ Virginie, La phy­sique peut-elle contri­buer à la com­pré­hen­sion de la psy­ché ? [Can Physics Contribute to the Understanding of the Psyche?] (June 9, 2011), In : INREES, free trans­la­tion
[4] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by Resonance Science Foundation
[5] CASENAVE Michel, Les oiseaux et la mort [birds and death], In : mon­not­bou­drant, free translation

 




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be publi­shed. Required fields are mar­ked *

©2018–2020 My quan­tum life All rights reserved
0 Shares
Tweet
Share
Share