Chance or resonance ? 2/4



The first article in this series was about the his­to­ri­cal aspect of syn­chro­ni­ci­ty, a term coi­ned by Carl Jung. Here I pro­pose to explore ano­ther theme dear to this psy­cho­ana­lyst : the uncons­cious. But first, I would like to come back to the cha­rac­te­ris­tics of synchronicity.

Historically, the notion of acau­sa­li­ty comes at the top of the list of the ele­ments defi­ning syn­chro­ni­ci­ties. As Jung explains :  » (…) the prin­ciple of cau­sa­li­ty (…) see­med insuf­fi­cient to shed light on cer­tain remar­kable phe­no­me­na of uncons­cious psy­cho­lo­gy. Indeed, I dis­co­ve­red the exis­tence of paral­lel psy­cho­lo­gi­cal phe­no­me­na bet­ween which it is abso­lu­te­ly impos­sible to esta­blish a cau­sal rela­tion­ship but which must be in ano­ther order of connec­tions. » [1]

In fact, syn­chro­nis­tic events escape not only the prin­ciple of cau­sa­li­ty but also sta­tis­ti­cal pro­ba­bi­li­ties and repro­du­ci­bi­li­ty. Thus, these rare and unique events escape the very basis of our concep­tion of natu­ral laws, the consen­sus on which we base our rea­li­ty, and, ulti­ma­te­ly, our science. To the notion of cau­sa­li­ty as defi­ned by clas­si­cal deter­mi­nism, Jung sub­sti­tu­ted by neces­si­ty a prin­ciple of simi­la­ri­ty of sense.


Sense, cause and information

From acausality…

causal-relationshipsTherefore, consi­de­ring syn­chro­ni­ci­ties seems to invite us to change our concep­tion of the world. In other words, the chal­lenge is huge because the omni­po­tence of cau­sa­li­ty is so dee­ply roo­ted in us that it seems unthin­kable that events without a cause could occur. For all that, should think of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties lead us to consi­der that we live in a uni­verse where sense final­ly super­sedes cause ?

There are two ways of loo­king at this. Either the syn­chro­nis­tic events have a cause, but since this cause is inac­ces­sible, they can only be dis­tin­gui­shed by sense. This inter­pre­ta­tion favours an infor­ma­tion theo­ry, where the absence of a cause would sim­ply amount to an absence of infor­ma­tion [2].

Either these events real­ly have no cause. But as the astro­phy­si­cist Hubert Reeves explains, it is ris­ky to talk about acau­sa­li­ty because : 

« An event is said to be acau­sal until its cause is dis­co­ve­red. In other words, it belongs to the world of cause and effect. (…) The his­to­ry of science is, ulti­ma­te­ly, the list of cau­sal rela­tions dis­co­ve­red suc­ces­si­ve­ly bet­ween appa­rent­ly unre­la­ted objects. » [3]


…to the unconscious

This is one of the les­sons I can learn from my expe­rience, even though it will pro­ba­bly never be part of the his­to­ry of science ! Indeed, it illus­trates the pre­cau­tions to be taken with acau­sa­li­ty. Thus, if the stop of the second hemor­rhage had no cause for the medi­cal team, it had a very real cause for me : Madeleine’s inter­ven­tion and the rela­ted syn­chro­ni­ci­ties. An inter­ven­tion which itself had a cause, to which only we had access at that time : my choice to live. And to say the least, that choice was a sen­se­ful one ! In the end, the only dif­fe­rence bet­ween the medi­cal team and me was the addi­tio­nal infor­ma­tion avai­lable to me. This brings us back to infor­ma­tion theo­ry, in which there is no lon­ger a choice bet­ween cause and sense, since the two are not mutual­ly exclusive.

However, appea­rances are decei­ving. Indeed, if one adopts the pers­pec­tive of a dai­ly life gover­ned by the law of cau­sa­li­ty and which may appear to be devoid of sense, any acau­sal and sen­se­ful event will be consi­de­red to be in oppo­si­tion to the norm. But even if our law of cau­sa­li­ty did not apply to this event, would no law of cau­sa­li­ty be appli­cable ? Let me explain : our law of cau­sa­li­ty has been esta­bli­shed on the basis of events to which our conscience has access. Events that have rea­ched our field of conscious­ness. And it can only apply to these events. So I’m tal­king about a cau­sa­li­ty that would bring into play ano­ther level of conscious­ness than the one from which we inter­act with rea­li­ty. A cau­sa­li­ty that would involve the uncons­cious.


Synchronicities : an expression of the unconscious

Changing perspective

concept-of-the-unconsciousIncluding the field of uncons­cious in the cau­sa­li­ty equa­tion does not mean that the prin­ciple of cau­sa­li­ty can no lon­ger be applied. This sim­ply means that we can­not observe its imple­men­ta­tion within the scope avai­lable to us. For if only the effect is acces­sible, how can a rela­tion­ship bet­ween effect and cause be established ?

On the other hand, at the level of the infor­ma­tion field of the uni­verse, what would prevent a law of cau­sa­li­ty from being at work ? A law that we would only see applied to the very nar­row fil­ter of our field of consciousness ?

If this were the case, it would mean that the prin­ciple of cau­sa­li­ty would act all the time and on all levels, but that we would only be able to observe its action on mani­fest events. That is to say, events that have rea­ched our indi­vi­dual or col­lec­tive field of conscious­ness. In this sce­na­rio, for the vast majo­ri­ty of us, cau­sa­li­ty would always take pre­ce­dence over sense in our inter­pre­ta­tion of the world. This is because the level of conscious­ness from which we inter­pret the world is men­tal. It is linear, mecha­ni­cal, based on the past / present / future sequence and the­re­fore on cau­sa­li­ty. In other words, this sce­na­rio would be very simi­lar to the rea­li­ty we know ! Why, then, dwell on it ?

Because it consi­de­ra­bly broa­dens our pers­pec­tive. Causality, within the men­tal fra­me­work in which we apply it, excludes the field of uncons­cious. However, the fact that, des­pite eve­ry­thing, syn­chro­ni­ci­ties do mani­fest them­selves should make us consi­der taking it into account. We have to consi­der it because syn­chro­ni­ci­ties do not bring any kind of infor­ma­tion : they reveal infor­ma­tion that reso­nates with the field of the conscious mind. That’s why they make sense.


An inaccessible causal plane

Synchronicities give us flee­ting access to the field of the uncons­cious. Precisely, they open conscious­ness to a reso­nance with uncons­cious. From then on, they can fit into the fra­me­work of Nassim Haramein’s theo­ry of the connec­ted uni­verse. That is to say, in the conti­nuous feed­back of infor­ma­tion bet­ween mat­ter and vacuum, bet­ween what reaches conscious­ness and what remains in the field of the uncons­cious. In turn, the unal­te­rable link bet­ween these two fields should lead us to ano­ther vision of things. In order to rea­lize that an uncons­cious cause can have a conscious effect and that a conscious cause can have an uncons­cious effect.

Nassim Haramein shows that the quan­tum vacuum – conscious­ness or ener­gy – is the source of mat­ter (see The uni­fied field theo­ry). Which teaches us two things. Firstly, there is no sepa­ra­tion bet­ween vacuum ener­gy and mat­ter. And second­ly, there is a cau­sal rela­tion­ship bet­ween the two : without the quan­tum vacuum, there is no mat­ter. This means that there is a plane of cau­sa­li­ty that is inac­ces­sible to us, unlike the one that mani­fests itself at the level of mat­ter itself, the one we expe­rience on a dai­ly basis and on which we base our law of cau­sa­li­ty. And not only is this cau­sal plane inac­ces­sible to us, but it involves an imper­cep­tible delay to us on our scale bet­ween cause and effect. Why ? Because the exchange of infor­ma­tion bet­ween vacuum and mat­ter is at the speed of light !


Synchronicities : an expression of presence

synchronicity-and-present-momentWhy is syn­chro­ni­ci­ty so fas­ci­na­ting after all ? Because it seems to can­cel time by absor­bing all our atten­tion in the present moment. It’s spon­ta­neous, unex­pec­ted, obvious. It calls us to the unpre­dic­table, it invites us to detach our­selves from the known. Synchronicity is a break­through in the thought pro­cess, an oppor­tu­ni­ty to become aware that there is an order of things that escapes us. An uncons­cious order of things.

Synchronicity is an expres­sion of pre­sence. During a syn­chro­ni­ci­ty, only the sen­se­ful event exists. It fills space and time, making it worth­less. Timelessness takes its place as a valou­rer of the tem­po­ral dimen­sion, the only one in which syn­chro­ni­ci­ty can be revealed.

To live in syn­chro­ni­ci­ty is to be total­ly in sync with the time of the life around us. It’s not being late, not being ear­ly, not in the past, not in the future, but in the present moment. It is to be in the natu­ral flow of life rather than in the illu­sion of what is construc­ted by the mind. It is to be at the cen­ter of our­selves and to expe­rience direct­ly what ema­nates from it. It’s being on a dif­ferent evo­lu­tio­na­ry path. A path where the field of appli­ca­tion of cau­sa­li­ty is no lon­ger sim­ply in the domain of the conscious, but also in that of the unconscious.


Synchronicities : an expression of the resonance principle

From the standard model…

Synchronicity gives a glimpse of the connec­tion that exists bet­ween all things in the uni­verse, whe­ther conscious or uncons­cious. It turns out to be in favour of an infor­ma­tion theo­ry. It is the expres­sion of a one, sen­se­ful world, where events, people and cir­cum­stances converge in the present moment. And from this, by reso­nance effect, a sense results.

Then why isn’t there a science of syn­chro­ni­ci­ty ? Clearly, the stan­dard phy­sics fra­me­work is not sui­table for the stu­dy of these non-reproducible events. They’re com­ple­te­ly out of it field of inves­ti­ga­tion. For as the phi­lo­so­pher Michel Bitbol explains : 


« The phy­si­cist neglects what varies from one moment to ano­ther or from one per­son to ano­ther, and only retains what repeats itself (…) he orders this by for­mal laws and makes part of the world pre­dic­table. It pushes sense back into a domain of ideal, mathe­ma­ti­cal struc­ture (…) The sin­gu­la­ri­ty of our lives has no place in [the] thin­king [of the phy­si­cist] because it escapes it by construc­tion. This is not a defect but a choice of method. » [4]


… to the connected universe

everything-is-connectedBut if for the phi­lo­so­pher « the sciences have nei­ther enough to jus­ti­fy nor to dis­cre­dit syn­chro­ni­ci­ty as a gift of sense that is impor­tant for our exis­tence » [5], I see an excep­tion : the phy­sics of Nassim Haramein. It explains and includes syn­chro­ni­ci­ties without even trying to do so. Based on the exis­tence of a uni­ver­sal infor­ma­tion field and the reso­nance prin­ciple. Within this field – which is simi­lar to Jung’s col­lec­tive uncons­cious – eve­ry­thing is connec­ted, infor­ma­tion cir­cu­lates thanks to a feed­back dyna­mic. They reso­nate with each other. Not to men­tion the science of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties, the phy­si­cist pro­poses a model in which they natu­ral­ly have their place.

In the next article Synchronicity and quan­tum com­mu­ni­ca­tion, I invite you to explore the concrete dimen­sion of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties through seve­ral examples drawn from my experience.



Key points

  • There is a plane of cau­sa­li­ty that is inac­ces­sible to us : the field of the unconscious.

  • Synchronicities are an expres­sion of the uncons­cious. They reveal infor­ma­tion that reso­nates with the field of conscious­ness. That’s why they’re as unli­ke­ly as they make sense.
  • In contrast to stan­dard phy­sics, the uni­fied field theo­ry is sui­table for the stu­dy of syn­chro­ni­ci­ties because it is based on the reso­nance of the uni­ver­sal infor­ma­tion field.





Notes and references

[1]  JUNG Carl Gustav, Ma vie : sou­ve­nirs, rêves et pen­sées, Paris : Gallimard, Collection Folio, 1991, p. 463, free trans­la­tion
[2] About the rela­tions bet­ween cau­sa­li­ty and infor­ma­tion, you can consult the article Reality and quan­tum phy­sics.
[3] REEVES Hubert. (1990). Incursion dans le monde acau­sal, In : La Synchronicité, l’âme et la science, H. Reeves, M.Cazenave, P. Solié et al., Editions Séveyrat, p.11, free trans­la­tion
[4] BITBOL Michel, Synchronicité – Rencontre autour du temps pré­sent, free trans­la­tion
[5] Ibid.



Leave a Reply

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

©2018–2023 My quan­tum life All rights reserved