Talk:Synchronicity

Something that might be woven into the article? — Protalina (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems related. Would you happen to be aware of a source which identifies that specific concept as Jung’s inspiration? HussainHx (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not atm: I'll have a look for one. — Protalina (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't find a source that makes that connection.

So we could add this concept at the end of the (alphabetically sorted) See also section. In the current style used there, which copies the short description of each article listed, that would look like:

• Yuanfen – Concept in Chinese culture

Btw, this is a bit elliptical, now that I notice it :). Note-to-self: on the Yuanfen Talk page, propose something like "Concept in Chinese society" (as in the lead) or "...in Chinese culture".

— Protalina (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Done — Protalina (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is unnecessarily confusing and could be written much clearer - “Synchronicity experiences refer to one's subjective experience whereby coincidences between events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated, yet have another unknown connection.” CarlStrokes (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's not cited, as far as I can see.

Also, the sentence implies that first, the events concerned, or at last some of them, occur in the mind; second, that the relationship between events may or may not be causally unrelated; and that finally, that there is a connection, but that what this might be is unknown. Doesn't reflect the substance of the article, imho. WP:OR?

Anyway, perhaps the sentence concerned is redundant if the first sentence in the lead is slightly expanded. Let's look at the definition, current as of July 2023, in the online Oxford English Dictionary for inspiration: "The name given by the Swiss psychologist, C. G. Jung (1875–1961), to the phenomenon of events which coincide in time and appear meaningfully related but have no discoverable causal connection." So how about tweaking the first sentence (keeping the wikilinks) to read —

"Synchronicity (German: Synchronizität) is a concept introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung to describe events that coincide in time and appear meaningfully related yet lack a discoverable causal connection."

— replace the current citation with an OED one, and delete the second sentence (ie, the one in question, to be clear).

— Protalina (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. — Protalina (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

i dont understand what it is, I understand the controvery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'd like to propose adding a “Scientific Explanations” section to the Synchronicity article that highlights theoretical models exploring synchronicity in scientific terms.

Notably, Carl Jung speculated on mathematical patterns such as the Fibonacci sequence as possible underlying structures behind synchronistic phenomena (Jung, C.G. (1975). CG Jung Letters, Vol. 1, ed. G. Adler, Princeton University Press).

• Gregory S. Duane’s chaotic oscillator model ("Synchronicity From Synchronized Chaos") draws parallels between synchronized chaos in physics and Jung’s notion of acausal order.
• Atmanspacher & Fuchs (2014) discuss the Pauli–Jung Conjecture and quantum entanglement as possible scientific analogues to synchronicity.
• Johansen & Osman (2015) explore psychological explanations for perceived coincidences through cognitive science and rational cognition models.
• I’d also propose contextualizing a study I authored based on the Fibonacci Life‑Chart method as part of this broader landscape of explanatory models.

Because of my connection to that last study, I’m not adding this section myself. If there’s interest, I’d be happy to draft it for review, ensuring it aligns with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Thanks for considering! EpochEditor (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Following up on my message from 11 June:

Since there were no responses after two weeks, I’ve gone ahead and added a "Scientific Explanations" section to the article. This version summarizes a range of perspectives from published sources in fields like physics and cognitive science.

As mentioned earlier, I’ve left out any reference to a study I was involved in, to keep the focus on third-party sources.

Of course, feel free to adjust, revise, or discuss further.

Thanks! EpochEditor (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that simulpathity, or or the ability to feel a loved one's pain, distress, or physical sensations at a distance, and research or documented cases of simulpathity, deserves its own article. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Connecting-with-Coincidence/Bernard-Beitman/9780757318856?utm_source NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)