Coincidence (conversation about it and its legitimate reasons)


Coincidence does not come out of nowhere and always has its legal reasons.


 "I noticed," said GP, "that the word 'coincidence' is often used."


"Coincidence is a synonym for 'not knowing'", I explained. “When someone talks about it, they mean something that occurred unexpectedly, that could not be calculated or predicted.


If you look closely, you will notice that the word 'coincidence' actually often means 'without cause or reason' or even more drastic; 'something that has fallen out of nowhere' is used.



These examples are often used against determinism:


  • One speaks of coincidence if no causal explanation can be found for a single event or the coincidence of several events.


  • Radioactive decay is not a deterministic process. The decay time of the individual atomic nucleus is absolutely random.


  • Chance actually directs the microcosm. In the atomic world, individual events are fundamentally no longer precisely predictable (no longer deterministic).



Comment from me: Many statements can be discovered in the same or similar form ('no causal explanation can be found').



Hardly anyone takes into account that there are exact laws in every substance, which lead to the respective "random" events and are of course causal. "


"Why not?"


"Because it is impossible for humans to know all laws in every substance.




In order to make statements about events anyway, one prefers to fall back on 'causal reasons' (but does not mean laws, but components) and says, if one does not find any, these events are random.

('Causal reason' is valid as proof of an uninterrupted chain of components that have produced something, or to be able to use them to predict a result.)


This type of observation in the macroscopic area was created and was successful.


And unfortunately, after the discoveries in microscopic space - especially with regard to quantum physics - it was transferred to it.


Here, however, due to complicated or impossible measurements, causal chains are ultimately more difficult or not to prove.


And that's why the word 'coincidence' is often used here.


However, as explained above, laws work in all substances, be it in the macro or microscopic area.


So, the question is: does one have to represent causal chains of elements in order to prove determinism?


Or is it not much more precise to show the laws that move the substances or to assume that everything is shaped by them.


Because everything has the goal of forming a structure according to the laws.


There are two points of view here:

  • Something arises from nothing.
  • Everything has a reason.

I am convinced of the latter. "


--- ignorance ---


GP nodded. "So, the word is basically used for ignorance of the legal processes".


"That's the way it is." You can generally add to coincidence: ... because I don't know the legal processes that led to it. "


Because all substances in the universe (which of course also include the quantum) run according to laws.


Therefore, everything is determined.


But if one wanted to prove the determinateness of causal chains for predictions, one would quickly fail - because the amount of substances and laws go beyond all human dimensions.


This is how all substances work according to laws: An identical substance under an identical environment always gives an identical result.

This also includes the elementary particles, which are subject to the quasi-instantaneous processes of production and destruction, but are otherwise unchangeable in their internal properties, like photons.


The fact that people could get into trouble creating an environment that meets these requirements does not contradict this thesis.

If you modify them in the form: The same substances under the same conditions always produce the same result, then one could avoid these difficulties.


By the way: The emission of a photon determines the rotation with which it 'flies'. So, not all of them are absolutely identical.) "


"Could it be put on this guideline?" asked GP.


'Coincident is a synonym for ignorance of legal processes that are not exactly known'.


"I can agree to that immediately," I nodded.


--- objective coincidence ---


"Now there are quantum physicists who speak of the 'objective coincidence'", GP thought. “They mean that if you do an experiment in the world of elementary particles in which two identical particles, different in time, do not achieve identical results under identical circumstances, that there are no hidden variables that could be said to be this unequal have triggered the result. "


“As we have already established: coincident is synonymous with ignorance. You cannot even know how many local or non-local influences have affected the respective temporarily present particles, which all have their own laws.


Because, and this is the proof that everything also works in quantum systems according to laws: with statistical probability calculation, very precise predictions can be made in quantum systems. It would be impossible if there was lawlessness here. "


"Could you say that the hidden variables that are mentioned again and again are in the respective laws?" asked GP.


"It hits the nail on the head," I confirmed.


Humans, if they want to know something exactly, are also dependent on measurements in quantum systems.

If this is not possible - for example using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - then only the path of the mathematical description remains.


But then you can make very precise statements for quantum systems.


Of course, this is only possible because here, as everywhere, everything is done according to laws.


For objective coincidence:

“Objective” means that something without human influence (such as measurement or perspective) is what it is at the moment. If a coincidence comes into play here (something that has fallen to the legal object, for example due to the inner constellation), then this is, so to speak, an objective coincidence.


An objective event always has a legitimate reason.


When people say that something is impossible to measure by them, it does not prove that there are no laws here.

This also applies to the objection that statistical probability does not include everything 100 percent and is therefore proof that not everything is done according to the law.”

"A really weak argument," CP nodded.


--- information ---


And: There are quantum physicists who claim that quantum needs information in order to 'know' what to do.


But inorganic doesn't need any information. The substances run naturally according to the laws.


Inorganic matter only needs information if people want to use it to achieve a goal - not per se, because it works according to substances and laws anyway and it doesn't matter what happens.


(By the way: if you inform something (and they work) you change a legal process.)


On the other hand, it is different with living things: Since they do not know the future, but have to decide on the right ways to reach their goals, they need information, for example, to save their lives.


As I said, this is no more the case with inorganic matter in the macro world than in the micro world e.g. the quanta, molecules, atoms. It doesn't matter what happens here. "


(By the way: if someone gets information, it is always only information from their current perspective.)


So, whoever claims that inorganic needs information is wrong.


(By the way: it would be better to speak of laws than of information.)


Because, as I said, inorganic substances do not need information; they consist of laws.


So, if you want to recognize a substance, you would have to observe its laws, which it follows.



"I repeat again," said GP. "So, you can say that individual elementary particles do not carry any information. Therefore, they cannot give us any information. They run according to the laws of their wholeness (with the environment).


It can therefore be said that identical elementary particles always achieve identical results under identical environments.


If this does not result, then either the elementary particles or the environment were not identical. "


"Exactly," I nodded.

--- computer ---


“What I can think of right now, "meant GP," Computers also need information! "


"That's right, computers are devices that need information by means of human input in order to know which data they should process and with which method."



"What is the difference between the brain and the computer?"


“An example of this is Captcha, a test on the Internet that shows whether an application is being used by a person or a computer. They are graphically represented, alienated letters and numbers that you have to recognize during the registration process and have to enter in a query window.


The human being with his ability to be creative, to draw conclusions from similarities, succeeds in a few moments. A computer fails because it calculates rigidly and cannot translate infinitely ambiguous parts of images precisely.


The computer has a binary structure, it works on the basis of zeros and ones. He has a rigid (arithmetic) specification.


The brain has a creative structure that is open to all similarities. Creativity means connecting similarities that occur in a wide variety of areas. In some way, everything resembles something else: such as colour, size, temporal proximity,

physical proximity, geometric shape, faces, etc. This list could be continued for a long time. And so, there are no limits to creativity.


That is why it is particularly creative during sleep, because here the midpoint of the day's events does not intervene.


By the way: these similarities are also the reason for confusion. Just like a source for brilliant insights. "



"So, creativity is not something supernatural," added GP, "but takes place in people based on goals."


"Right," I nodded. "In addition, the brain is constantly creative, it makes what we perceive fluid, that is, it makes everything out of a 'good' shape that is easy to deal with. So, the goal here is not to analyse the situation down to the smallest detail, but to present it in such a way that you can quickly get an idea of it - and that is the real reason - to survive better.


This also includes the 'creativity of the moment'. This is particularly active in discussions or when you are dealing with something more intensively. It means that something new suddenly appears in you that fits the topic well.”


"So, the brain usually simplifies," GP concluded.


"Right. Because no living being in the world could find its way and survive, that would break down every situation into its individual parts at any time. That is also the reason why people experience the world to look in its entirety. "


The computer software can be observed and measured. This is hardly possible in the quantum world.


So, one should not humanize the elementary particles in the sense that they need information. Every world has its own laws. So, everything has to happen as it is, and so everything is predetermined by law. And there is no mysticism that many people like to project into it.”


--- determinism ---


This brought me to another topic: “There are two opposing worldviews: determinism and indeterminism (as already indicated above).


Determinism says that everything in the universe has its reasons, according to the laws.


The other group believes that a lot is happening for no reason. Here are a few examples:

  • Events happen without cause,
  • come out of nowhere
  • that there is free will
  • there is a metaphysical power behind it.


As I said, I belong to the first group. Because I believe that nothing can happen out of nowhere. "


"You mean, in the end it is essential that everything in the universe proceeds according to laws and that every event is therefore predetermined."


"It's clear to me."


"It is also said that you for example cannot predict the decay of a radioactive atom: exactly when it will happen,” continued GP.


“We've spoken about this before, that is precisely determined by the inherent laws and the local or non-local environment.


A substrate, here an atom, is something that is constantly in motion. The laws always change accordingly. Because the structure changes, and every structural change creates different laws. It already follows that the decay of a radioactive atom cannot be predicted exactly.


And a substance in the quantum world (which happens according to laws) is hardly ever isolated. It always has a local and non-local environment, which legally determines the course.


It is not enough just to look at the particle itself, you have to factor in the surroundings, which makes it extremely difficult to recognize.”



"You want to say: If you limit something, then you exclude something."


"Yes, boundaries are always drawn arbitrarily. It is human nature. He has to deal with substances that he can count on to come to a result, for example to be able to act.”


"What are the causes, where exactly do these demarcations come from that people make?"


"From the midpoints-mechanics. The midpoints select what suits the goal. "


"Limits are drawn through the midpoints."


"If you included all irrelevant facts in our world, you would be unable to act."


"You can't do that anyway, because the amount would be immeasurably large," GP concluded.


"Yes, and that's why it makes sense to draw boundaries in the macroscopic area of action."


--- mysticism ---


"Since we also mentioned mysticism," said GP, "how could you explain phenomena like the 'chi'?"


“The chi (a worldview form) clearly shows the principle of the center point: you set a goal. Through concentration and practice, a neural network is formed that comes ever closer to this goal, be it inner calm, contemplation with a 'higher' being, martial arts, etc. - to perfection. The human being is subtly structured down to the last detail.


Of course, other goals lose more and more value during the exercise and can therefore affect the course less.


Chi is not something supernatural, but can be practiced and learned through a focus, which usually takes a long time.


This attitude will have an impact on everyday life, because even here you may perceive unwanted thoughts and feelings, but respond less to them. And here, too, you can achieve the goals that are active in you with more energy.


This is especially true for breath-yoga. This has a holistic effect on the general psyche of humans via neuron networks.


Likewise, if people want to believe in higher beings, such as a god. The midpoints of contemplation especially include the primal-structures (in which the 'essence of God' originated). It also allows the experiences that the brain has given the child in the magical phase.


There are many people who have never heard of the magic phase. In other words, the experiences, images and feelings that they experienced during their childhood mostly continue to work in them completely unconsciously. "


"Anyway, I know that," GP nodded.


"And how about the mindfulness-exercises?" he asked further now.


"’Mindfulness’, ‘being in the middle of it’, ‘doing what you do’ is about staying with what you are doing, such as resentment to the past or fear of the future, who want to present themselves in thoughts and feelings, especially by weakening or erasing them by becoming the focus of the present.


This happens through the midpoints, similar to chi, which draws attention away from anything else that is not part of it. None of this is something mystical or supersensible, even if the actors would like to see it that way.


Of course, thoughts and feelings keep coming up. In the mindfulness exercises, you should notice them when they are very strong, but do not respond to them, but stick to where you are.


If one would go into this, then these thoughts or feelings form, that is to say midpoints, which shape one, consume energy and thus weaken mindfulness. "


"So, if there is no other way, you should perceive thoughts and feelings," said GP, "do not 'suppress' them, but just leave them as they were and continue to be mindful of what you are."


"This is the central purpose of this exercise, so you can completely focus on the respective focus."



"How do you meditate?" asked GP.


"Let me briefly introduce the course of a meditation: It starts with the goal of switching off all thoughts, feelings and perceptions. So, it is very important to stop the incessant chatter of thoughts. Concentration on this creates brisk neuronal activity in the attention-center of the brain. This signals that the inflow of neuronal information is being slowed down. As a result, an area that is responsible for our orientation in space is increasingly cut off from neuronal impulses. If the area lacks the necessary stimuli, the only thing left is to create the subjective impression of complete spacelessness, which is interpreted as infinite space and eternity. Another area is responsible for imagining the limitations of our body. The total loss of signals on this page means that the perception of yourself becomes limitless. As the depth of meditation increases, the boundary between the inner and outer world blurs and there is a feeling that you are expanding and blending in with the surroundings. Due to the concentration, the flood of information from which people get their orientation disappears. As a result, the boundary between yourself and the world also disappears, the feeling of oneness with the world and limitlessness arises. In the deepest meditation you have the feeling of becoming one with the universe, of dissolving into something much larger.”


"That sounds interesting," said GP, "does this process happen automatically in the brain when you are at the center of meditation?"


"Yes, if this goal works and you keep practicing.


My meditation practice is that I want to keep getting closer to the end of the universe when I breathe in and to stay directly below this limit that I just reached when I breathe out.


Of course, since the universe is infinite, I can never reach the end of the universe. And so, I can continue this exercise indefinitely.


On this occasion, a word about 'displace': Imagine that you focus your attention on something that you do not want to admit and respond to it. This makes this something stronger because pressure creates back pressure. This is how you get into the midpoint of it. With the repression you achieve exactly the opposite of what you want, namely to push something aside. Therefore, you should only perceive it, but then not respond to it. "


"But it is also said: 'You repress something' if something continues to act unconsciously."



“It has become commonplace because you believed that you did the repression yourself with your own will and didn't know anything about the midpoints: As a rule, the value of other midpoints is reduced so that it is no longer perceived, but continues to act in the unconscious without the consciousness being able to obtain information.”


If you say: 'A midpoint or midpoints do not let you see something', then you hit the facts much more precisely than if someone said: 'You have suppressed something.'”



"So, it's actually always the focus of attention on something that can also be 'nothing'," repeated GP.


"Right, it's about letting go. Just be in the midpoint of the moment. If you are distracted, the sentences 'what happened had to happen how it happened' and 'what will happen will happen how it has to happen' are particularly effective.”




© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)