Coincidence is a synonym for "ignorance". If someone talks about coincidence, then he means something that occurred unexpectedly, could not be calculated.
If you look closely, you realize that we often use the word 'coincidence' in the sense of a 'fallen out of nowhere'.
The word is therefore basically used in ignorance of the legal processes. One can generally add to the coincidence: ... because I do not know the legal processes that led to it.
Also in the quantum world, the following applies: All substances are discharged according to laws. Quanta are substances.
Proof of this: With statistical probability calculus mathematicians can make accurate predictions about quantum systems. This would not be feasible if lawlessness prevailed here.
So here too - including coincidence - everything is determined by laws.
However, if one tries to prove the determinateness of uninterrupted causal chains, then one quickly gets into trouble, because the quantity of the substances is usually innumerable, and that all the more, even more exactly one wants to show the causal chain - and the quanta have their own laws.
So, there are quantum physicists who speak of 'objective coincidence'. What you mean by this is to make an experiment in the world of elementary particles in which two identical particles, different in time, produce different results under identical circumstances, that ultimately there are no hidden variables that could be said to produce this different result have triggered.
With that they want to prove indeterminism. And this is commonly considered proven when no uninterrupted chain of causation can be proven.
It would be difficult to prove this accurately in quantum systems because, firstly, it would be difficult to check whether these substances are actually identical in the case of supposedly identical substances and secondly to produce identical circumstances, because all surrounding substances proceed according to the underlying laws and interactions with the substance to be investigated may be subject.
Four facts should be considered in experiments:
1. Everything has its own laws,
2. it would be difficult to prove that two elementary particles are absolutely identical,
3. make sure that the experiment rooms are also absolutely identical, and
4. safely rule out that nothing outside the experimental space could influence (such as entanglement or interactions).
That will hardly be possible. I mean that indeterminism is proven when there are no laws in or between substances.
And I think that this is impossible!
And there is another thought error of the people who speak of the objective coincidence: they say that an elemental oak has no information as to what it should do.
Inorganic substances do not need information; they run according to their inherent laws. Information only needs living beings to survive and achieve their goals.
So, anyone who claims that there is "objective coincidence" should think through his assertion with regard to these facts (the laws).
Psychologically, the desire could be to refute determinism.
© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website www.karlheinzhermsch.de and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)