Why does the subject of synchronicity keep getting ignored in this thread?
Because it would add complications that many people couldn't handle, and which would tend to support the presence of hitherto unknown, scientific laws. Actually, one law .... the one that causes mental phenomena as well as the existence of the universe in the first place.
Best ignore it.
Silver, I wasn't actually arguing that taste in music is wholly subjective because I don't think it is. Structural form and juxtapositioning of musical notes probably have an effect on the human psyche which is generalised.
Amazing coincidences happen all the time — but are they simply the product of random chance, or do they convey some hidden meaning? The answer may depend on whether you believe in synchronicity.
If you have a dice that rolls 6 all the time and can only roll six every time. That ladies and gentlemen is the definition of a random number.
If a collective consciousness where shown to exist, I'm assuming such observation would suggest randomness to be less likely.
A cycle may last a life time, never once a moment guessed at.
Ability at prediction does not define what true randomness suggests - a lack of any order of any kind.
If the universe were not ordered, for time to march on, for Life to be born and die, how could it be so if true randomness existed at any level?
One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe."
The phrase refers to one of the most important theories in modern physics: quantum mechanics. It describes the weird behavior of tiny subatomic particles. It's also the guiding theory that led to critical technologies like nuclear power, MRI machines, and transistors in computer and phones.
Ain't Life Grand !
"The universe, you and I, all came about by random chance. Everything is nothing more than the random bonding of atoms. Chemistry ... toss in a little Physics to cover nature's laws and Voila ! The Cosmos are revealed."
Random chance would not lead to the universe. That is a misapprehension.
One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe."
The phrase refers to one of the most important theories in modern physics: quantum mechanics. It describes the weird behavior of tiny subatomic particles. It's also the guiding theory that led to critical technologies like nuclear power, MRI machines, and transistors in computer and phones.
And Einstein was completely wrong.
Combine this with #1259
elroch: "True randomness is absolute unpredictability. Quantum physics provides unlimited examples of absolutely unpredictable future observations."
if you want to define true random in terms of unpredictability, its fine. but you'll have to forget about observations, because it's a fallacy. this sort of unpredictability stem from disruption in causality and has nothing to do with observers. big difference>>>
Silver, you're saying that there are two kinds of unpredictability? Is this supposed to be from an interpretative point of view? You seem to be saying that you cannot identify unpredictability through observation? Have I got you right? But you seem to be arguing that "disruption in causality, independently of observation, causes this apparent unpredictability".
You seem to have altered your stance somewhat. Do you not see that "disruption of causality" is an interpretational position which accepts the paradigm of "total causal relationships across the totality of causal, universal events".
So what you're saying isn't an argument surely? It's a statement of position, of course, but it doesn't do anything to support the position.
<<<<<as for quantum, its not the physics that claim true randomness, its just some of the philosophical interpretations of it. and those are meaningless to the truth.
but because we already been thru that before, and i know that you understand this concept very well. i'd like to ask you a personal question if you don't mind..
do you understand why? i mean.. why do you keep making false statements despite understanding very well that they are false?>>>>>
Ultimately, mankind is forced into interpretations because we are trying to use ourselves to look at ourselves and to compare ourselves with. Or we are trying to use the universe to look at the universe and to compare it with the universe.
We can only do this by adopting as many different "positions" and by using as many different ways of looking at things as we can and comparing results. That's a general case and I can't be bothered to do the hard work to come up with a good example of that. Elroch is better at that than me.
More in response to Silver's comment:
Observation is merely the general process of acquiring information from the Universe. It does not need to involve any observers. For example if a photon meets a polarising filter this observes its polarisation whether or not anyone ever sees the result.
Also there is no "disruption in causality". Causality is a fundamental principle without exceptions.
That's logical but to take Silver's position, for a minute, perhaps he really meant "interference in causality" Thus, causality would still be the decisive factor linking all events but it can SEEM to be disrupted by becoming more complex due to an unknown or outside factor.
Not that I particularly believe it but I like to try to be helpful;. 
Why does the subject of synchronicity keep getting ignored in this thread?
Because it would add complications that many people couldn't handle, and which would tend to support the presence of hitherto unknown, scientific laws. Actually, one law .... the one that causes mental phenomena as well as the existence of the universe in the first place.
Best ignore it.
Unknown scientific laws have got to be more exciting than say.. watching old re-runs of 'Friends' wouldn't you say?
Amazing coincidences happen all the time — but are they simply the product of random chance, or do they convey some hidden meaning? The answer may depend on whether you believe in synchronicity.
'Coincidence' is top shelf. A force all its own just running wild. It has the power to change everything, inside and out. Yet no one gives a ****. How sweet.
'Synchronicity' is inconvenient. Watch out for the sense of humor that it has. I know it well, which is not to say I know the source. 
Opti, I agree with you in the most part. We can never be absolutely objective, and that’s such a ugh and Interesting topic by its own right, that I’m not even going to attempt to tackle it now.
but let me try to tune you into my perspective as it relate to this topic, using your own example.. music.
We all have our own subjective taste. some music will give us pleasure, and other may be annoying at the least. so you can definitely say that a taste in music is subjective, right?
But this is a very broad generalization, so here’s how I see it..
if someone argue that the genre they like is ‘better’ based on their subjective taste, it makes them ‘subjective people’ (informally : ) because ‘objective people’ will recognize that its just a matter of taste and wont argue about it at all.
Of course this can get much more complicated when comparing vocals, composition, skills, performance and such in an objective manner (apple to apple), but this gets too detailed for the purpose of this conversation, so let’s go back on topic..
All the interpretations of QM are based on the same observations, and make the same predictions, so you can’t really say objectively that one is better then the other.
Of course anyone can have their own subjective ‘taste’ just like in music, and may argue that one interpretation is ‘better’ than the other based on say, the complexity of the equation. but this sort of arguments are mostly for show and don’t get us any closer to the truth.
when those discussions performed in panels where everyone are physicists and philosophers, and fully aware of the fine details, its entertaining and educational.
but if someone go on a casual public forum such as this one, and repeatedly identify himself as an expert with 'state of the art' knowledge, as well as absolute objectivity, and then make false statements that directly undermine the very title of the topic itself, and all that while being aware of their falsehood..
what would you call that?