4 ms·

> At times my spouse and I have experienced an undeniable and unexplainable shared thought or emotion without communicating with the 5 senses. We have commingle

> At times my spouse and I have experienced an undeniable and unexplainable shared thought or emotion without communicating with the 5 senses. We have commingled so very much matter together that it’s most reasonable to assume some entangled particle pairs get split between us. I’ve encountered a plethora of antecdotes from others along similar lines- really without seeking them out. It's a common experience, but that's not a maximum likelihood explanation. I've often been able to trace this kind of synchronicity to the both of us having just seen something in the environment, that then triggered similar thought patterns. There are so many possible explanations that fixating on some quantum mumbo jumbo (without being able to do the math, or create a statistically meaningful test) is just magical thinking.

wc23 9y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head. At our core humans are pattern recognition units, we're solving environmental puzzles all the time, and sometimes we solve this puzzle in the same way as the person next to us, and both have a similar leap of logic that seems to defy rationality.
reilly3000 9y ago
Therein lies the limits of ontological reductionism. I didn’t posit any theory that needs defending, but if I did I would look to systems biology as a framework. It attempts to integrate reductionism (per your insistence on statistically meaningful tests) with emergence, the scientific approach to observing behaviors in chaotic systems that can be manifest in isolation. The link below is truly an interesting read that explores the evolution of scientific approaches to study of biological phenomena. It attempts to integrate biology, physics, medicine, and computer science to show how nonlineal systems like you and me can be studied. We got to the bottom of the genome and found that things like gene expression (what really matters IRL) can’t be explained at the atomic level, but can with systems. I love it also because it contains a coy attempt at biology supervining physics, stating that all understanding of physics is limited by human intellect and the machines we built out of that intellect to support our understanding. Like somebody read https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/ and had to win. #probablynotwrongthough https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X15001485 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X1...

wc23 9y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head. At our core humans are pattern recognition units, we're solving environmental puzzles all the time, and sometimes we solve this puzzle in the same way as the person next to us, and both have a similar leap of logic that seems to defy rationality.

reilly3000 9y ago

Therein lies the limits of ontological reductionism. I didn’t posit any theory that needs defending, but if I did I would look to systems biology as a framework. It attempts to integrate reductionism (per your insistence on statistically meaningful tests) with emergence, the scientific approach to observing behaviors in chaotic systems that can be manifest in isolation. The link below is truly an interesting read that explores the evolution of scientific approaches to study of biological phenomena. It attempts to integrate biology, physics, medicine, and computer science to show how nonlineal systems like you and me can be studied. We got to the bottom of the genome and found that things like gene expression (what really matters IRL) can’t be explained at the atomic level, but can with systems. I love it also because it contains a coy attempt at biology supervining physics, stating that all understanding of physics is limited by human intellect and the machines we built out of that intellect to support our understanding. Like somebody read https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/ and had to win. #probablynotwrongthough https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X15001485 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X1...