>>95712924>This is not evidenceit is if you could record it and repeat it. the key point isn't really how thoroughly you can prove it, but that you can at least support your belief in it somewhat. you are (in so many words) a computer made of fat and protein with a limited ability to perceive stimuli (let alone interpret or remember it), so it's fair to say your observations aren't exactly a complete or objective representation of reality, which makes these vibes-based explanations extremely suspect. to say otherwise is to assert your body is not involved in sensation, which nobody would seriously claim. you absolutely could be seeing everything you said consistently, while ignoring or forgetting all the cases where synchronicities do not occur or do not actually correspond with your input, making a pattern seem to appear from random events. it has to be recorded so we can see what's really happening.
the likelihood of an event is not something we innately understand very well, we *always* spot a pattern, which makes even the most random events seem relatively deterministic or the result of some intelligence somewhere. the simplest explanation, the idea of something happening for no reason at all (or from a long series of deterministic effects that are impossible to see in fine detail, like the weather), is not something people can handle well especially as you look lower on the iq scale.
