Inspired by a recent conversation with an old friend and my brief scuffle with quantum physics, I have decided to continue my arduous journey through the fog of this subject, specifically entanglement and synchronicity: the former a proven phenomenon of the unseen world that defies all logic, and the latter a not-quite-so-proven phenomenon that is also of the unseen world, evidenced only by human experience. Science is not fond of anecdotes, which is why synchronicity gets a bad rap from the scientific community. Wolfgang Pauli, one of the most prolific physicists in history and Nobel Prize winner for his role in quantum physics, wholeheartedly believed synchronicity was connected to quantum entanglement. He collaborated with Carl Jung to explore this connection, and this collaboration resulted in two essays, one by each scientist and published in one book: The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. I plan to read this book, attempt to understand it, and report back with my take. I am on Pauli and Jung’s side of the argument for now, and not just because I enjoy being contrary, though that might have something to do with it. I will also attempt to explain what entanglement is, and I ask in advance for your forgiveness for making no sense whatsoever.
Another Writer, Another Blog 
Yes,it counts. I like how you post. Or post how you write.
LikeLike
This convo popped into my head today, unannounced, unexpected. That’s what thought does sometimes, I think. It just arrives. Thought I’d check in, wondering how the reading is going, curious.
LikeLike
Hey there, Walt! I read the foreword, and it was fascinating. I learned a bit about Pauli and his connection to Jung, and it wasn’t at all what I expected. I almost feel someone needs to make a movie out of him (Pauli).
You’d think that would keep me reading, but I get distracted so easily. I’m going to finish the book—I told someone this just two days ago and then a few days before that in random conversations about books. But have I picked it up? No.
And I did read your comments forever ago but did so while I was doing something, and I didn’t respond, though I kept telling myself to at the most inopportune times. Does it count that I think about them and the book and my desire to finally write about this incredible story?
I think I’ll write a post. Post a write.
So good to hear from you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some thoughts:
1. Very cool! I am looking forward to hearing more abou this.
2. Logic is a great tool. But it’s just a tool. Tools are limited. Tools don’t build things. Or understand them.
3. Logic can lead you to a wrong conclusion, if you’re starting point is wrong.
4. That looks like a thick book. And it has two essays, you say? Those must be hella long essays.
5. Take whatever side you like. I like that you say “for now,” because you’re being transparent about your bias, but you’re also signaling open-mindedness, and that you could be wrong.
6. Syncronicity is real. I vouch for it. Do I have science to support it? No. But science is just a tool. It doesn’t build things, or understand them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ll be wanting this, I think: t
LikeLike
Did I miss a t somewhere? That doesn’t surprise me. Is it just me that notices all the mistakes AFTER posting? If I did miss a letter somewhere, I am tempted to leave it. The post has settled into history, made it’s mark where it sank into the dirt. Maybe I should keep it preserved for future passersby to furrow the brow at. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I missed the t. Not you. I typed abou. I also said you’re when I should have said your, and if you didn’t notice I’m glad. But either way, none of that matters in the grand scheme of things, when the Sun will one day become a red giant and swallow everything, grammatical mistakes and all.
LikeLike
Isn’t it funny how we notice the little mistakes we make that no one else notices? A little comforting, I suppose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. Me too!
2. Logic is man’s way of neatly putting things into boxes. I try to use boxes, but mine keep getting disorganized and lost under piles of rubbish.
3. Oh my goodness, this is an entire unit I recently covered in my AQR (Advanced Quantitative Reasoning) class. The students were not happy with this one. It disturbed their boxes.
4. It’s actually not so bad: 200 to 300 pages is all. Definitely something I can digest easily if I stop being so lazy.
5. I am leaning heavily on the side that the link between synchronicity and quantum entanglement is real. But like I am with most everything else, I am a skeptic. This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone not too long ago about scientific “laws” and fact. Scientifically, repeatability makes something essentially factual. But the deepest part of me can’t accept that. Look at Isaac Newton. Possibly the smartest human to have ever existed. His laws describe the world we live in, elegantly, but not the worlds that we can’t see, and we didn’t know that until the 1900s. There is always more information we don’t know. Always. If I am convinced of anything, it’s that. What I could not make this person understand was that science doesn’t stop because someone tested something over and over from every angle and that something stayed true. If we took everything we have learned up until now to be absolute, science would no longer exist.
6. Same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
5. Yes. Science is a beautiful process. At the same the time, it’s just a description of what appears to be happening. To your point, we can’t see everything that appears to be happening.
LikeLike