The most important, and most compelling, aspect of coincidence is the relationship between the coincidental events, particularly by way of cause and effect. If one event caused the other there would be no coincidence. For example, if there were heavy rains and a bridge washed out, we wouldn't consider it a coincidence- the rain caused the washout. But if a car happened to stall in the middle of the bridge just as it was collapsing, that would be a different story. There are no apparent connections between the two. The word 'apparent' is what makes coincidences so compelling. Sometimes there seems to be no connection, yet in time and further investigation we find there is. Other times the events seem to be related- one causing the other or some other mechanism at work, and yet it is truly a chance encounter- a statistical anomaly. These are times we impose significance where there should be none. This is- to me- what makes noting and studying coincidences so fascinating. They are guideposts into our thinking processes and also into the hidden workings of the universe. Why do we sometimes want so much meaning when there really is none? What are the secrets that are being signaled at other times?
P. D. Ouspensky wrote about higher dimensions and the connections between objects that are observed in each. If you lived in one dimension- basically a line- and a three-dimensional colored ball passed in front of you, all you'd see is a point changing color. If you were in two dimensions- a flat plane- and the ball passed by you would see a line getting bigger until it hit center- it's diameter- and then getting smaller. In three dimensions it would simply be a ball. Now imagine your fingers passing in two-dimensional space. They would look like four separate lines, unconnected, yet somehow suggesting some commonality. You still could not see the concept of the whole hand. Perhaps in our world some three-dimensional objects are connected in ways we can't understand. Ouspensky refers to the possibility of all trees being connected in some way on some higher level.
Maybe some coincidences suggest connections that we just aren't able to perceive. But with enough of these inferences we might be able to learn something about life's mysteries.
P. D. Ouspensky wrote about higher dimensions and the connections between objects that are observed in each. If you lived in one dimension- basically a line- and a three-dimensional colored ball passed in front of you, all you'd see is a point changing color. If you were in two dimensions- a flat plane- and the ball passed by you would see a line getting bigger until it hit center- it's diameter- and then getting smaller. In three dimensions it would simply be a ball. Now imagine your fingers passing in two-dimensional space. They would look like four separate lines, unconnected, yet somehow suggesting some commonality. You still could not see the concept of the whole hand. Perhaps in our world some three-dimensional objects are connected in ways we can't understand. Ouspensky refers to the possibility of all trees being connected in some way on some higher level.
Maybe some coincidences suggest connections that we just aren't able to perceive. But with enough of these inferences we might be able to learn something about life's mysteries.
Comments