Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!hookup!olivea!news.hal.COM!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!kiki.icd.teradyne.com!beaux!pnorton
From: pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <CzA7Dv.4I5@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
Organization: none
References: <JMC.94Oct23231211@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <39ucks$7lp@yoda.Syntex.Com> <39umu3$ksb@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:46:43 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:95249 sci.psychology:29725 sci.physics:100256 sci.philosophy.meta:14755 sci.bio:23098 comp.ai.philosophy:22046

sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>Chuck.villarrubia@syntex.com writes: 
>> 
>>> It is worth reading up a little on the phenomenon of 'synchronicity',
>>> to see how it is, by definition, 'immune' to scientific 
>>>investigation, being neither repeatable, quantifiable, nor independent 
>>>of observer.
>>> 
>>
>>Try reading some of the statistical literature on coincidences like 
>>Diaconis.
>>
>Yes, Diaconis is a smart fellow. I agree that synchronicity can be 
>studied objectively and statistically. There is no physical phenomenon 
>that cannot be studied scientifically. Remember I said "physical" - but 

So, is this saying that synchronicity is accepted by the scientific
community as a Natural Phenomenon?

Amazing, the revolution has not been televised, apparently.

In my abysmal ignorance, I have never heard of Diaconis.  Are there any
pop-sci books?

Cheers

