Synchronicity, a phenomenon commonly experienced by most people and often written about [Bibliography], was recognized, named, and defined by Carl Jung in the 1920s.
Jung variously described synchronicity as an “acausal connecting principle”, “meaningful coincidence” and “acausal parallelism”. [Wikipedia]
Synchronicity is one of those anomalies which the prevailing scientific paradigm and worldview fail to accommodate or explain. Even the new akashic paradigm addresses neither meaning nor synchronicity. However, the noetic triune, which subsumes the akashic paradigm, has several important attributes which enable us to comprehend and explain better the existential reality of synchronicity:
First is the integral wholeness and interconnectedness of all aspects of reality.
Second is Import, one of the three elemental aspects of the noetic triune. Import is the meaning and spiritual nature of the Idea as manifested in and by the Image.
Third is in-formation, the reciprocal relationship among Idea, Image, and Import. In-formation is timeless, like instantaneous feedforward and feedback, and analogous to causality, forming and informing the three constituent aspects of the noetic triune: Idea, Image, and Import.
A synchronicity–an existential episode, an experience–has two essential properties, acausal connectedness and significant import. It may arise and develop when in-formation among co-incident entities is coherent and resonant.
Acausal connectedness, unlike causality in spacetime, is not physical and is not constrained by spacetime locality. In the philosophy and science of Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, acausal connectedness would occur at a level deeper than spacetime, one they termed the Undus Mundus. In David Bohm’s cosmology, it would occur in the Implicit Order (the Explicit Order being the level of physical reality); and Bohm’s unfolding and enfolding would be reciprocal aspects of Ernest Laszlo’s in-formation. Acausal connectedness is inherent in Laszlo’s akashic field.
The significant import, i.e., profound often affect-ladened meaningfulness, of synchronicity is most likely attributable to the coherent resonance of the in-formation with existing personal milieu, thus making Import highly individualistic and subjective. So for one person that which is a potent synchronicity–profoundly affective, highly emblematic and message-laden, and often spiritual in nature–is for others merely a meaningless, insignificant co-incidence.
In sum, we might say that a synchronicity is a meaningful, acausal relationship in which reciprocal in-formation resonates coherently, thereby developing, expanding, and amplifying within the noetic triune–in a highly personal way–the Import-ance, the powerful meaning and spiritual nature of the co-incident experience.