As statistics seeks practical and symbolic correlations in what is seen, firstly in the surface of things it is sought after, and in the shapes that can produce evident correlations, so that weak correlation is denoted spurious.
And to go deeper, smaller variables are defined and added, and correlations established, until correlations and variables answer the researcher, and not vice-versa, at all levels and scales.
As synchronicity seeks symbolic and practical correlations in what is seen, firstly in the profundity of things it is sought after, and in the shapes that can produce evident correlations, so that weak correlation is denoted spurious.
And to go surfacing, bigger variables are defined and added, and correlations established, until correlations and variables answer the researcher, and not vice-versa, at all levels and scales.
I don’t see such differences, as things exists where they are found, in the shapes and names and meanings that are willed onto them; and as two things can be infinitely described in their commonalities as much as in their un-commonalities; and for an event can be made probable or improbable at will, before or after it occurs; and as the moment of synchronicity is a reasoning on these matters, and statistics is another, and both are about the same question of how related is the Cosmos to itself, in its parts, to which the answer is completely, and yes, and true, and one, and is the nature of the Cosmos in itself; for the answer to that question is the final truth of motion, and life, and ideas, and matter, in all their shapes and all their borders, through all spaces and times, and at all scales and levels: and it is the truth of this Cosmos, which is all, and is in all, and it is between all, and it is the rule and truth of all, and it is all; and it is Change.