06/07/2025

Introduction
Part 1: Cosmology in crisis: the epicycles of ΛCDM
Part 2: The missing science of consciousness
Part 3: The Two Phase Cosmology (2PC)
Part 4: Synchronicity and the New Epistemic Deal (NED)

Copyright 2025 Geoff Dann. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15823610
Zenodo link for a PDF of the whole series of articles as single document:

Carl Gustav Jung introduced the concept of synchronicity to describe meaningful coincidences that are not causally connected, yet seem to be deeply, subjectively significant. In Jung’s words, synchronicity is “an acausal connecting principle” – a phenomenon in which an internal psychological state and an external physical event align in a way that defies statistical probability, but resonates with symbolic or personal meaning. Unlike conventional cause-and-effect relations, which unfold within linear time and physical laws, synchronicity points to a hidden order, a psychoid dimension in which mind and matter appear to be entangled – not through physical mechanisms, but through shared meaning. Jung developed the idea in collaboration with physicist Wolfgang Pauli, suggesting that psyche and physics may both emerge from a deeper, pre-physical archetypal reality.

In Part Four of The Reality Crisis, I will explore how the framework of the Two Phase Cosmology (2PC) offers a new theoretical and ontological grounding for synchronicity..

Two different meanings of synchronicity

Synchronicity is often misunderstood as merely the occurrence of striking coincidences in individual experience. These personal episodes are certainly examples of what Jung called synchronistic events, but they represent only the visible tip of a principle that permeates the whole of reality. For Jung, synchronicity was not simply an occasional psychological oddity. He believed it reflected a universal mode of connection, a kind of acausal order that operates alongside and beneath ordinary causal mechanisms. In this deeper sense, synchronicity refers not just to episodes we happen to notice, but to a pervasive structure of meaningful correspondences between mind and world – a structure we are usually blind to unless our attention is drawn to a moment of particularly striking alignment.

“Synchronicity,” Jung wrote, “is ever present in nature, and its effects can be seen in the parallelism of time and meaning between psychic and physical events.”

In this broader view, synchronistic processes are ongoing, non-local, and fundamental. This deeper interpretation begins to resemble a different form of ordering altogether — a kind of causality-but-not-causality, in which meaning rather than mechanism governs the connection between events Jung’s more radical suggestion is that synchronicity is not rare; only our awareness of it is. In the right framework, it is not a break from the normal functioning of the universe but a glimpse into the real architecture beneath it.

Phase 1 of 2PC as the ultimate synchronicity.

To understand what synchronicity really is, we need look no further than Phase 1 of the Two Phase Cosmology. Phase 1 is a timeless, spaceless realm of all quantum possibilities, and the phase transition occurs only when the first conscious organism (LUCAS) arises in the Earth's pre-Cambrian ocean. In doing so it selects the psychegenesis timeline – a path (maybe the simplest, or the shortest) between the Big Bang and psychegenesis. During that entire (approximately, for we can no longer rely on the ΛCDM figures) 12 billion year  cosmic history, everything which needed to happen to facilitate the emergence of consciousness did happen, including multiple events which made that process cosmically unique. It required a whole sequence of what appear under ΛCDM to be events that are sufficiently improbable as to be utterly inexplicable without theology. Under 2PC this level of improbability is expected, at least in Phase 1, with no need for any divine intelligence.

Psychegenesis is therefore the ultimate example of a synchronistic process. The mechanism by which reality as we know it was summoned into existence in the first place was synchronicity.

Free will as the most ubiquitous example of a synchronistic process

Just as the whole of psychegenesis involved what appears from our Phase 2 perspective to be a teleological process where causality is guided by its end goal, so is every act of free will. Every time a conscious mind collapses the wave function, a timeline is selected where, from a phase 2 perspective, everything going on in our brain happened just right for the selection of the brain state corresponding to action X instead of any of the other possible options (see section 29 of Part Three).

Personal synchronicity as a third example

Personal experiences of meaningful co-incidences – the common meaning of synchronicity – can now be explained as a third example of the same sort of (not-)causal phenomena. This example is unlike psychegenesis and free will in the sense that everybody (now) has a good reason to believe in both of those, but unless you've experienced synchronicity directly yourself, you have no such justification.

With that caveat in mind, these should be no problem in recognising personally experienced synchronicity (assuming it actually does happen) as a third example of the same sort of process. All it requires is for the correct past to be selected out of the Phase 1 Platonic ensemble. How exactly such a thing might happen is beyond the remit of the present document, but scope for such an explanation is newly opened up. This may well be the subject of my next book. Might it be the result of some sort of convergence mechanism, similar to QCT, but operating on the level of the whole of reality? A Reality Convergence Threshold?

Is this supernatural?

At this point our standard vocabulary regarding causality breaks down. We have three examples of phenomena which are inexplicable in terms of the laws of physics, but which don't require a breach of those laws either.

“Metaphysical naturalism” is usually defined in terms of everything being reducible to, or explicable in terms of, natural laws. “Supernaturalism” could correspondingly mean that something else is going on, but it does not distinguish between alleged phenomena which breach the laws of physics, such as Young Earth Creationism and the Feeding of the 5000, and alleged phenomena which don't, such as our three examples above.

We therefore need to distinguish between “probabilistic supernaturalism”, which requires a loading of the quantum dice (sometimes to an extreme degree), and “contra-scientific supernaturalism”, which is impossible regardless of how much the quantum dice are loaded in your favour.

Praeternatural and Hypernatural

There is another term available, which might be more appropriate than “probabilistic supernaturalism”. St Thomas Aquinas (c1225-1274) was the greatest of Catholic philosophers, and from his time onwards he was considered the only philosopher to have got Catholic Christianity “correct” – officially so since the rescript of 1879 by Pope Leo XIII. Aquinas claimed that God sometimes works miracles, but nobody else can – that magic is possible, with the help of demons, but is not properly miraculous. This distinction can strike modern people as odd, but from the time of St Thomas until the 16^th century people had a different set of causal categories to us. We think of magic and miracles as synonymous – both are supernatural as opposed to natural causality. They had three categories instead of two – “supernatural” and “miracle” were terms reserved for acts of God involving a suspension of the natural order. Magic was categorised as praeternatural (or preternatural), which means “beyond nature”. Even though demons were involved, this was a manipulation of the natural order rather than its outright suspension. Praeternatural phenomena could have been entirely the result of natural causality, but aren't. Magic – aka witchcraft or sorcery – was considered very real and most evil, hence this period is well known for the widespread persecution of alleged witches (of both sexes, but more frequently women). By the mid-18^th century the term “praeternatural” had fallen out of use, and it eventually gained a modern non-metaphysical meaning of “so talented it's spooky”.     I don't like the term “contra-scientific supernaturalism” – it is too cumbersome. “Probabilistic supernaturalism” isn't quite right either. “Probabilistic” is fine, but anything “supernatural” sounds like it involves a suspension of the laws of physics. I therefore use “hypernaturalism” rather than “contra-scientific supernaturalism” and “praeternaturalism” for  “probabilistic supernaturalism”. The term “supernatural” thereby disappears with ΛCDM and materialism, which will make very clear in any context whether we are talking about the old concept of supernatural, or the new concepts I am suggesting should replace it.

To summarise. Under 2PC:

Naturalism is belief in a causal order in which everything that happens can be reduced to (or explained in terms of) the laws of nature.

Hypernaturalism is belief in a causal order in which there are events or processes that require a suspension or breach of the laws of nature.

Praeternaturalism is belief in a causal order in which there are no events that require a suspension or breach of the laws of nature, but there are exceptionally improbable events that aren't reducible to those laws, and aren't random either. Praeternatural phenomena could have been entirely the result of natural causality, but aren't.

What other phenomena might be classed as praeternatural?

Beyond synchronicity, psychegenesis, and free will, the concept of praeternatural causality opens the door to a range of phenomena that appear deeply improbable yet do not violate natural laws. These are processes or events that cannot be fully explained by classical causality or straightforward physical mechanisms, but neither do they require miraculous suspensions of natural order.Some examples might include:

• Quantum entanglement and non-local correlations: While firmly within physics, their apparent "spooky action at a distance" shares the hallmark of non-causal ordering that aligns with praeternatural principles.      
• Emergent phenomena in complex systems: Certain biological, cognitive, or social processes emerge with properties that defy straightforward reduction to microscopic laws, suggesting subtle organising principles beyond mere chance or mechanical causation.      
• Placebo effects and psychophysical interactions: Instances where mental states influence physiological outcomes with high specificity and reproducibility, yet evade full mechanistic explanation, may reflect praeternatural coordination between mind and body.      
• Creativity and insight: Sudden leaps in understanding or artistic creation, where novel ideas arise seemingly from “nowhere,” might be instances of underlying synchronistic patterning selecting particular mental configurations.      
• “Parapsychological” phenomena: While controversial, some well-documented phenomena  – if real – would fit the praeternatural model of extraordinary yet law-abiding improbabilities.

In all these cases, praeternatural events demand a broadened metaphysical framework – one that accepts the universe as fundamentally rich with layers of meaning and informational resonance, beyond the mechanistic scaffolding of classical physics.

Please note: this is philosophy, not science.

I need to make very clear that I am not, in Part Four of The Reality Crisis, trying to suggest that I've empirically proved the existence of any of any praeternatural phenomena. Even belief in free will depends on each person's own subjective experience – if somebody is subjectively convinced they don't have free will (and is actually being honest about that), then there's no way we can use science or reason to convince them otherwise. And even psychegenesis itself depends on radical coherence rather than direct empirical evidence (for now, at least). This is philosophy, not science. What has changed under 2PC, compared to ΛCDM and materialistic naturalism, is that such things can no longer be dismissed with a casual wave of the arm. Rather, we have to acknowledge that they might just be possible after all, and if they are real, they may remain forever beyond the reach of empirical science. We need to retire the term “woo woo”, along with “supernatural”.

The need for a new epistemological framework

The Reality Crisis has outlined a new sort of cosmology, and a new affirmation that materialistic science can't do consciousness, but if accepted as a legitimate way forward, this new cosmology cannot stand alone. It requires a deeper philosophical context – one that has something to say about ethics, and ultimately, as should be clear from the discussion above, it needs to be about epistemology – about what sort of knowledge is possible, and what sort of ways of knowing are possible.

I have spent the last two decades working on that philosophical system, and trying to write a book about it. In the end that task took four attempts over a period spanning 17 years. I made it as short as possible, which turned out to be 90,000 words.The book is called The Real Paths to Ecocivilisation (RPE). 

The subtitle is From collapse to coherence: integrating science, spirituality and sustainability in the West. The primary purpose of RPE is to explain and justify a new epistemological system – an agreement about how we might start the process of fixing Western Civilisation. The full text of the New Epistemic Deal (the NED) follows.

The New Epistemic Deal

1: Ecocivilisation is our shared destiny and guiding goal.

Ecocivilisation represents a vision of a society that harmonises human activity with ecological principles. This is not a utopian ideal but a necessity dictated by the realities of ecosystems and evolution. The claim that ecocivilisation is our destiny is pre-political, transcending specific ideologies or systems. The social, political, and economic structures of ecocivilisation are not part of this definition, but the core premise is clear: civilisation must work ecologically to endure. 

This realisation, however, is insufficient on its own to inspire a mass movement. The challenge lies in how we navigate the path forward. Choosing a “least bad” route demands careful thought and collaboration, as well as a willingness to embrace complexity. Yet, despite the uncertainties and debates about how to proceed, we can and must agree on this: ecocivilisation is our ultimate goal – a commitment to creating a world where humanity thrives within the limits and laws of nature.

2: Consciousness is real.

Consciousness – our individual interface with reality – is the one thing each of us can be absolutely certain exists. It is through consciousness that we perceive existence and recognise that anything exists at all. As such, consciousness must serve as the starting point for exploring what exists beyond our subjective experience and for discerning the boundaries of what we know and what we don’t.

3: Epistemic structural realism is true.

Scientific knowledge tends towards truth. We acknowledge that there is such a thing as an objective reality, external to human minds, about which science provides structural knowledge that is reliable, albeit with certain qualifications. We reject the idea that all scientific knowledge is merely provisional, or as subjective as non-scientific forms of knowledge. We affirm the epistemic privilege of science.

4: Both materialism and physicalism should be rejected.

Materialism cannot account for consciousness. Physicalism either suffers from the same problem, or it implies things that most physicalists reject, in which case it is not much use as a piece of terminology. Both materialism and physicalism restrict our models of reality in such a way that they are never going to be able to satisfactorily account for everything we have justification for believing exists. 

5: The existence of praeternatural phenomena is consistent with science and reason, but apart from the unique case of psychegenesis, there is no scientific or rational justification for believing in it/them either. The only possible justification for belief is subjective lived experience.

6: We cannot expect people to believe things (any things) based solely on other people’s subjective lived experiences. There will always be skeptics about any alleged praeternatural phenomena (possibly psychegenesis excepted) and their right to skepticism must be respected. 

7: There can be no morality if we deny reality.

If there actually is an objective reality, and we can actually know things about it, then if we start our moral reasoning with anything other than reality we are engaged in fake morality – we will be arguing about what would be morally right and wrong in some ideal reality rather than the real one that we have to figure out how to share. And if the people we are having moral disagreements with are actually dealing with reality, while we are not, then they are engaged with real morality and we are claiming moral high ground we have no right to claim. Attempting to put morality before reality should be rejected as virtue signalling.

8: Science, including ecology, must take epistemic privilege over economics, politics and everything else that purports to be about objective reality. 

Principle seven is specifically about morality. Principle eight is about everything that matters – it is about practical reasoning as well as moral reasoning. It demands that the whole of science, including the whole of ecology, the limits to growth and the reality of ecological overshoot, must be acknowledged before serious discussion starts about anything at all. It should be considered immoral to come to any negotiating table demanding concessions from others before you are willing to accept reality. Growth-based economics and politics are dangerous nonsense, and for anybody who understands that, engaging with them while failing to persistently challenge their false assumptions is an immoral act.     

I would like to think that it could not be clearer why these last two principles are necessary. This is a new epistemological framework, intended to facilitate the construction of a Western ecocivilisation. That process is going to require all of us, at every level of society, to face up to some of the most practically and morally difficult realities that humans have ever faced or will ever face. How can we do that if some of us don’t agree that there even is any such thing as reality and/or demand that either our practical reasoning or our moral reasoning begin from somewhere else?