Time and information of Guillemenant

[Obamot]

In my humble opinion, as it stands, it has no meaning (according to my meager knowledge).

Some say that this first name could be worn by both a man and a woman (and vice versa).
If so, wouldn't that suggest that it would be impossible?

[sen-no-sen]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07840v2.pdf

Quotation, an article (they are more and more numerous on the subject) on the possibility of influence of the future on the past by Holger Bech Nielsen(Danish theoretical physicist, professor emeritus at the Niels Bohr Institute, at the University of Copenhagen).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07840

Influence from Future, Arguments
Holger Bech Nielsen
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2015 (v1), last revised 29 Mar 2015 (this version, v2))

It is the purpose of the present article to collect arguments for, that there should exist in fact - although not necessarily yet found - some law, which imply an adjustment to special features to occur in the future. In our own "complex action model" we suggest a version in which the "goal" according to which the future is being arranged is to diminish the integral over time and space of the numerical square of the Higgs field. We end by suggesting that optimistically calculated the collected evidences by coincidences runs to that the chance for getting so good agreement by accident would be of the order of only 1 in 30000. In addition we review that the cosmological constant being so small can be considered evidence for some influence backward in time. Anthropic principle may be considered a way of simulating influence backward in time.

The object of this article is to gather arguments in favor of the existence of a law (not necessarily found yet) which would imply an adjustment to certain characteristics of the future. In our model of complex action we have suggested a version where the "goal" according to which the future is arranged is to decrease the integral in time and space of the square of the scalar field of Higgs. We end by suggesting that in an optimistic calculation, the accumulations of coincidences [arguments] converge in such a way that the probability that they are due to chance is of the order of one chance in 30000. We add that the cosmological constant is so small that it can be considered as evidence of retrocausal influence over time. The anthropic principle itself can be seen as a way of simulating such a reverse action over time.

[sen-no-sen]

Quantum entanglement confirmed by a flawless Bell experiment

Many experiments have tested the reality of quantum entanglement and non-locality. But so far, all have suffered from subtle flaws. A new experience avoids these pitfalls and confirms the reality of quantum entanglement.
Sean bailly

For a good part of his life, Einstein never stopped trying to fault quantum physics. In particular, he criticized the concept of quantum entanglement, according to which the state of particles can be linked regardless of the distance between them. In 1935, with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, he formulated his objections in the form of a paradox, today called the EPR paradox. According to these three physicists, quantum entanglement implies that there are interactions between two entangled particles that propagate faster than light. The only way to avoid this conflict with special relativity is to assume that quantum physics describes reality in an incomplete way and that there are "hidden variables", unknown to physicists, which give the illusion of quantum entanglement. . For the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, Einstein's main opponent, there is no conflict with special relativity because quantum entanglement is a non-local phenomenon: it does not depend on the positions of particles in space; an entangled system forms a whole whose components cannot be described separately. Many experiments have been designed to confirm the non-locality of entanglement. But all of them have subtle logical flaws, or loopholes. A team led by Ronald Hanson, of the University of Delft in the Netherlands, has finally designed a flawless experiment that confirms the reality of quantum entanglement.

Let us first return to the notion of quantum entanglement. In quantum physics, the state of a particle is described by a "wave function". This describes for example the spin of the particle (its intrinsic angular momentum). The wave function corresponds to a superposition of states. The spin (which can be represented as a small arrow attached to the particle) is thus a sum of the states “upwards” and “downwards”. When measuring the orientation of the spin, the wave function is modified (or "reduced"), the superposition of states disappears and the observed spin randomly takes the value "high" or the value "low As you would expect for a common object.

Particles form an entangled system when their states are linked, even if they are distant from each other. What happens when measuring in an entangled system? Consider for example an entangled system formed of two particles whose spins are always opposite. The spin of each particle is an indeterminate superposition of the high and low states. When you measure the spin of the first particle, its wave function is reduced and you get a spin value randomly. Instantly, the orientation of the spin of the second particle takes the opposite state, even if the particles are too far from each other to have time to exchange information (at the speed of light). The entanglement can be seen as a generalization of the superposition of states on several particles.
Who's right, Bohr or Einstein ?

For Einstein, this transmission of information faster than light is unacceptable: there must be pre-established hidden variables which convey information about the outcome of the measurement and which give the impression of immediate communication. The debate remained there until 1964. That year, the Northern Irish physicist John Bell proposed the principle of an experiment which made it possible to solve the problem. He formalizes the question by inequalities, known as Bell's, which are evaluated during the experiment. If inequality is not respected, then the result of the experiment cannot be explained by the existence of hidden variables, and one must resolve to admit the non-local character of nature.

In 1982, the team of Alain Aspect, of the Optics Institute, in Orsay, developed an experiment to verify the inequalities of Bell. In the device, pairs of entangled photons are produced, then each of the photons of a pair is directed towards a detector to measure its polarization. The two instruments are far enough apart from each other to avoid that communication at the speed of light can distort the result of the measurement (We speak of communication loophole, or locality loophole).

Alain Aspect and his colleagues show that, in this device, the Bell inequalities are violated, thus confirming the non-local character of quantum physics. However, this experience suffers from a "detection loophole". Photons are indeed easily absorbed during their journey and not all of them are detected. One can imagine that the photons detected violate the Bell inequalities, but that this is not the case for all of the photons emitted. To be able to draw a conclusion from the experiment, it is necessary to make the assumption that the sampling of the observed photons is representative of the emitted photons. This loophole is difficult to master.

However, in 2013, teams from Anton Zeilinger from the University of Vienna and Paul Kwiat from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign showed that it was possible to control the loophole in detection using superconductive detectors which limit photon losses. But this device no longer resolved the communication loophole ...

Bell's experience

Wide angle view of the device, the two diamonds are installed in the sites marked on the left and on the top right. The photons are led to the site on the right. (credit: University of Delft)

Ronald Hanson and his team have now developed a system that treats both flaws at the same time. The idea was already suggested by John Bell: we must add a subsystem which ensures that the quantum device is ready to be measured. The experiment includes two diamonds, nearly 1,3 km apart, which have defects in their crystal lattice. These defects act like individual quantum systems (or "artificial atoms") that have an electronic spin that researchers can control using lasers and microwaves. In particular, diamonds can be forced to emit entangled photons with the spin state of the crystal defect. These photons are then guided to a device placed between the two initial sites in order to be detected. By virtue of entanglement, the measurement of the polarization of these photons instantaneously affects the spins of diamond defects, even if these are more than a kilometer apart. Photon detection ensures that the spins of the defects are now entangled with each other and that the quantum system is ready to be measured. Thus, the detection loophole is resolved, because the measurement of spins is done on crystal defects and no longer on photons, as in the Aspect experiment. In addition, the measurement will only be carried out if the spins of the faults are well entangled. Measurements are made in less than 4 microseconds to prevent communication between faults, which closes the communication loophole. Physicists thus studied 245 pairs of defect spins during this experiment and confirmed that the Bell inequalities were violated. Our world is non-local!

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/a/actu-l-intrication-quantique-confirmee-par-une-experience-de-bell-sans-faille-36134.php

An experience that demonstrates once again that the deep nature of our reality is not local, which gradually brings us closer to the confirmation that we would exist within a dynamic space-time.
The philosophical and scientific consequences which would ensue from it would be gigantic ...

[sen-no-sen]

sen-no-sen wrote:

(1) To impute this complexity to God is also to push the problem further, as Siddhartha Gautama said: if God creates the world, who creates God?

Janic wrote:

Totally agree with him. It is not a question of imputing this complexity to a deity invented by humans. I repeat, it is the information outside the cosmological limit that is the cause (that some call god if it suits them like that!) Now who created the information that created the world around us ? We go around in circles because no one really knows what these different concepts cover. So do not try to find the right answer!

You obviously contradict yourself:

a mechanical system (for example) is the permanent object of evolution which is not intrinsic, but outward by will, the imagination of its designers (Creators) as shown by IT, aviation, marine, automotive and all of their added gadgets. So yes: evolution is an indisputable fact BY a so-called intelligent external intervention. (Regardless of a head volume! )

Let's take it point by point: The will is the ability to determine oneself in relation to actions and to carry them out.
This notion already induces problems, since it is a question for ONE thing to achieve another thing.
Two observations follow from this: the idea of ​​constraint, because one acts only under one form or another of pressure, and a duality, the subject / object relationship.

Regarding intelligence, it's the same thing:intelligence is the set of processes found in more or less complex systems, living or not, which allow us to understand, learn or adapt to new situations.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
This definition seems fairly correct to me.
But here again, a new problem, intelligence is consubstantial with the notion of problems, of adaptation, that is to say of constraints and limitation.

However, none of its concepts is compatible with the idea of ​​Absolute, or information outside space / time.
The latter results from the meta-universe theory, both scientific (wave function of the Universe) and philosophical (Ein Sof Kabbalah,Maya Hinduist etc.).
There is no question of intelligence at all in this kind of concept.
To make an analogy, the intelligence is like a mountaineer trying to climb a mountain (problem), the wave function of the Universe, the Absolute, the Universe in Power (takes the term you like most ) it is the mountaineer AND the mountain ...

[Janic]

Let's take it point by point: The will is the ability to determine oneself in relation to actions and to carry them out.
This notion already induces problems, since it is a question for ONE thing to achieve another thing.

I do not know if the human is a thing in itself compared to any material. The notion of will, here expressed concerns the fact that any realization will not be done, if there is not to want to do.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/volont%C3%A9
B. - [Expression or realization of this faculty]
1. Decision or firm determination of the individual to accomplish or cause to be accomplished something. Synon. desire, purpose, requirement, intention, wish, wish.

I doubt that a chair could make the decision for ... anything else!

Two observations follow from this: the idea of ​​constraint, because one acts only under one form or another of pressure, and a duality, the subject / object relationship.

It is certain that if we expect a chair to land under our buttocks, we risk waiting a long time and at the same time it will not force our buttocks to land there! the famous dualism but by differentiation.

Concerning intelligence, it's the same thing: intelligence is the set of processes found in more or less complex systems, living or not, which allow us to understand, learn or adapt to situations. new.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
This definition seems fairly correct to me.

Or this site: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/intelligence
as can be seen there, the notion of intelligence is much more extensive than this reduced notion of wikipedia.
And just as correct depending on the cases mentioned.

But here again, a new problem, intelligence is consubstantial with the notion of problems, of adaptation, that is to say of constraints and limitation.

According to our usual and limited criteria, of course.

None of its concepts is compatible with the idea of ​​Absolute.

According to the idea that everyone can or wants to do what isabsolu, an absolute unattainable by our ways of thinking, reasoning, imagination. It is therefore, indeed, impossible to establish credible notions about this absolute which then remains only a word from the dictionary used for everything and anything.
But the question is not there, in the subject evoked by chance, but to know how inactive raw matter could have appeared living by self-organization without external intervention and therefore provide experimental proof

[sen-no-sen]

It is certain that if we expect a chair to land under our buttocks, we risk waiting a long time and at the same time it will not force our buttocks to land there! the famous dualism but by differentiation.

Frankly I do not see the connection with what I mentioned ... ???

But the question is not there, in the subject evoked by chance, but to know how inactive raw matter could have appeared living by self-organization without external intervention and therefore provide experimental proof

There is no evidence of external intervention, none.
Regarding the appearance of complexity from chaotic phenomenon, there is only to look around us, self-organization is everywhere: cloud, rain, storm, cyclone, ice crystals etc. .
With regard to the living appearing from the non-living, work on elementary cellular automata also demonstrates that from simple rules (space is represented by a grid, and time by iterations), much simpler than what that we can find at the molecular level, we can get complex self-organized systems:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/sciences-et-technologies/automates-cellulaires-elementaires-t13075.html?hilit=david%20louapre#p332248
From this point of view, I do not see how living processes could have appeared by self-organization from non-living matter, and as I recall, I do not even address the questions of synchronicities ...

[Janic]

janic wrote: It is sure that if we expect a chair to land under our buttocks, we risk waiting a long time and at the same time it will not force our buttocks to land there! the famous dualism but by differentiation.

Frankly I do not see the connection with what I mentioned ... ???

Right here :
I do not know if the human is a thing in itself compared to any material. The notion of will, here expressed concerns the fact that any realization will not be done, if there is not to want to do.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/volont%C3%A9
B. - [Expression or realization of this faculty]
1. Decision or firm determination of the individual to accomplish or cause to be accomplished something. Synon. desire, purpose, requirement, intention, wish, wish.

And therefore, therefore:

I doubt that a chair could make the decision for ... anything else!

Two observations follow from this: the idea of ​​constraint, because one acts only under one form or another of pressure, and a duality, the subject / object relationship.

It is certain that if we expect a chair to land under our buttocks, we risk waiting a long time and at the same time it will not force our buttocks to land there! the famous dualism but by differentiation.
But the question is not there, in the subject evoked by chance, but to know how inactive raw matter could have appeared living by self-organization without external intervention and therefore provide experimental proof

There is no evidence of external intervention, none.

Above all, there is no evidence of self-organization living, not clouds or snowflakes that undergo the laws of physics like everything that exists, including living things, but these products that are these flakes are not alive in the currently accepted sense of this notion! [*] This is why, from the start, I ask you to provide the smallest piece of evidence of this self-organization living and you were unable to supply, half the tail of one.
For the proof of an external intervention, it is a simple question of observation which I have widely said and re-re-re-repeated. The paintings of the Sistine Chapel or the Lascaux caves are proof indisputable of an external intervention whatever the authors of these reasons. Point bar as you say!

Regarding the appearance of complexity from chaotic phenomenon, there is only to look around us, self-organization is everywhere: cloud, rain, storm, cyclone, ice crystals etc. .

Already seen and reviewed, it's Roddier copied / pasted!
Do you have a short memory !? The current weather forecast manages to anticipate these phenomena over a few days, and if it were only chance these known mechanisms would not occur. Now meteorological science is in the infancy of knowledge of the subject, as astronomy was until the first telescope which demonstrated that the lights in the sky were not candles lit by angels and we do not could currently claim BB, dark matter, etc. mathematically calculable like probability calculations for the living.

With regard to the living appearing from the non-living, work on elementary cellular automata also demonstrates that from simple rules (space is represented by a grid, and time by iterations), much simpler than what that we can find at the molecular level, we can get complex self-organized systems:
science-and-technology / PLCs-cell-elementary-t13075.html? Hilit = david% 20louapre # p332248

It’s completely artificial like all lab experiments, out of reality in real life. All their stuff screwed up on contact with it because this work is done on models not alive, as can be a game of chess where the pawns do not move according to their will despite the self-organization related of this game.

From this point of view, I do not see how living processes could have appeared by self-organization from non-living matter, and as I recall, I do not even address the questions of synchronicities ...

Revealing gap!

[*] http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/vie

A. -
1. Living; set of essential phenomena and functions manifesting from birth to death and characterizing living things.

[sen-no-sen]

Right here :
I do not know if the human is a thing in itself compared to any material. The notion of will, here expressed concerns the fact that any realization will not be done, if there is not to want to do.

Janic it was you who wrote this two posts above ...
If now you do the questions and the answers!

There is especially no evidence of self-organization of the living,

You don't answer my question: Where is the proof of an "external intervention"(I mean by that demiurgic of course, since this is what you are trying to introduce in your messages).

Evidence of self-organization in life here:


Example of cell division of an ovum after meeting with a sperm, it seems that this is how babies are made ...



This speaks for itself ... or is the external intervention? For my part, I see only a synergy from the whole.
Do you want more?

The paintings in the Sistine chapel or the Lascaux caves are indisputable proof of outside intervention, regardless of the authors of these motifs.

Integral sophism! It’s a human intervention,I ask you for proof of divine intervention!
And unlike the images I put online, you will be annoyed to be able to produce just one!

Already seen and reviewed, it's Roddier copied / pasted!

No it's more than 150 years of science, as already mentioned the work of F.Roddier are a synthesis of existing work.
Read about it:Thermodynamics and self-organization in the physical sciences Study of the genesis of the concept of self-organization
in Ilya Prigogine (1945-1975 [/ b] (NobeL Prize in Chemistry 1977):
http://phier.uca.fr/sites/phier.univ-bpclermont.fr/IMG/pdf/Rodriguez_memoire_Auto-organisation.pdf

It is entirely artificial like all lab experiences, apart from the reality of real life. All their stuff messed up on contact with it because this work is done on non-living models, as can be a chess game where the pawns do not move according to their will despite the apparent self-organization of this game .

So know that chess has absolutely nothing to do with the game of life, chess evolves only according to the decisions of the player (or the AI) while the game of life evolves by iterations,in the absence of any decisions.
Given that the elementary cellular automata are very simple, the elaboration of elementary rules via stochastic phenomena can quite generate development sequences without any divine intervention, this one being then selected or not via the evolutionary algorithm:
“Evolutionary algorithms, or evolutionary algorithms, are a family of algorithms whose principle is inspired by the theory of evolution to solve various problems. They are therefore bioinspired calculation methods. The idea is to develop a set of solutions to a given problem, with a view to finding the best results.These are so-called stochastic algorithms, because they iteratively use random processes.

The vast majority of these methods are used to solve optimization problems, in that they are metaheuristics, although the general framework is not necessarily dedicated to optimization algorithms in the strict sense1. They are also classified among the methods of computational intelligence ".
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithme_%C3%A9volutionniste

You must read:

From this point of view, I don't see how living processes n'aurait to could appear by self-organization from non-living matter, and as I recall, I do not even address the questions of synchronicities ...

Labsus on my part indeed because I think that life is to be related to synchronicities, but given your difficulties in understanding things as obvious as self-organization, I do not prefer to talk about them ...

[Janic]

Integral sophism!

You like this word that you use for everything and anything (anything especially)
SOPHISM, noun. masc.
A. - LOGIC
1. Argument, reasoning which, starting from true premises, or considered as such, and obeying the rules of logic, leads to an inadmissible conclusion.
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/sophisme
let's analyze this definition:
a)starting from true premises, or considered as such,
To determine what is true of what is considered as such, there must be indisputable criteria to oppose, which, in this case and difficult, impossible even to determine since they are different points of view on different criteria.
b)leads to an inadmissible conclusion.
Likewise to consider an inadmissible conclusion, there must also be indisputable criteria, which is difficult here again if the criteria used by both parties are not the same.
For example the H compared to the A. two systems of care that are poles apart from each other but which should be subject only to the criteria of A. majority, even though its proponents know nothing about this discipline and therefore they can qualify as a fallacy (according to their own criteria) and not according to the reality observed in real life.
So leave your fallacies in the closet at the risk, if not, of being used in all kinds of sauces.

It is a human intervention, I ask you for proof of a divine intervention!

It is you who insists on wanting a divine intervention. Do not put the cart before the horse. I ask only the question of whether living things are the result of self-organization or external intervention. In case you admit (we can dream!) That it could be an external intervention rather than a self-organization, invisible and without evidence concerning the living, we will then see who can be attributed this intervention, as far as it is obviously possible!

And unlike the images I put online, you will be annoyed to be able to produce just one!

Look, once again, around you, there is no shortage of life! and these images are the proof of it!

Already seen and reviewed, it's Roddier copied / pasted!

No, it is more than 150 years of science, as already mentioned the work of F. Roddier is a synthesis of existing work.
Read about it: Thermodynamics and self-organization in the physical sciences Study of the genesis of the concept of self-organization
at Ilya Prigogine (1945-1975 [/ b] (NobeL Prize in Chemistry 1977):
http://phier.uca.fr/sites/phier.univ-bp ... sation.pdf

As usual, you have a "150 years" of science, as if it boiled down to a few individuals with oriented discourse. I will not give an opinion on Prigogine without having read it, (what I will do, analyze and criticize). But his training as a chemist and not as a biologist already opens the door to doubt about his possible confusion between chemistry and biology, but we will see! This also concerns Roddier who is not a biologist either and the little I have read of his literature, this is really not his field!

It is entirely artificial like all lab experiences, apart from the reality of real life. All their stuff messed up on contact with it because this work is done on non-living models, as can be a chess game where the pawns do not move according to their will despite the apparent self-organization of this game .

So know that chess has absolutely nothing to do with the game of life, chess evolves only according to the decisions of the player (or AI) while the game of life evolves by iterations, in the absence of any decisions.

These are not decisions but programming of beings, the determinism of species and their functions. that we find both at the level of the stars and the atom, as far as non-living matter is concerned.

Given that the elementary cellular automata are very simple, the development of elementary rules via stochastic phenomena can quite spawned development sequences without any divine intervention, this one being then selected or not via the evolutionary algorithm:

Read what you write: " can quite spawned This is called a guess, wishful thinking, and a presumption that wants to be at present while this is only a hypothesis, not a demonstration of the living, much less proof that you constantly demand, be at least in harmony with this requirement! " with if we would put Paris in a bottle ! »
as for your obsession with the divine word in all sauces, you must have a serious problem with!

“Evolutionary algorithms, or evolutionary algorithms, are a family of algorithms whose principle is inspired by the theory of evolution to solve various problems. They are therefore bioinspired calculation methods. The idea is to develop a set of solutions to a given problem, with a view to finding the best results.These are so-called stochastic algorithms, because they iteratively use random processes.
Read what it says: " the principle is inspired "And which repeats:" bioinspired. »Many inventors are bioinspired by seeking to reproduce products or systems found in nature. Unfortunately, no industrialist, to my knowledge, has succeeded in reproducing them with precision because the complexity of living things is such that these "inventor-copiers" are forced to simplify the processes in order to retain only what is usable. industrially, and therefore be faithfully inspired and reproduced are extremely different phenomena.
Example vaccinations which are only DIY without the complexity of the biological mechanisms of the immune systems.
Then the simple evocation of the term evolutionist (orientation chosen by exclusion) can only lead to its own starting orientation.

The vast majority of these methods are used to solve optimization problems, in that they are metaheuristics, although the general framework is not necessarily dedicated to optimization algorithms in the strict sense1. They are also classified among the methods of computational intelligence ".
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm ... utionniste

Compare with:

Critique by JeanPhi85 (2008) [modify the code]
I do not agree at all against the introduction of this new term which has no history, almost no existence, a dreadful neologism based on the English word "computer" (whereas in France we have " computer "), not to mention that the article mostly smacks of a commercial approach. It will only make more laughter at all these rantings of researchers in search of recognition, unfortunately including AI.
This very heterogeneous discipline is presented as the "successor" of AI, probably to advertise! The image of AI was already blurred enough by all those who claim to do so not to add more! Above all, do not claim it!
To be a "successor to AI", techno would have to go further than the automation of mental processes (Minsky)! We are very far from that...

From this point of view, I don't see how living processes could not have appear by self-organization from non-living matter, and as I recall, I do not even address the questions of synchronicities ...

For the simple reason that between " could not have appeared " and " appeared »(The latter is your option throughout this speech) it is not the same thing, nor does it have the same meaning! Simple grammar exercise!

Labsus on my part indeed because I think that life has to do with synchronicities,but given your difficulty understanding things as obvious as self-organization, I don't prefer to talk about them ....

It's as usual: you use a classic method of devaluing your vis-à-vis to credit you of a superior knowledge, whereas it is above all an index of your own incompetence[*] to grasp other concepts. But it's your choice of course!
and let's go for synchronicity:
SYNCHRONICITY, noun. fem.,
* In the article "SYNCHRONIQUE ,, adj."
Who studies or presents events, elements, objects of analysis as they are contemporary, apart from their evolution.
which brings us back to vaccines and especially evolutionism, once again! Present and past events do not have the same value or meaning.

[*] back to the sender!

[sen-no-sen]

It is you who insists on wanting a divine intervention. Do not put the cart before the horse. I ask only the question of whether living things are the result of self-organization or external intervention. In case you admit (we can dream!) That it could be an external intervention rather than a self-organization, invisible and without evidence concerning the living, we will then see who can be attributed this intervention, as far as it is obviously possible!

Janic I'm getting to know you well, so don't beat around the bush, for you an external intervention = God.
The problem is that advancing the creation of the world by god within a forum is to say nothing except proselytizing.
Overall the proselytizing strategy consists in moving a problem, such as refuting the theory of evolution, to introduce a notion (in this case the existence of a divinity), in order to facilitate the adhesion of people who do not would not have understood the complexity of the said theory.
It's raining, it's because of God's intervention.
It's snowing, it's because of God's intervention.
There is an earthquake ... it is the intervention of god ... etc ... etc ...
Knowing that we can replace the word god by fairy bell or invisible pink unicorn that teaches us absolutely nothing about understanding physical phenomena.
What is affirmed without proof can be refuted without proof.

The strategy of creationists consists in reducing everything to fundamentalist notions in order to be able to rewrite history as they please.

and let's go for synchronicity:
SYNCHRONICITY, noun. fem.,
* In the article "SYNCHRONIQUE ,, adj."
Who studies or presents events, elements, objects of analysis as they are contemporary, apart from their evolution.

Even with the internet you have not managed to find the right definition!

I will therefore note it here: By definition, synchronicity is: "The simultaneous occurrence of events which seem to be closely linked but which have no visible causal link".