Fractalised Thought as Another Possible Causal Factor in Synchronicity

(Here I present another highly-speculative idea.  In response to my cohort Mike’s recent post titled “Neuron-Like Nature of the Internet,” which can be read at, I have retrieved and revised some prior writings of my own originally published back in early 2007.  Thanks for the inspiration, Mike!)

Part One

An old friend asked me if I thought there might be a connection between fractals and synchronicity.  As we spoke I realised that our conversation was “fractalising,” or creating related branches of thought from which other little branches of thought sprouted, and so on.  I suddenly realised that our thoughts are capable of sending out dynamic neural impulses, resulting in cascading, near-infinite whorls of information exhibiting both independence and connectivity.

Now, in order to imagine how a “thought fractal” could be implicated in the seemingly-spontaneous creation of reality – which I think synchronicity quite effectively represents – we must agree that thought has mass, which is something we can’t prove, but we can imagine.  A thought fractal, or for that matter, any information fractal (e.g., in Mike’s post, one created and/or maintained and/or grown via the internet) would naturally increase in area, if not so much in size, just like any fractal does.

If we accept that thoughts have mass, we’ll also accept that a fractalising thought’s gravity would increase correspondingly.  The entire system of ideas or thought, and of each fractal “arm” within its matrix, would be an expansive area onto which outside information may be drawn by gravitational pull.  In other words, the more massive the thought fractal (i.e., the more complex – like an intense series of thoughts leading up to an epiphany, for instance, or the internet’s ever-growing reach and effect), the more likely that synchronicities, which are among reality’s most enigmatic creations, would result….

Synchronicity truly is a natural result of the scenario I’ve imagined, for all fractals return again and again to their original form. A Mandelbrot set, for example, starts out with a relatively simple shape, which becomes more complex through a series of chaotic manifestations of curves and angles, ultimately coming back to the exact form from whence it started, continuing on infinitely.  What I’m suggesting is that fractalised thought, through a similar process, draws toward it the very “ideas” or thoughts with which it began – thus, synchronicity.

As a very brief example, today at work I came across the last name “Roos.”  I often see names that are new or unusual, but in this case I spent a few extra moments thinking about the name – adding a bit of mass to the thought, perhaps – imagining that the surname might be pronounced “Rose.”  When, just this evening, reading a book published in 1966, considering this article that I’ve been so focussed on writing for hours, to read about an out-of-body experience by one Miss Roos didn’t come as a true surprise.

Once a thought begins to compartmentalise and branch off into new connections (much like the activity that takes place on the internet) it is thus “fractalised.”  The concept thereby becomes more massive, and its gravitational pull correspondingly strengthens – and sometimes this would conceivably result in a domino-effect cascade.  The source of the pulled-in information to which I refer is unknown; I can only imagine that it’s the product of some form of intelligence, innate or acquired.

That said, if we hold the concept that synchronicity may be a product of what we might call “the mass of thought,” we wouldn’t necessarily have to agree that synchronicity is exclusively caused by the gravity of dynamic information fractals, but only that gravity appears to play a role in some cases of synchronicity.

Likewise, intention isn’t a part of the equation.  Chaos reorders itself quite effectively without outside intervention.  I strongly feel that intention may distort or even completely disable, via an artificial attempt to insert order into chaos, a tendency toward synchronicity.  Yet, unlike mere coincidence, the unexpected collision of events in a meaningful way seems to involve more than mere chance.  Gravity seems to be a likely causal factor – but again, only if we allow ourselves to imagine that thought has mass.

Part Two (accompanied by endnotes)

A clearcut distinction between gravity and intention is important to the preceding theory.  Take the example of an apple clinging to the branch of a tree (1).  For some time, the fruit’s stem is strong enough to withstand the pull of Earth’s gravity.  The apple does not rationally hang on to the tree for dear life (though the research of Cleve Backster may throw that assumption into doubt), but at some point the connection between the stem and the branch from whence it grew deteriorates to the point that the apple disengages and drops to the ground.  By what curiously appears to be intelligent by design, the apple simply falls at its peak of ripeness.

To illustrate how “thought molecules” rather than intention can draw true synchronicity into the realm of one’s reality, let’s next imagine a popular story about Isaac Newton.  To preface this example, recall that Jung noted that synchronicity tends to happen more frequently in times of intense intellectual, spiritual, and/or emotional states.  Now visualise Newton sitting under an apple tree, lost in thought, his mind racing with examples of something he couldn’t explain – perhaps why, that very morning, when he lost his grip on his quill pen, it dropped to the table, spattering ink droplets all over his desk and generally causing a mess (2).

Suddenly an apple falls, bopping him on the head, and from that experience Newton deduces there’s a relationship between the mass of one thing (the earth) and another thing (the apple) which ends up becoming a radical key to understanding the nature of gravity’s enigmatic prowess.

The timing of the apple falling from the tree points to synchronicity, which is much more than a mere coincidence, since in this example the action directly corresponds to Newton’s thought process.  Now, if he had been sitting under the tree trying to remember a childhood friend’s name (3), we might call the apple falling nothing at all – perhaps not even a coincidence of note. The apple falling would have been as mundane as a butterfly fluttering by at the same time, or an ant traversing his shoe.

Rather than being a case of true synchronicity or even one of mere coincidence, the situation could be deemed serendipitous had Newton just realised how long it had been since he’d eaten a meal….

( 1)  the use of the word clinging anthropomorphises the apple; the same situation might have been described with the tree clinging to the apple, finally letting go – which would then anthropomorphise the tree.
( 2 ) gravity!
( 3 ) that is, assuming the friend’s name wasn’t Apple  ; )


Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: ,

11 Responses to “Fractalised Thought as Another Possible Causal Factor in Synchronicity”

  1. The issues surrounding synchronicities amaze me.

    Someone told me to imagine synchronistic events are tied to a thread, and you need to pull on that thread when a some coincidence happens. At the end of that thread is another coincidence, and these threads all lead to your true destiny.

  2. Chris says:

    You have a very clear set of thoughts.

    I prefer to think of the relationship between units of information as analogous to harmonic vibration, rather than gravity. In my present model all information is essentially interacting with or “touching” all other information. The similarity of the units of information (their frequency) and the amount of energy put into them (their amplitude) govern the level of synchronistic and other kinds of interaction.

    I think you are correct in saying that normal thought and attention get in the way of synchronistic affects. I do however think that certain kinds of highly focused attention and meditation can align frequencies and increase amplitudes in the language of the model I use.

    I’m very much enjoying your speculations. Please continue

  3. Stace says:

    Thank you. I hope you were able to check out my prior article about another theory of synchronicity, “Omniscient Interdimensional Causality in Extraordinary Experience.” In that post I discuss the apparent correlation of one’s vibration (or frequency) and the extent to which they experience extraordinary phenomena like deja vu and synchronicity, though I carry it on to another level by introducing an “other” intelligence – though I leave open the question of what form that intelligence takes. In any case, quantum entrainment certainly seems to be involved….

    On a related note, I’ve also found that meditation, as you note, is an excellent way to encourage an interface with the extraordinary. Theta brainwave states can be likened to smooth reflecting pools. The same person to whom I refer at the beginning of this post once used this metaphor (and I paraphrase, for I can’t quite remember his exact words): “once the lake is still, the cranes will return.”

  4. Chris says:

    I skimmed the post you mentioned, but missed or just blanked on the frequency part. I just got linked to your blog in the last day or two.

    I like your friend’s metaphor.

  5. Where you have used chaos vs. intention, one could easily substitute the terms determination vs. free will. It’s not often well-received to say that chaos/determination prevails over intention/free will, but lately I’m more and more inclined to agree with you–we have much less to say about the course of our lives than popularly believed. I say that based on twenty-seven years as an astrologer looking at my own life patterns and trying to change the course of patterns I can see but do not like. It’s begun to feel a bit like trying to turn the tide. Eventually one has to give up and swim with it. And only then does one discover some measure of control. But the tide is, and will always be, in control.

  6. Rob says:

    ‘Roos’ is dutch for rose, and indeed pronounced much like it. In the Netherlands (and probably Belgium, South Africa, and a couple of other countries where they speak (their version of) dutch)), it is used both as a last name (usually ‘de Roos’ –the Rose), or as a girls first name.

    Rob (dutch)

  7. Thanks for this. Do you have some other tips that are interrelated to meditation at all?

  8. Stace says:

    To Ronald at Brainwave Forums: There’s so much information available related to meditation that I don’t know what to add, except what I posted in my article, “Cosmic Key: The Double Helix,” about Phosphenic Mixing, a relatively little-known but simple and useful technique developed by the late Dr Francis Lefebure. I have found it to be extraordinarily effective, and it’s very easy to do, although you’ll get better with practise. Let me know if you find any interesting results in combining it with any kind of hemi-synch work in which you may be involved….I haven’t gotten that far with it yet.

  9. 13 Muluc says:

    Hi Stace. Great post. I think fractal geometry is the basis for almost all of “reality”. For instance, I suspect it has a role to play in reincarnation as well as genetic inheritance. I’d say for sure it is involved in synchronicity, but I would favour resonance over gravity as the actual mechanism. A person’s own vibrational pattern resonates with similar patterns, drawing them into awareness in preference to others that may be present. Then again, maybe resonance and gravity are really two fractal expressions of same force.

  10. josh says:

    I just found and now read your article. I found it randomly as I was thinking about the same subject. Can a fractal be calculated precisily, that is, can you control and therefore predict how a fractal will go?

  11. […] mention that considering whether or not thought has mass is relevant to Wave Theory.  I’ve explored that question previously and won’t go into cumbersome detail here.)  It would seem these interactions, in the form of […]

Leave a Reply