>>13330518if the people believing in sync used rigorous methods to try and distill/discern certain shared elements (like e.g. some correlation, and they hypothesize it could be due to some "process/substance A"), then such an epistemic gap angle would be fully respectable.
But they don't do that. They are too dumb and/or think to magically. There is no sensible mechanism that could explain why something as "human" or "conscious/thinking animal observer" as perception of random digits on food scale could be linked to a later perception in a calendar or something, being connected to some fundamental law of nature. Zilch. Nature doesn't care about semantics. Semantics, i.e. meaning is literally something that got invented when the first animal had thoughts about meaning. It does not exist in an unthinking universe.
Even if there could be something credible found because some Platonic dimension of ideas exists, it's still more likely your wetware malfunctions.
