[/i]
Hell I knew that, I just posted that one article to get some debate action.
It seems like quackery, even without looking at the article or its evidence. Ok, I'm very sorry to go all Ne on this topic...
...but, to play devil's advocate, supposedly these "magic numbers" have statistical significance from observation (I'd like to see him provide this btw). As long as the incidents being studied involve human beings (and esp. human institutions), it might be possible to retrieve certain repeating patterns by piggy-backing off the socionics model of inter-type interaction.
...I don't agree with his idea of applying socionics directly to a study of space-time, unless this is restricted to looking at the perception of space-time objects/fields by human subjectivity. OTOH, I've been thinking a lot lately about the subjectivity of space-time events in the context of defining human creativity as the ability to internalize and subjectively modify these direct objects. Creativity as the ability to twist the basic predictive faculty of the organism, while still retaining some basic
sine qua non of the object being worked on. Idk, his ideas could be useful... if only for some inspiration.
...but his idea of directly and rigorously applying Jung's synchronisity is pure bullshit methinks, unless he's willing to derive this type of determinism from string theory, or some other fundamental postulates about reality. Especially because Jung's synchronisity is essentially an idea about noumena... and goes well beyond empirical psychology. Anyway, I can't see a way to defend it. Even as possible TeNi observation it seems dubious.