The line of questioning suggests that one step back is all that’s necessary to see the answer, or at least to create the space where it can appear. Causality is not a concept that is applicable to everything. It holds no content of meaning, it represents a homogenous quality and a lot of quantities, no difference in qualities. Paranoia, self-imaging, projection into the world - all of us are suffering from it - it is what consciousness is. Some are more attuned to their direct environment and future, others more to long distance paradigms. All of this is sensitivity to meaning, and meaning is the sensibility of self-conscious life, that around which it keeps its consciousness related to its life.
So when we experience synchronicity and wonder how the deterministic cause could be contained in the subjective meaning, we ask the wrong question. Causality simply means that stuff happens in relation to other stuff. That things aren’t isolated. Ultimately, that there are no things, but only process.
The scientific myth is different from the scientific method. The method involves carefully selected processes, stuff that complies with the sort of expectations science needs to be able to have. The myth is that all things can be explained in that way. The way in which the particular viewpoint that gave rise to scientific domination took hold is well explained by without-music in the thread “The Ontological Tyranny”.
In the meantime, life goes on as substances that select their interactions with each other in the terms of their survival and attainment of their values. I mean values as in a plant that needs carbon from the air and doesn’t need oxygen, so it is of value to other lifeforms by what it expels from itself. In this way, all values are relating valuers with each other, in the most contradicting and complementary ways. All of this is happening while people are trying to align electrons so that they might or might not bounce off a wall. The portions of existence that can be selected, isolated an perceived will be selected, isolated and perceived - or not -, the others will keep behaving in ways that are proper to their own, invisible ways of relating to other inscrutable forms. The universe is interconnected in literally every possible way it can be. That is only logical. Linear causality can describe the connections of events in one plane of time and one strand of environment. It can not explain a gravity field, you need a more comprehensive logic for that. It can certainly not describe a culture, you need a much more comprehensive logic for that. The way things, events, are related is not readable in terms of a linear progression of probabilistic nano events. The concept of that alone is ludicrous. What science clearly implies is that it is limited in what it can relate without breaking its own laws. In reality, when the doors of perception are cleansed, events are related simply by their relationship. Synchronicity designates a powerful relation that is significant on more than one plane. It gives the relating evens and their agents and objects more substance, quality, density. The events and their objects are pulled closer to the core of the subject. The universe is unfolding upon the subject, its folds come together in a juncture, the person is aware he, rather than any scientific definition, is the law of his own world. He who gives meaning - as you described, Pandora - the brain is selective. But not because it is defective, but because that is what brains do, filter - value in terms it can use to sustain itself and justify itself to itself - that is all it does.
When synchronicity happens, it is on the one hand the random occurrence of a meaningless coincidence, - but on whose hand? Who are we convincing? Only the assumption that by a logic that we can not possibly apply, the event will fail to make the same sort of sense as it does by the standard of experience. We can never verify if such events are not indeed rooted, causally, in the origin of their significance, that they only arrive there, randomly, perceived as significance by an opportunistic brain. We can not scientifically verify any meaning. It’s rather an inverse relation - science allows us to see through meaning, to dissolve it, to see another picture than a meaningful one. But the power of science versus meaning fools almost everyone besides its creators into thinking that it also explains meaning - away. It does’n - it has still not explained the relation between thought the brain. By all accounts I trust, this is because the brain is not a builder-causer, but a filter-transmitter. Thoughts originate in the brain, but their substance - their poles and their arc, the values and their interplay - is of a non-physical nature.
Selection is the cosmic substance, synchronicity is an occasion where matter is seen as subjected to resonating a more primal process. Life, all good moments, are seen as matter subjected to selecting, when identity and choice come together, - and synchronicity is, considered in its own right, one of a human life’s great stimulants.
But that’s where the meaning comes in.