Carl Jung coined the term synchronicity to describe meaningful coincidences that resist statistical explanation. You hum a song you haven't heard in years; it plays in the next café you walk into. You learn a new word; it appears six times that week. You think of someone; they appear. The standard explanation is the frequency illusion. Once you notice something, you continue to notice it, and the noticing creates the appearance of a pattern that was always there. This is a real cognitive bias. It accounts for many of the smaller cases. It does not entirely account for the bigger ones. Some synchronicities are too specific, too temporally tight, and too statistically unlikely to dissolve into noticing bias. They have been catalogued by serious researchers for over a century. The honest position is that we do not have a complete explanation. The simulation reading is parsimonious. A system optimised for narrative coherence would generate exactly this distribution of coincidences — common enough to feel meaningful, rare enough to feel special. If you were writing it, that is how you would write it.