As I write this and you consider the meaning of what I write I doubt that you will take the factual, scientific way to understand what I write.
The scientific “objective” way dictates that you look at only the empirically observable and measurable to ascertain meaning. This means, taking it “literally” (and this is the only scientific way to take it) that you will look at the scribbles or the type, analyze the chemical constituents of the ink, the angle of pressure of the scribble or the level of impact pressure of the fonts, consider the type of ball point pen, fountain pen, pencil or printer or screen. If you are considering a hand written piece, you will consider the forces that pushed the pen, the fingers attached to the hand. You may perhaps even analyse the skin and the temperature which surrounded the hand when the writing occurred.
In short, you would have looked at all the physically observable items and still would not get to the MEANING. I write, “The sky is blue.” You can verify the statement only after understanding its meaning by looking up at the sky. However, if you only analysed the ink, my fingers and room temperature, you would not get the MEANING.
Now, taking this one step or leap further, perhaps our life is a kind of writing, a kind of story written in flesh and blood and its MEANING is not measured with scientific rulers and scales but something else. Perhaps the lineaments of meaning are drawn between synchronous events, which may be called chance or even coincidence. When does chance, coincidence become synchronicity? It does so when we put in our own individual subjective feeling / understanding to it ie our MEANING.
Science has no place in this sacred space of MAKING MEANING.

Carl G Jung originally wrote the “philosophical” understanding of synchronicity.