[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Radical

A Theory of everything (TOE) is a hypothetical theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena.

Therefore, it wouldn't matter whether two observers can agree upon what they thought happened in reality, because a TOE would explain what really happened in reality.

And yes such a theory has not been found, and is probably a long way off from being found.

It is proven by Gödel that such a theory can't exist.

Originally Posted by Radical

You are wrong. LoA is unprovable pseudoscience and is definately not equivalent to the law of gravity.

The law of gravity can be proved empirically, and the results are always the same. LoA however is based on unproven pseudoscience, and there is no way to test the theory empirically.

Unfortunatly the results aren't always the same for Newtions law because their are effects besides Gravitation that play into the equation. Thats pre- 1900 thinking to assume the law of Graviation is applicable to all phenomens.

LoA isn't based on anything besides Decartes "Cogito ergo sum", that proves a single consciousness.
If you don't add the unproven belief of an external world and the unproven belief of other consciousnesses you arive at the LoA.

You on the other hand belief in things that can't exist like an theory of everything and attack other people for pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I still don't get Steve's post. I just don't understand why I (or part of my consciousness) would intend such a thing.
[...]
Lets just say that the child did have a negative vibration due to negative emotions, fear, shame, guilt, sadness etc that 'attracted' the perpetrator. It was still the perpertrator that decided to take that step and physically abuse the child. The perpetrator had a choice: To act, or not to act. To screw someone elses life up or to take respoinsibility for his own mental, emotional, spiritual state that 'attracted' him to the victim. I'm sure that the majority of people if they spent time with a vulnerable, troubled child would seek to be kind and thoughtful rather than abusive. Surely this underlines that it is the responsibility of the perpetrator, not the child.

It may even have been that the child was vibrating at such a pure vibration of love and innocence that this twisted the perpetrators mind that they wanted to own it/ possess it / destroy it. The child sure would be operating at a lower emotional level after this happened.

You are trying to analyse the situtation without an observer. But In the LoA the blame goes to the observer.

You have four choices of how to deal with responsibility:
a) Feel responsible for nothing.
b) Feel only responsible for the things which happened because you decided to make the happen.
c) Feel responsible for everything that happens to you.
d) Feel responsible for everything that happens in the world.

The Intention/Manifestion model proposes d) not c).
If you take only c) you get the problem that you illustrated.

What can science tell you about thoughts?

We know that they are electrical impulses running around the synapses and neurons of your brain.

We don't know that. We know that their are electrical impulses when someone thinks. Its the most popular explanation at the moment but it isn't backed up by direct evidence. It could also be some neat quantum effect or a combination of both..

We haven't solved the mind-body problem jet and thoughts are mind stuff.