Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  The advice isn't altogether invalid. See, the very fact you're testing the LOA with "blue feather, red hat" experiments means that you are entertaining two kinds of thoughts:
(a) the possibility that LOA is true
(b) the possibility that LOA is not true
Now assume, for the purposes of discussion, that LOA is true. Then the fact that you are entertaining the (a) and (b) thoughts at the same time means that you could end up getting very mixed evidence.
For example, you could get a synchronicity which does seem to indicate that LOA is true, but which at the same time may well be dismissed as a random, meaningless coincidence.
In other words, due to your thoughts about (a) and (b), you are attracting both:
(i) evidence that LOA is true; AND
(ii) evidence that LOA is not true.
Of course, if from the start you are very much more geared towards the (a) thoughts, what will happen is that you will attract stronger evidence that LOA is true (for example, you will get bizarre, unusual synchronicities which are very difficult to dismiss as meaningless, random coincidences).
Whereas, if from the start you are very much more geared towards the (b) thoughts, then you will attract little or no evidence that LOA is true, and perhaps even evidence that LOA is not true (eg you may meet someone who will explain to you the concept of confirmation bias, and then you say, "Oh, LOA is just one big mistake arising from confirmation bias").
Nevertheless, the point is that there must be very few people in the universe who, upon hearing about LOA for the first time, are just going to be able to accept and believe in the LOA straightaway. Therefore experiments may be helpful. With luck, you'll generate a synchronicity that is "mixed" in evidential value, but then it will make you feel curious enough to try and try again, and then you will get more and more synchronicities ....
.... and eventually, over time, you'll see that it's just not logical to believe that LOA doesn't exist. |