Subjective Reality?

[Markus74]

Acting:

I'm not sure anymore because of the different threads:

Are you REALLY convinced that you're the only consciousness and that EVERYTHING is possible if you just believe it and use the LoA?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Acting:

I'm not sure anymore because of the different threads:

Are you REALLY convinced that you're the only consciousness and that EVERYTHING is possible if you just believe it and use the LoA?

I'm not sure about the "only consciousness" part. At a very profound level, I could accept that, but that would be at a such profound level that I currently can't see any useful, practical application of the idea in everyday life. I generally prefer the co-creator concept, that is, our reality is created by the sum total of all our thoughts.

What I do believe is that thoughts affect reality - that in fact, they cannot not affect reality. Furthermore the effect of a thought on reality is such that the thought tends to become reality.

I believe that thoughts vary widely in the strength of their effect on reality. For example, a thought would have greater effect on reality, if:

(a) the person thinks the thought while he is is in a deep meditative state; or

(b) the person repeats the thought many times; or

(c) the person is fully focused when he generates the thought (he is not distracted or tense); or

(d) the thought is very "strong" (the person holds no conflicting or inconsistent thoughts, or to put it another way, he has an extremely strong belief); or

(e) the person has other consistent, complementary thoughts (eg apart from thinking "I am rich", the person also thinks thoughts like "I deserve a high salary" or "Life is good" or "It's easy to make a lot of money"); or

(f) the person uses his right brain (for example, he visualises clear, strong images); or

(g) strong emotions are present.

And I believe that the effect of a thought on reality can go far, far beyond merely modifying the thinker's own behaviour or dictating his own physical actions.

In other words, yes, if I sit in one room thinking about something in another room, I believe that my thought can very well have some effect on that thing in another room. However, most of the time, the effect will be too small to be measurable or observable.

I also believe that most people have extremely limited capacity to consciously choose their thoughts. It is however a capacity that can be developed with practice.

I believe that the cause-&-effect relationship of thought and reality is complex. Reality affects thought as much as thought affects reality. For example, if your reality is that you have always been very poor, it can be very difficult for you to even imagine that you can ever be rich. In such a case, you will have few or no thoughts that will have the effect of altering your reality such that you become rich.

I believe that each thought can, and usually does, have multiple effects on reality.

I believe that different thoughts combine in affecting reality. For example, the combination of thoughts like "My boss appreciates me" and "I need a break" may lead to an effect that the thinker himself did not expect, eg the boss saying, "You've done a great job. Take tomorrow off and have a rest".

Hope that helps.

[Jill]

Because this world is way more consistent than the dream world. The dream world is fuzzy, illogical, non-linear, etc. And you always wake up from it.

There are many who say that people eventually "wake up" from this world as well. I don't personally know enough about it at this point to debate the point, however!

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Markus74

D'oh! Of course we can dream about a Ferrari because we've seen one! But somebody who has never seen a Ferrari in his real life will not see one in his dreams either. I couldn't dream what the engine of a Ferrari looks like because I've never seen one. You can't dream about something that you haven't seen. Even the weird things are mixtures of things you know.

So your example is somewhat flawed I would say.

I don't think you have any proof of the above. How do you know every dream you ever had was simply filled with memories or mixed up memories. How do you know you've never dreamt of anything not yet discovered or created? You assumption is that the imagination part of your brain is turned off during sleep and only your memory part of the brain is running, which I don't think is true, at least not in my dreams. In my dreams it seems like imagination is running wild and creating crazy stuff because the logical part of my brain is silenced. This point doesn't really matter to the rest of the thread though so no big deal, but I have had dreams in which things I have never seen or done before existed.

Because this world is way more consistent than the dream world. The dream world is fuzzy, illogical, non-linear, etc. And you always wake up from it.

When you're INSIDE the dream though it doesn't seem fuzzy, illogical and non-linear, does it? I remember having a dream where I was at home, and then like the next moment I'm at school without any walking or driving to get there. This is obviously impossible in the waking world but in my dream I thought nothing strange of it. I just kept going with the dream and never thought back about the fact that I suddenly got transported from home to school in an instant. Inside the dream, everything seemed "normal". It is only AFTER you wake up that you realize how "unrealistic" the dream was. How do you know this world isn't exactly like that? Seemingly real because you haven't woken up yet. Have you seen The Matrix? Minus the machines part using us as a battery, how do you know your whole life is not just imagined?

It wouldn't screw up my world if I was the only one able to do it, lol.

Yes it would. Come on, honestly if you could make $10k appear in front of you in cash out of thin air right now, how could you continue to live a "normal" life? You wouldn't just use this 'power' to manifest $10k and then never use it again. If you didn't crap your pants from fear you would probably try manifesting other stuff right away like a car outside your driveway, then your neighbour sees it so poof you manifest him dissapearing, then the police are after you but poof you manifest them gone, your wife gets home and wants to know who's car that is and then what happens? All of a sudden your whole world changes. What's the point of having a job then? Why watch TV? Why do anything if you can manifest any outcome you want instantly? Why have a wife? Why raise kids? Why even have a car? Just manifest teleportation. Why go anywhere in the first place? Want to manifest your favorite food? Why? Why not just manifest the pleasurable feeling of eating that food? In fact, why not just go directly to the end of line and manifest all absolute possible forms of absolute pleasure and joy and every possible positive feeling for eternity?

Are you sure your life wouldn't change? I'm not so sure.

Ok.
1. How would I have to formulate/intend it? In a way so people here cannot say later: Well, dude, you did it the wrong way! Of course it didn't realize!

There are many articles Steve has written on the HOW. You can watch the movie "The Secret" or read the book "Ask and it is Given" or if specifically looking for money manifestation I have used "The Science of Getting Rich" to manifest money. All of those explain exactly what you need to do. Just follow the instructions.

2. How long would I have to wait for it to become true? Because if I inherit $10000 in 2015 because of the death of my uncle, who has no children, then I wouldn't attribute it to the LoA because it's not such a big surprise.

Well, if it took 10+ years for my manifestations to come true, I would be on this forum with you being totally skeptical of LoA. From most of the examples I've seen from people and my personal experience I would say as little as 24hours to as much as 3-4months is typical depending on what you're manifesting and how much visualization you do etc. Personally I have never set any specific target dates for the manifestation, I just focused on what I wanted and let the universe deliver it at the perfect time.

Try it out, you might be surprised at how quickly things happen. You might want to start with something smaller but more unlikely. Like for example, you might want to secretly (without telling ANYONE) do the exercises to manifest a movie that you like but are unlikely to see in the next while or a song. For example, lets say you pick a movie like Top Gun. Do manifestation exercises on that and continue to do them while you wait. The manifestation might happen in a way that you see the movie on TV all of a sudden, or someone gives you the DVD or you're at someone's house and they are watching Top Gun or you see a clip about it on the news or something of that sort. I know, I know, it's not very convincing as it could be what you would call a "co-incidence" but it's a starting point. You could pick a song that they never play on the radio anymore and see if you hear it. These are just warm-up manifestations that won't ruin your world. You could then move up to manifesting $100 from an unlikely source, or something like that. These are still little tiny manifestations that your skeptic mind will still dismiss as co-incidence, but as you create more and more of them you'll start to realize that the chances of all these co-incidences happening all the time like that are slim to none and you can set the intention to make them more and more unlikely. Along the way though, you will encounter small fears that surface about what could happen to your life if all this is true. You'll need to deal with those.

Of course. As I said I've got no problem with the LoA as motivational tool. But what's absolutely ridiculous is the magical claims that people make. I could create things out of thin air if I just believed in it, huge sums of money will just appear in my life without ANY reason at all, etc.

If LoA was just a motivational tool that got us off our asses and made us work harder to get the things we want it wouldn't be anything special. We've know this all our lives. What makes LoA special is the fact that it breaks what you would consider "reality". Everyone who I have known who tried out LoA used to be just as skeptical as you are, but you can't deny what you experience so as soon as you create stuff for yourself, you'll be just like the rest of us making what you now consider "magical" claims.


To help you manifest the things needed to make you a believer I will release my need to have you as a skeptic in my life. Thank you for demonstrating to me the life I have left behind. I have given up nothing, and have gained everything. Thank you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Try it out, you might be surprised at how quickly things happen. You might want to start with something smaller but more unlikely. Like for example, you might want to secretly (without telling ANYONE) do the exercises to manifest a movie that you like but are unlikely to see in the next while or a song. For example, lets say you pick a movie like Top Gun. Do manifestation exercises on that and continue to do them while you wait. The manifestation might happen in a way that you see the movie on TV all of a sudden, or someone gives you the DVD or you're at someone's house and they are watching Top Gun or you see a clip about it on the news or something of that sort. I know, I know, it's not very convincing as it could be what you would call a "co-incidence" but it's a starting point. You could pick a song that they never play on the radio anymore and see if you hear it. These are just warm-up manifestations that won't ruin your world. You could then move up to manifesting $100 from an unlikely source, or something like that. These are still little tiny manifestations that your skeptic mind will still dismiss as co-incidence, but as you create more and more of them you'll start to realize that the chances of all these co-incidences happening all the time like that are slim to none and you can set the intention to make them more and more unlikely. Along the way though, you will encounter small fears that surface about what could happen to your life if all this is true. You'll need to deal with those.

These are very good examples. In fact, two nights ago, I was just thinking about something I had written on this forum about "miracles". Just then I heard this Bruce Springsteen song (I don't know the title) where the line goes, "Counting on a miracle, counting on a miracle, to come true."

These little occurrences are what Carl Jung called synchronicities, or the the "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events."

Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jung never said anything about intention-manifestation, as far as I know. He did believe in synchronicities - which you can conveniently think of as "highly meaningful coincidences". In fact, Jung was the guy who coined the term synchronicity.

If you overlay Carl Jung's views with the IM concept, what you would conclude is that your thoughts manifested the apparently acausal event.

[Jill]

In fact, two nights ago, I was just thinking about something I had written on this forum about "miracles". Just then I heard this Bruce Springsteen song (I don't know the title) where the line goes, "Counting on a miracle, counting on a miracle, to come true."

Yep, earlier today not long after I posted in the Life's a Game thread here, I heard on my Pandora music some song where they just kept saying over and over "Life is like a game"! Not sure I had ever heard it before, or at least never noticed it if I did!

[offtopic]Speaking of Pandora, if you haven't tried it for music, you should, it's awesome! Pandora Internet Radio - Find New Music, Listen to Free Web Radio

[Markus74]

That's just your brain filtering the information differently. It's the same thing when you buy a new car. 'Suddenly' you see this model everywhere. It's not like they haven't been there before, it's just that you didn't notice them because they had no special value for you. That changed, now they have.

Or when you've got a new favorite song. 'Suddenly' you hear it 'everywhere'. Or a new favorite subject, etc ...

[Acting Like Godot]

Jack Canfield and Brian Tracy are both of the view that both effects take place. In other words, if you start thinking about blue sports cars

(1) you become more likely to notice blue sports cars and things related to blue sports cars; AND

(2) more blue sports cars (and related things) will start appearing in your life.

Based on my limited experience, passive meditation tends to make Effect (1) happen. Dynamic meditation tends to make Effect (2) happen.

In another important sense, however, there is no real difference between Effects (1) and (2). If a thing appears in your life and you do not notice it, then it effectively is not there.

If you want a more surprising example of synchronicity, you can click on my Wikipedia link and read the plum pudding story.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

if you start thinking about blue sports cars

(1) you become more likely to notice blue sports cars and things related to blue sports cars; AND

(2) more blue sports cars (and related things) will start appearing in your life.

There's still another explanation:

(1) you notice a lot of blue sports cars unconsciously
(2) you start thinking about blue sports cars
(3) you find it coincidently that blue sports cars appear in your life at the moment you're thinking about them

These events can happen almost simultaneously.

PS. There were several scientific experiments which induced this "spontaneous" thinking. I'll try to find the sources.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Jack Canfield and Brian Tracy are both of the view that both effects take place. In other words, if you start thinking about blue sports cars

(1) you become more likely to notice blue sports cars and things related to blue sports cars;

Ok, seems reasonable to me.

(2) more blue sports cars (and related things) will start appearing in your life.

But this does sound like magic again. Where would they come from? Where have they been before? Would they be 'created by the Universe'? What would make the owners of those blue sports cars came into your life?

If you want a more surprising example of synchronicity, you can click on my Wikipedia link and read the plum pudding story.

Ok, I will read it then ... [edit: where's that link?]

[Acting Like Godot]

My earlier post above.

The most elegant explanation available is in "SynchroDestiny" by Deepak Chopra. If you don't have a science background, you may struggle a little with the quantum physics part though. It's the Schrodinger's Cat kind of stuff all over again.

Chopra's book also contains a few interesting examples of how a person's thoughts can apparently (and immediately) affect reality in another location. For example, a baby wakes up and cries for milk. At that exact moment, the mother's breasts begins to leak milk, even though mother and child are separated, far away in different locations.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For example, a baby wakes up and cries for milk. At that exact moment, the mother's breasts begins to leak milk, even though mother and child are separated, far away in different locations.

Excuse me for being annoying, but has this repeatedly, and scientifically, been tested? How many women did have this happening? Or was this just a random, one-time event

Don't get me wrong. It would be fascinating if true! But I won't take it as a fact just because some body cites this example as `'proof'.

Either women's breast generally start leaking milk when their babies cry for milk (even if they're separated) or not. If it's a rare event then it's probably just pure coincidence.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you don't have a science background, you may struggle a little with the quantum physics part though.

A real Quantum scientist once said: If you claim that you've really understood quantum physics, then this proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

And Deepak of course has quantum mechanics all figured out ... Quantum mechanics has become the new faerie dust it seems. Just say 'quantum mechanics' and everyone will be in awe and believe the greatest non-sense.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Excuse me for being annoying, but has this repeatedly, and scientifically, been tested? How many women did have this happening? Or was this just a random, one-time event

Don't get me wrong. It would be fascinating if true! But I won't take it as a fact just because some body cites this example as `'proof'.

I told ja. It cannot be proven scientifically. What's possible is that you run your own experiments to convince yourself.

Apart from the breastmilk example, there are numerous other examples indicating how thought can affect reality in ways you would consider "magical".

For example, google "Professor Sheldrake". See his research on dogs and their owners. Typical scenario:

(a) owner is out; dog is at home
(b) dog is being videotaped (recorder is left running all day)
(c) at the time owner decides to come home (ie owner has generated a thought - "I want to go home now", dog gets all excited & happy, wags his tail, runs to the door and barks excitedly.

Even though owner is faraway and the dog cannot possibly see or hear him.

Simple illustration of man's thought having an effect on the dog. This phenomena has been recorded under varying circumstances eg even when owner is on an irregular schedule. "Cat outside the window" kind of explanation has been accounted for. Distance does not seem to matter - owner could be in another country - and at the time he decides to come home - eg he decides to book a plane ticket - the dog gets excited.

How about studies on the effect of prayer on healing illnesses? I don't subscribe to any particular religion, but I do see prayer as a form of intention-manifestation. The experiments come in a variety of different ways, designed to test different things. Results are mixed; in some scientifically conducted experiments, prayer does have a scientifically significant effect. You wanna know - go google. Try this for starters:

Scientific Research on Prayer

How about thoughts affecting the reality of an inanimate object. Sigh .... where to begin, there are so many. Here, a famous one:

Uri Geller the Full Biography

He has his skeptics, of course. Even when he is filmed under lab conditions, skeptics suspect that the scientist doing the filming is doing some funny camera trick. Ahhh, you just can't win. No wonder Jesus refused to perform miracles for the Pharisees.

Errrr, any more examples? Sure. What's the point? In the end, only you can convince you, by running YOUR own experiments, where YOU know you are not cheating yourself. You wouldn't perpetrate a camera trick on yourself, would you.

Of course, if you think you might be deceiving yourself, then I got nothing more to say ....... because if you might be deceiving yourself, you better not trust ANYTHING that you hear, whether from a skeptic or a believer. Just crawl under a stone and hide and don't come out. Who knows, the prolonged isolation might lead to enlightenment.

On quantum physics - if you haven't even attempted to understand it, then at least don't go around telling people that oh, THIS isn't scientifically proven, THAT isn't scientifically proven. At least try to keep a more open mind. I recommend this book to you:

Amazon.com: The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics: Books: Gary Zukav

it's by a spiritual teacher type of guy, Gary Zukav. He believes in karma, reincarnation, thoughts creating reality etc etc. Anyway, the book won an award.

Guess what award? It wasn't "Best Fantasy Novel of the Year" or "Best New Age Book of the Year".

It was the "1979 American Book Award in Science". Bwahahhaa! The irony.

Still a good read, although it came out in 1979, and therefore was too early to take into account superstring theory.

If you really think that your "scientific" view of the world and what I suggest to you abou the nature of reality is truly soooooooooo very far apart, boy, will you be soooo surprised to read about scientists regularly meeting the Dalai Lama to exchange ideas:

Talking physics with the Dalai Lama (August 1998) - News - PhysicsWeb

The science of Tibetan Buddhism / Neuroscientists, physicists have questions, the Dalai Lama answers

Dalai Lama Gives Talk On Science

And wouldn't you be surprised to know that the two kinds of scientists who are most interested in exchanging notes with the Dalai Lama are:

quantum physicists and

neuroscientists?

Heheh. Isn't that strange? What could quantum physics, neuroscience and spirituality have in common? Surely the physical universe can't be affected by your brain which in turn can't be connected to any God or Supreme Being or Allah or whatever? Why would the leading experts in these three very different fields be interested in talking to each other?

Mr Godot could try to tell you. Ahh, but then you wouldn't believe Mr Godot, would you.

Hey, if you don't believe Mr Godot, would you trust a real, live scientist? How about one with a proper PhD, from a proper university, in some really, really scientific area like Theoretical Physics, oooh, sounds serious.

Let's try Dr Fred Alan Wolf - PhD in Theoretical Physics from UCLA, who has a resume that looks like this:

Visiting Professor, University of Northern Iowa, 1987.
Professor, Department of Physics, San Diego State University, 1971-1977.
Associate Professor of Physics, San Diego State College, 1968-1971.
Assistant Professor of Physics, San Diego State College, 1964-1968.
Staff Physicist at Several Corporations and Government Institutions. 1964-1968.
Visiting Professor, UNICAMP, University of San Paulo, Campinas, Brazil, 1985.
Associate Professor of Physics, University of Paris, Orsay, France, 1973-1974.
Visiting Research Fellow, University of London, Birkbeck College, 1973-1975.
Visiting Professor, Hahn-Meitner-Institut fur Kernforschung, Berlin, Germany, 1971.
Visiting Professor, Department of Physical Chemistry, The Hebrew University. of Jerusalem, Israel, 1971.
Visiting Professor, Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie des Rayonnements, Faculte des Sciences, Orsay, France. 1971.
PhD. Theoretical Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1963.
MS. Applied Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1959.
BS. Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, 1957.
Howard Hughes Master of Science Fellow, Culver City, CA, 1957 1959.

I wonder what Fred thinks God, subjective reality and the effect of your consciousness on the universe. Hmmm, let's try this for starters, shall we? An excerpt from the interview from good old Fred:

"FRED ALAN WOLF: If you follow that to a logical conclusion, you find that there's only one Soul in the universe. One Consciousness capable of blinking it into reality and letting it go out of reality. If you are having that experience, then really, you're having it because you've identified with, or you are working with the recognition of, or you're part of, that single awareness. It's not that you have a mind and Mr. Jones has a mind and Mrs. Smith has a mind, but that you and Jones and Smith are all of one mind. The recognition that you're all of one mind, while it may sound nice, may sound spiritual -- there's actually, from a quantum physical point of view, a logical proof that one can make. The blinking on or off is a very important part of it. It indicates that mind, or this one Mind, is very much part of the physical world.

TMA: It's so interesting to follow this out. What people think of as the physical world is so very much more malleable than anybody would have ever guessed. I was playing with something recently whereby if you work with the parallel universes kind of model where any decision takes you into another one ... I was stuck in traffic on the freeway, and I projected joy. The more joy I could project out, the less traffic slowed me down. I kept raising the level of universes I was existing in by the amount of joy that I was able to project out. It's just fascinating what you can do.

FRED ALAN WOLF: It's hard for people to give up the objective, temporal control which they've learned so well to impart by the counting procedure of watching seconds tick by on the clock. But you have to remember that every clock is merely in agreement with other clocks that we set as a standard.

TMA: And yet at the same time that the physical plane is maya, illusion, when you stub your toe, it hurts.

FRED ALAN WOLF: If the physical world is maya, what's real? That's, of course, the question that drives everybody a little bit crazy. But reality is not just the physical world, it's the relationship of the mind with the physical world that gives the perception of reality. There is no reality without the perception of that reality. What the actual reality might be without a perception of reality is unknowable. We don't know what that is. We can only assume that what it is, is what it is when we're not looking -- an assumption that's fraught with a lot of problems.

----

OH WAIT. I forgot. I know what you're gonna say. Mr Godot is a fraudster. He must have made up Fred Alan Wolf. After all, you don't belive in Fred Alan Wolf. Therefore he can't exist. Hahahaaa!

A Conversation With... Fred Alan

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

A real Quantum scientist once said: If you claim that you've really understood quantum physics, then this proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, I think you got the quote wrong. IIRC, it goes more like this:

"If you are not totally astounded by quantum physics, then this proves that you do not understand quantum physics."

I cannot claim to be a quantum physicist. But I can honestly claim to be totally astounded by LOA.

[KeithHandy]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I once had a dream in which there was a big tree I could see from a window of a house. That tree was filled with thousands of leaves which were all swaying in the wind. Each leaf was moving with the wind, swaying back and forth gently in the summer sun. Each leaf was different, slightly in color and shape just like the trees we see in real life. In my dream, all of a sudden I became lucid and realized that I was dreaming. I didn't wake up though right away, and instead I stared at this beautiful tree in awe wondering how the heck I am imagining this tree in my dream with no effort. Like I wasn't standing there trying to think about every leaf and how it should be reacting to the wind patterns etc. I was just standing there in my dream, relaxed, watching this tree. Something else inside me (subconscious mind) was smart enough to visualize a tree, with thousands of leafs, and smart enough to make the leaves sway back and forth in total perfection to the wind patters in the dream and make it totally believable and real to my conscious mind.

I had a similar lucid dream with blades of grass, so I know what you're talking about.

How about this, though -- who says you're not good at math/science? It's just your character, your avatar, that you rolled a low "math/science" score for when you began playing the game, and you're playing faithfully by what you rolled, and staying in character. But if you zoom back out and look at the universe from a higher perspective -- the gamer, not the game piece -- you'll see that you've only been artificially handicapping your math and science abilities to play this particular role.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

By the way, I think you got the quote wrong. IIRC, it goes more like this:

"If you are not totally astounded by quantum physics, then this proves that you do not understand quantum physics."

You may be right ... I'd have to check on that

I cannot claim to be a quantum physicist. But I can honestly claim to be totally astounded by LOA.

I've given it a try again. I've intended something to happen this week. We'll see how it works out ...

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by KeithHandy

How about this, though -- who says you're not good at math/science? It's just your character, your avatar, that you rolled a low "math/science" score for when you began playing the game, and you're playing faithfully by what you rolled, and staying in character. But if you zoom back out and look at the universe from a higher perspective -- the gamer, not the game piece -- you'll see that you've only been artificially handicapping your math and science abilities to play this particular role.

I doubt it. How could I have invented all these things on my own? No, seriously: This LoA may work on a certain level, even the Subjective Reality is real in the sense that you can influence your reality to a certain level (meaning you can act in a way to 'change' your situation, you can change your view of things, etc) but all this One Consciousness and You Can Do Everything is wishful thinking and utter non-sense.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

I've given it a try again.

I know. I had already manifested the intention that you will give it a try again.

I've intended something to happen this week. We'll see how it works out ...

Let me make a lucky guess. You are manifesting an old acquaintance into your life, someone whom you haven't seen for a long time. Right?

Wait .... DON'T tell me. Tell me in one week's time.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I know. I had already manifested the intention that you will give it a try again.

So you mind-controlled me??

Let me make a lucky guess. You are manifesting an old acquaintance into your life, someone whom you haven't seen for a long time. Right?
Wait .... DON'T tell me. Tell me in one week's time.

No, wrong. But I keep you updated

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

but all this One Consciousness and You Can Do Everything is wishful thinking and utter non-sense.

So said Markus who doesn't have a PhD in Theoretical Physics. Now, let's hear it again from Dr Fred Alan Wolf again, who DOES have a PhD in Theoretical Physics:

"If you follow that to a logical conclusion, you find that there's only one Soul in the universe. One Consciousness capable of blinking it into reality and letting it go out of reality. If you are having that experience, then really, you're having it because you've identified with, or you are working with the recognition of, or you're part of, that single awareness. It's not that you have a mind and Mr. Jones has a mind and Mrs. Smith has a mind, but that you and Jones and Smith are all of one mind. The recognition that you're all of one mind, while it may sound nice, may sound spiritual -- there's actually, from a quantum physical point of view, a logical proof that one can make. The blinking on or off is a very important part of it. It indicates that mind, or this one Mind, is very much part of the physical world."

[Markus74]

Oh, THAT Dr from The Secret!

How many of his colleagues take him seriously actually? He seems to be quite a fruitcake. And a Dr title doesn't prove that everything you say is The Truth(tm). He has his theories. But he cannot prove them.

[Acting Like Godot]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the man is hardly the only quantum physicist around with those kinds of ideas.

Why don't you try Nobel Prize winning physicist Niel Bohr then? I definitely don't follow his mathematics, but here's a very quick excerpt which you may find interesting:

What is Quantum Physics

"So sometimes a particle acts like a particle and other times it acts like a wave. So which is it? According to Niels Bohr, who worked in Copenhagen when he presented what is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the particle is what you measure it to be. When it looks like a particle, it is a particle. When it looks like a wave, it is a wave.

Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe any properties or even existence to anything that has not been measured21. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is observed."

I want to emphasise that "nothing" in physics really means absolutely "nothing". Nothing, not a mountain nor a spoon nor a car nor a bird, is real unless it is observed. Observation means that there is consciousness. Consciousness means that there is thought. Therefore nothing exists unless someone or something is thinking about it.

Aha, that makes you want to be careful about what you think, doesn't it. Who knows what you might manifest?

You can try Hugh Everett too (same link), another PhD-in-Physics type:

"One other interpretation, presented first by Hugh Everett III in 1957, is the many worlds or branching universe interpretation. In this theory, whenever a measurement takes place, the entire universe divides as many times as there are possible outcomes of the measurement. All universes are identical except for the outcome of that measurement. Unlike the science fiction view of "parallel universes", it is not possible for any of these worlds to interact with each other."

"Measurement" would include checking the lottery spin machine to see which 5 little numbered balls have fallen out. That act of checking causes the universe to divide, into as many universes as it is possible to have different combinations of 5 little numbered balls.

In other words, it is possible that everyone who wants to win the lottery does win the lottery. But each of them simply wins in a different universe.

Alas, a good part of Hugh's research continues to be unknown to the world. He was hired by the US Department of Defence, and his work in those years remains classified.

I don't think that the Pentagon would normally hire fruitcakes. Do you?

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the man is hardly the only quantum physicist around with those kinds of ideas.

Most, if not all, experts on the field wouldn't agree with his ideas. Why do you think are there no real, renowned Quantum experts in The Secret? And the one who's cited in it, later said he was totally misquoted and didn't agree with the premise.

And there's also a difference between trying to understand quantum theory and inventing quantum magic.

I don't think that the Pentagon would normally hire fruitcakes. Do you?

Unfortunately they do: The Pentagon's psychic friends network | thebulletin.org

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Most, if not all, experts on the field wouldn't agree with his ideas.

To be honest, Fred doesn't really have any original ideas. His real contribution is taking the work of Einstein, Bohm, Bohr and others, and translating it into a more accessible format.

It is true that the experts do not all agree with each other.

For example, Everett insists that there are multiple universes, and every time a consciousness (it could be you) makes a measurement (eg checks the lottery spin machine to see what numbers have come out), the universe divides again.

However, Bohm says that the balls simply do not exist, unless and until a consciousness focuses on them - leaving open the question of what would happen to the balls, if the consciousness were to change in any way (eg it think different thoughts about the balls).

[Royce_aus]

Just a quickie,
How can anyone not believe in intention manifestation? If you intend to not believe in intention manifestation and you don't then how could you disprove it? And if you intend to believe in intention manifestation, well let's take a look at it in this simple 3 step experiment which is repeatable and scientifically provable.

step one, look at the palm of your hand.
step two, realize you just intended to see the palm of your hand and your intention was immediately manifested.
step three, understand that the focus point or origin of your intentions expands and that to manifest something which doesn't exist in close proximity to you, it will take some time.

Time is also something else everyone might want to look into, although billions of people are quite content with how time is measured now. So it would be understandable if people didn't want to redefine it, it would sure take a lot of educating to make a change.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Most, if not all, experts on the field wouldn't agree with his ideas.

To be honest, Fred doesn't really have any original ideas. His real contribution is taking the work of Einstein, Bohm, Bohr and others, and translating it into a more accessible format.

It is true that the experts do not all agree with each other.

For example, Everett insists that there are multiple universes, and every time a consciousness (it could be you) makes a measurement (eg checks the lottery spin machine to see what numbers have come out), the universe divides again.

However, Bohm says that the balls simply do not exist, unless and until a consciousness focuses on them - leaving open the question of what would happen to the balls, if the consciousness were to change in any way (eg it think different thoughts about the balls).

Etc etc.

The point is that you are losing objectivity.

When I tell you about LOA in a simpler way, you say it's weird and unscientific.

When I tell you about PhD physicists whose views suggest that LOA might be true, you suggest that they are fruitcakes. For no other reason than that their views suggest that LOA might be true.

I pointed you to people like Bohm, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, and alluded to his research - which suggests, at the very least, that:

(1) reality is very far from what you think it is; and
(2) consciousness affects reality (nothing is real unless it is observed).

If you were open-minded, at this point you should at least sit up and wonder about LOA. But no, I guess you're about to say that David Bohm, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, is also a fruitcake.

By the way, Anna Kulagina was studied for years by Russian scientists researching her psychic powers. I bet you also think that the Russian scientists are fruitcakes. Ditto for the American scientists and Czech scientists who were also invited to do research on her.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Royce_aus

Just a quickie,
step one, look at the palm of your hand.
step two, realize you just intended to see the palm of your hand and your intention was immediately manifested.
step three, understand that the focus point or origin of your intentions expands and that to manifest something which doesn't exist in close proximity to you, it will take some time.

That example is completely different from those magical claims other people in here make. That you can influence people or things over distance. I've not seen one such claim to be true.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

By the way, Anna Kulagina was studied for years by Russian scientists researching her psychic powers. I bet you also think that the Russian scientists are fruitcakes. Ditto for the American scientists and Czech scientists who were also invited to do research on her.

If so many scientists analyzed her, why can't I google anything? If she really could levitate then this would have been a sensation and everybody would knew about it!

As for the quantum scientists, as you said their interpret their observations in a zillion ways and nobody can prove the others wrong. So why should one of them be right in the first place? Especially since he cannot definitively and scientifically prove it?

But the serious scientists haven't made any claims like the one The Secret makes. Or did I miss somebody?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

If so many scientists analyzed her, why can't I google anything? If she really could levitate then this would have been a sensation and everybody would knew about it!

I mistyped her name - it's NINA Kulagina.

As for the quantum scientists, as you said their interpret their observations in a zillion ways and nobody can prove the others wrong. So why should one of them be right in the first place? Especially since he cannot definitively and scientifically prove it?

I hope you try to understand the difference.

One interpretation says that effectively, that if you think a certain thought, you go into a certain reality (and that there are different realities).

The other interpretation says that if you do not think, your reality does not exist.

Neither interpretation is exactly inconsistent with what people on this forum have been telling you about LOA.

In a nutshell, Bohm, Wolf and Everett all agree that thoughts affect reality - it's just that they have different explanations of how.