Subjective Reality?

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

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

But that doesn't mean that magic is possible.

[Royce_aus]

Originally Posted by Markus74

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.

Yes that example is different, was kinda my intention.
I believe i understand why you continue to ask questions. Some people are claiming some pretty big things and then blaming/crediting the change to LoA, or IM.
I don't personally have any big claims, but for me IM is simply the way things work. Nothing would happen if nothing was intended to happen. I'm hungry i intend to eat, that kind of thing is what made me a believer. Now I just seek more 'nourishing' manifestations, such as extra cash.
"magical" is often overused and so loses some of its wonder. I like the definition 'mysteriously enchanting' because to me there's not a thing in sight that isn't pure magic.
There's really no purpose in aiming to debunk IM its somewhat a paradox and you'd seemingly set out to fail?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

That example is completely different from those magical claims other people in here make.

Would it seem magical to you that right now, your hand is popping in and out of existence? Because that's something all the quantum physicists agree on.

In a highly compressed nutshell:

your hand is composed of molecules;
molecules are composed of atoms;
atoms are composed of subatomic particles;
subatomic particles pop in and out of existence;
if they are being observed, they exist;
if they are not being observed; they do not exist;
your hand cannot exist unless it is being observed;
observation implies consciousness;
consciousness implies thought;

And without thought, there is no consciousness; therefore no observation; therefore no subatomic particle; therefore no atom; therefore no molecule; therefore no hand.

And if thought changes; then consciousness changes; then observation changes; then subatomic particle changes; then atom changes; then molecule changes; then hand changes.

Add the principle of nonlocality (which Bohm says it's necessary, based on mathematical calculations of the probability that a subatomic particle will manifest in any spot at any time):

consciousness can be anywhere;
it need not be localised in the spacetime of your hand;
it need not be your consciousness;
*it could be my consciousness;

Therefore, if I am thinking about your hand, and I suddenly change what I think about your hand:

the thought changes --> the consciousness changes --> the observation changes --> the subatomic particles change --> the atoms change --> the molecules change --> your hand changes.

That is, by thinking about your hand, I can affect your hand.

Now, if you irritate me any further, I'm gonna change your hand into a pig's hoof.

Caveat on *:

Wolf's view is that my consciousness is your consciousness is one consciousness ultimately, that is, all our consciousnesses are one consciousness, otherwise the universe cannot exist. This is a logical (ie inevitable) proof arising out of a few basic assumptions like:

(a) the universe does exist
(b) matter is composed of subatomic particles

---------------

One more point to note: if a subatomic pops out of existence, where did it go? Possibly to another dimension. Heeeeeey, don't give me that look. It's the scientists who say so.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Royce_aus

I don't personally have any big claims, but for me IM is simply the way things work. Nothing would happen if nothing was intended to happen. I'm hungry i intend to eat, that kind of thing is what made me a believer. Now I just seek more 'nourishing' manifestations, such as extra cash.

Fair enough. But some people here would claim that you would just need to intend a hamburger and few minutes later a co-worker would bring you one (supposing of course that he hasn't done this every single day for the last two years )

Intending something and then WORKING yourself actively and physically to manifest it: Ok, that sounds reasonable and that's how the world works.

Intending something and then things FALL INTO YOUR LAP without you doing something: Nah, that's wishful thinking.

[Markus74]

Acting: the fact that Quantum theory describes such things on a very 'deep' level doesn't mean that it effects our reality up here.

My hand is NOT phasing in and out right now. It's solidly before me (even if at a microscopic level there may be things happening that contradict this). Quantum physics doesn't alter our traditional physics.

And you cannot just create things out of thin air. That's just not possible. Quantum mechanics or not.

[Royce_aus]

Has anyone seen the prestige lately?
I just remembered how it explains how the appeal of magic is in not understanding. I believe thats true and so perhaps there's only irritation here because on one level we ask to see magic but on the other level we ask to understand how it happened which cancels out/dispels the original effect of magic.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Wolf's view is that my consciousness is your consciousness is one consciousness ultimately, that is, all our consciousnesses are one consciousness, otherwise the universe cannot exist. This is a logical (ie inevitable) proof arising out of a few basic assumptions like:

(a) the universe does exist
(b) matter is composed of subatomic particles

All the posters here have created a fun read!

Yeah, I have that view you wrote and have subjective experiences of the one consciousness - and to say more/reiterate now. In our normal ego illusionary seperative objective world we each have our own consciousness as part of the maya of the fall from Eden. This physical world is in our face and exists to the degree we have our senses to witness what we have come to belive it to be or come to intend to experience "things" (objectivety). Like some sort of feedback that constantly reinforces my ego and my this and that. But also, the whole physcial world we sense is imbued with everything being connected and is one consciousness. How could it not be? How can anything exist or be sensed by consciousness without it being connected? Isn't that what consciousness is - being connected (one with everything) and able to reflect (sense) on that connection?

I'm not sure why it makes senses to me. Maybe I've read things link Acting has posted (one I remember was the Tao of Physics) as well as some college exposure to Bohr, Einstein, Newton etc... I sometimes wonder about that idea that this physical world is an illusion and the real world is that "all is one" stuff - that maybe it's the other way around. This physical world is "real" and the "all is one" is an illusion. After all the physcial world is presistant enough that my toe hurts when I stub it. I (my eog me) is a big conglumeration of a bunch of energy particles that when we try to observe what we are made of, it gets tricky to identify as the physists are struggling with quantum and duality observations. So there's this bunch of stable particles/waves/energy that generate and regenerate to be "me" in this seperative/ego world is an illusion. But how is that a useful though or belief? Or does it even matter to believe that the physcial world is illusion? I guess this IM/LoA stuff tries to reconcile or relate this physical world of illusion with the subjective "all is one" truth and tries to give us some way of looking at why we experience anything at all. I mean, with IM one of the first things to fire off in my head was, oh, so I am intending to have a body and senses to experience this physical universe. I didn't have to experement to see something manifest since I'm getting what I am anyway, every moment. I'm slowly absorbing what LoA is in hopes of being more deliberate - I don't know how magical I want to be with it, i.e. manifest out of thin air or levitate or perform miricles. And I don't want to spend time/energy trying to decide if I believe thin air manifestation is possible.

Anyway, having this physical world to play in is awesome and very, very, very magical without having to manifest something out of thin air. Actually, every moment your body is still here again in this moment is amazing like crazy - each of us apprenetly are able to remanifest our bodies and everything we see over and over again for each moment that is right now. And that we can look at it and such is awesome - produces awe. Isn't that magical enough?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

My hand is NOT phasing in and out right now. It's solidly before me (even if at a microscopic level there may be things happening that contradict this). Quantum physics doesn't alter our traditional physics.

You are fundamentally wrong. Your hand IS phasing in and out right now. EVERYTHING is phasing in and out right now.

That is why Niels Bohr says things - "If you are not astounded by quantum physics, then you do not understand quantim physics."

You THINK you are sitting on a CHAIR right now.

Actually, the chair is a bunch of subatomic particles popping in and out of the universe.

YOU are a bunch of subatomic particles popping in and out of the universe.

You and the chair are made up of exactly the same kinds of subatomic particles.

In fact, there is no clearly defined field between YOU and the chair, or any other object in your room right now.

Furthermore YOU are moving at vast speeds. So is your chair.

That's because the subatomic particles that comprise you and the chair are moving at the speed of light, possibly faster.

Your subatomic particles move in different directions. That's why you are phasing in and out.

You're here, and you're not here.

Sometimes you are pure wave (with a tendency to spread out, like a radio wave.).

Sometimes you are a particle (and your location can be calculated and determined. If you're in motion, you stay in motion in a straight line until other forces like friction or gravity act on you).

Now here's the fun part.

Until you are observed, you are both wave and particle (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Another way to look at it is that until you're observed, you're neither.

That's why Einstein says, "Reality is an illusion".

You don't exist, until you're observed.

Observation implies consciousness. Consciousness implies thought. Change your thoughts, and .............

I really suggest you try reading up a little on your own about quantum physics.

So you want to be scientific. Let's talk science now, Markus. Are you wave or particle?

[Acting Like Godot]

To help you understand why you think your hand is solid, it is helpful to compare yourself to a snail.

A snail has a much slower nervous system than us. Suppose you put a red flower right in front of a snail. It sees the red flower. You then take the flower away for two seconds. Next, you put the flower back in front of the snail.

Because the snail's nervous system is so slow, its perception of reality is that the red flower had been there all along. It cannot tell that the red flower had appeared, disappeared and reappeared.

That's basically why you think your hand is solid. It has disappeared, appeared, reappeared, disappeared, reappeared - but you cannot tell. Your nervous system is too slow.

----

I am going to walk you through it one more time:

1. All material things are made up of atoms
2. Atoms are composed of subatomic particles moving at vast speed through huge empty spaces (atoms are mostly empty)
3. Subatomic particles are not material things. They are fluctuations of energy in a huge void.
4. Subatomic particles flicker in and out of existence depending on whether you are observing them or not.
5. Before you decide to observe them, they are probability amplitudes in a field of infinite possibilities (they are neither wave or particle but possess the potential to be either).
6. When you decide to observe them, they turn into spacetime events (occupying a particular space at a particular time) known as particles, and manifest as matter.

Note: Point 6 is for matter (like your chair). For other things like radio signals or light, the act of observation may not turn them into matter. The act of observation may instead turn them into waves. It also depends on how you observe them. For example, depending on the type of experiment you do, light may appear to be wave, or may appear to be particle.

7. Your brain is flickering in and out of existence at the speed of light.

8. Your nervous system cannot process quantum events (movement of subatomic particles) at the speed they are really happening.

9. Therefore your nervous system decodes the quantum events and perceives them as solid three-dimensional material bodies.

10. The snail is even slower than you. That's why it thinks the red flower has been there all along, even though you had placed the flower, removed the flower and put it back again.

11. When you observe the quantum movements of the universe, it "solidifies" into matter.

12. If you do not observe it, it does not exist. It could be wave or particle.

You therefore have created all the matter that you have ever seen. Your hand, your body, the snail, the red flower, your computer, your mother etc. If you had no consciousness, they would cease to exist (they would still however possess the potential to become either wave or particle.)

What would you like to do with your consciousness today?

Consciousness is for observation. Change your consciousness, and your observation changes. Change your observation and reality changes. How do you know you're not a snail?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Quantum physics doesn't alter our traditional physics.

It does not. It seems frightening to think so, but quantum physics is fully consistent with Newtonian physics (or "traditional" physics, as you put it). In fact quantum physics developed mainly out of attempts to explain certain peculiarities in Newtonian physics.

This may be helpful:

2. Some Basic Ideas about Quantum Mechanics

Until the closing decades of the last century the physical world, as studied by experiment, could be explained according to the principles of classical (or Newtonian) mechanics: the physics of everyday life. By the turn of the century, however, the cracks were beginning to show and the disciplines of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were developed to account for them. Relativity came first, and described the physics of very massive and very fast objects, then came Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's to describe the physics of very small objects.

Neither of these theories provide an easy intuitive picture of the world, since they contradict the predictions of familiar Newtonian Mechanics in the regimes for which they were developed. Nevertheless, both schemes reproduce the Newtonian results when applied to the everyday world. In seeking to understand the physics of semiconductors at an atomic level we must start from a Quantum Mechanical viewpoint, since the entities with which we will be dealing (electrons, atoms, etc) are so very small....

.........

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It does not. It seems frightening to think so, but quantum physics is fully consistent with Newtonian physics (or "traditional" physics, as you put it). In fact quantum physics developed mainly out of attempts to explain certain peculiarities in Newtonian physics.

I don't think it's frightening at all. Because it doesn't really matter on our level.

Your hand is your hand. And it has five fingers. And you cannot change that and create a 6th finger, for example, just by thinking about it. Doesn't work. The same for all the other magical claims. Doesn't work since they're against the Newtonian laws.

The World, and Existence itself, maybe something amazing, weird and even in a sense 'surreal', but the laws of Newtonian physics apply to us. All the time. It's just the way it is.

[Acting Like Godot]

In other words, it cannot be done because it cannot be done, and you have no other reasons.

Whatever you cannot understand is magical, and whatever is magical is impossible, and whatever you believe is impossible is impossible.

It's true. LOA says so. Whatever you believe is impossible is impossible.

If you did have a sixth finger, by the way, it would be composed of the same kinds of subatomic particles which currently inhibit that space next to your five fingers.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It's true. LOA says so. Whatever you believe is impossible is impossible.

See, that's the clever thing about LOA and SR, they cannot be proven wrong!

Everything IS possible. The theory is ALWAYS RIGHT. And if it isn't, then it's YOUR fault, because you didn't believe it in the first place and the theory can never been wrong.

That's such a silly and naive concept. If the LOA and SR were right, then this would be obvious to everyone. And people like you could give real examples of things happening that people like me would call magic. But you can't. All your examples can be rationally explained (if you've got evidence for those examples at all in the first place).

[impaul99]

I really am starting to wonder about the value these threads are bringing to us besides just taking up our time. I mean, there are a few skeptics here who don't believe that IM or LoA is anything more than wishful thinking and that there is no such thing as manifesting anything because it would break the laws of science. The laws of science they hang on to are the old laws of science that have been around for hundreds of years. The science you can observe with your eyes, touch with your hands, and reproduce at home or at a small lab in high-school. Anything outside of that is being discounted because it can't be seen with the bare eyes.

What I don't understand is why are these skeptics here in these forums on Steve Pavlina's site? Are they looking to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and LoA and IM doesn't work? Anyone that's successfully manifested things in life will never go down that path so it's a bit of a waste of time.

There are countless examples of people who have had great success in life and have done it using LoA and IM. There are countless examples of people on this very forum who have had great success with LoA and IM. The process by which to do it has been explained numerous times, explained and re-explained.

I really don't understand why we're even discussing this if the skeptics point of view is "The same for all the other magical claims. Doesn't work since they're against the Newtonian laws." for example. There are countless examples in science today, being reported in scientific journals TODAY which can't be explained by Newtonian laws. Quantum Leaps don't obey Newtonian laws. One instant the particle is here, the next it's in a higher orbit without being in between.

It's like saying you can't divide a number by zero. I mean sure they teach us that in highschool, but when we get to Calculus they tell us that you actually CAN divide by zero, we just weren't ready to learn that yet.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound negative, I'm just a bit confused as to what is it exactly that the skeptics want from us here? If the only thing you're looking for is for all of us on here to admit to you that we're all wrong and we've been convinced by you once and for all that LoA doesn't work, so that you can go back to living your life as normal without having to wonder *IF* this LoA thing is actually possible, it's not going to happen.

If you're asking for help to get LoA working for you, that we can do, but not if you're not first open to the possibility that there is something more out there than you already know right now. If you already know everything, we can't help you.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Markus74

That's such a silly and naive concept. If the LOA and SR were right, then this would be obvious to everyone. And people like you could give real examples of things happening that people like me would call magic. But you can't. All your examples can be rationally explained (if you've got evidence for those examples at all in the first place).

If your current belief is that nothing magical exists outside of Newtonian laws, then you will manifest nothing magical in your life.

If we could show you something "magical", do you not see that it would actually prove us wrong instead of right? It would mean that you manifested something magical into your life while not believing in anything magical.

Until you are at least neutral about magical things, believing "Maybe they exist, maybe they don't, I don't know." nothing will ever be seen by your eyes that proves to you magic.

My only question to you then is if you believe in nothing magical, that nothing can exist outside the rules of newtonian science, why are you asking about LoA and IM on these forums? Why don't you just say to yourself "These people are dellusional." and save your breath. I really don't understand what you're intending to accomplish?

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by impaul99

There are countless examples of people who have had great success in life and have done it using LoA and IM. There are countless examples of people on this very forum who have had great success with LoA and IM. The process by which to do it has been explained numerous times, explained and re-explained.

And yet all of their success can be explained rationally. And none of those successes involve coins just appearing out of thin air or remote-controlling people. I'm not against the motivational aspects of the LOA and IM. But the magical claims are bogus, especially since they haven't be demonstrated ONCE!

There are countless examples in science today, being reported in scientific journals TODAY which can't be explained by Newtonian laws. Quantum Leaps don't obey Newtonian laws. One instant the particle is here, the next it's in a higher orbit without being in between.

All those examples apply to things on the quantum level. Not on our level. The fact that physics on the quantum level is weird and contradictory doesn't enable you to manifest things out of thin air. Of course you can prove me wrong, I'm waiting.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound negative, I'm just a bit confused as to what is it exactly that the skeptics want from us here?

Somebody has to play the Devil's advocate! Or maybe one of you manifested me here!

If you're asking for help to get LoA working for you, that we can do, but not if you're not first open to the possibility that there is something more out there than you already know right now. If you already know everything, we can't help you.

I've intended something to happen this week. I'm sure it will happen. If not, then the LOA has some explaining to do.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I
If we could show you something "magical", do you not see that it would actually prove us wrong instead of right? It would mean that you manifested something magical into your life while not believing in anything magical.

LOL. So you cannot manifest something if I don't believe in it? Why would I have such powers? And isn't your belief strong enough to counter my skepticism?

Again, you talk so much about how all of this works, even on a magical level. And yet there's no evidence at all for this magic. And yet we're living in the same world. Now if you claim that you do not really exist in my world or vice-versa, then you really seem to be delusional ... since how could that be? We communicate together.

[Acting Like Godot]

Markus doesn't know it, but nothing in LOA actually violates Newtonian physics either. How could LOA violate Newtonian physics? It doesn't even violate quantum physics (in fact it can arguably be said to draw support from quantum physics), and quantum physics developed to solve the difficulties of Newtonian physics.

Newtonian physics is stuff like:

v = u + at
F= ma
S = ut + 1/2 at square
Law of Inertia
Law of Conservation of Energy etc

Which of these laws does LOA violate? I can't see it. Suppose I think to myself, "I want a parking lot. I want a parking lot" and a parking lot appears. Which Newtonian law is violated? None. Suppose I think to myself, "I will meet someone special today, I will meet someone special today," and I do. Which Newtonian law is violated? None.

What Markus means, when he says that LOA violates physics, is that LOA violates reality as he perceives it to be. He then calls on science to justify his perception of reality. When I explain what science really says about reality, Markus discovers that reality as described by science is far, far from reality as perceived by Markus.

But he will still cling on to his perception. No basis, no logic, oh never mind.

He cannot accept LOA because it cannot be proven wrong. But if it is proven wrong, why would Markus or anyone else, for that matter, want to accept it?

Whatever he believes is not possible, he considers to be magic. Then he says, "Aha, magic is not possible."

He runs so many circles around himself I think he'll get giddy soon.

---------

By the way, when we think, the brain has electrical impulses. If thoughts are electricity, or thoughts produce electricity, then thoughts are energy, or thoughts produce energy.

Either way, energy cannot be destroyed (Law of Conservation of Energy). It can only be transformed from one state to another.

So when you think your thoughts, energy is produced, and it's indestructible. It has to go somewhere, and it can change from one state to another. This is Newtonian physics.

After you thought your thoughts, where did they, or their energy, go? What did they, or their energy, transform to?

How did your thoughts affect reality?

Never forget that energy can carry highly detailed information. Radio waves, for example, are all around us. That's energy. We can't see radio waves, we can't feel them. Turn on a radio, however, and you can get highly detailed information about the stock markets today; the weather forecast, as well as plenty of music.

When I think thoughts about a car park lot, that's one kind of thought. When I think thoughts about a cup of coffee, that's another kind of thought. The two thoughts are qualitatively different. We know this for ourselves - it's experiential. The information encoded in our thoughts must therefore be different.

And if thoughts affect reality ............ how do different thoughts affect reality differently?

[Acting Like Godot]

This discussion has just helped me to understand something about physics better. Thank you, Markus.

Essentially, Newtonian physics allows us to predict the movement of objects.

Let's say I kick a ball on a soccer field. Given sufficient information, eg the force of my kick; the wind resistance; the weight of the ball; the angle of elevation at the time of takeoff; and the gravitational force, I can calculate exactly how far the ball will move, how fast it will travel, where it will land etc.

Let's say I now take a stroll on the soccer field. There is no way Newtonian physics can calculate how far I will move, how fast I will travel, where I will finish my stroll etc. Because I may turn left if I feel like it, I may turn right if I feel like it, I may pause to rest, I may run, then stroll.

What is the difference between the ball and me? Actually at the subatomic level, we are made of the same wave-particles popping in and out of existence. Quantum physics, however, tells us that observation affects the behaviour of the wave-particles. Observation implies consciousness.

The reason why I move differently from a soccer ball on the field is that I have consciousness, and my consciousness has been applied to that collection of subatomic particles which I perceive to be my body. So in spacetime terms, if my consciousness decides to make this collection of subatomic particles turn left, they will. If my consciousness decides to make this collection of subatomic particles turn right, they will.

And if my consciousness could train itself to observe the subatomic particles comprising the ball in the same way that it has trained itself to observe the subatomic particles comprising my body, then .......

....... just like Nina Kulagina, I could do levitation with the ball.

Who are the experts at consciousness? The yogis. No wonder they are scientifically found to be able to do very strange things like these:

The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation Chapter 1

[Markus74]

Acting:

I'm still waiting for evidence that support your magical claims. Manifest something out of thin air! And call the BBC or CNN beforehand!

Now that would be cool. Everything else you're babbling isn't addressing this: YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO MANIFEST ANYTHING PHYSICAL OUT OF THIN AIR. But you should be able to do that, if you're right. You've just to believe it. Well, then believe it and show us!

[Markus74]

Or levitate. Teleport yourself. Turn the sun blue. etc.

So many possibilities. You should be able to do one of these?

[Acting Like Godot]

You see, what really troubles you is the cause-&-effect idea. You cannot understand how a person thinking thoughts in one place could possibly cause something to happen in another place.

In physics, this is called the principle of locality. It can be stated as follows - "distant objects cannot have direct influence on one another: an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings."

The thing is - the principle of locality has already been rejected by quantum physicists. After carefully studying the behaviour of subatomic particles (which all matter is ultimately built on), quantum physicists have concluded that either

(a) the principle of locality is true AND multiple universes exist; OR
(b) the principle of locality is not true.

So you either have to accept that:

(1) there could be multiple universes (and in each different universe, a different person gets to win first prize in the lottery);

OR you have to accept that:

(2) there is only one universe that keeps blinking in and out of existence, AND the principle of nonlocality applies (eg a person sitting faraway from the lottery spinning machine can nevertheless affect the lottery spinning macine with his thoughts).

In either scenario, LOA can hold true. It's fairly obvious that LOA would hold true in (2) - but let me explain how it would hold true in (1).

Suppose 200 people think thoughts about winning the first prize in the lottery prize but only one person can win. Ah, but that would be on a per-universe basis. According to Hugh Everett (a theoretical physicist, not a spiritual quack) what would happen is that the universe would divide into 200 universes, and in each universe, a different person would win first prize.

-----------

Let me explain why Nobel Prize winning physicist David Bohm thinks that the principle of locality is untrue.

We already know that our friendly sub-atomic particle (let's call it a wave-particle) can exist as a wave or as a particle, but that until it is observed, it is neither. When we observe it, we can ask the question:

(1) "where is it?" (and once you do that, you fix its position and therefore it becomes a particle)

OR we can ask the question:

(2) "what its its momentum" (and once you do that, you've decided that momentum is the critical factor - therefore it becomes a wave).

But you cannot ask both questions, because it cannot be a wave or a particle at the same time.

Now imagine that we have TWO identical wave-particles A & B that are shot off in opposite directions. What happens if we ask about the location of A and ask about the momentum of B? Bear in mind that the particles are identical, so whatever calculation for one will hold true for the other.

Then, knowing the location of A simultaneously tells us the location of B, and collapses B into a particle.
that they fly off in opposite directions. After 3 seconds, we decide to observe A.

And this has been confirmed both mathematically AND experimentally. This is known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment.

In other words, there is some nonlocal connection between A and B. These two particles are far apart - in fact, they are travelling at tremendous speed further and further away from each other - yet when you do something to A, the very nature of B changes as well.

So what happens to A can drastically affect B, even though they are far, far apart and travelling at around the speed of light - away from each other. It's as if the particles are communicating with each other - "Hey, A, are you a wave or a particle now? You're a particle? Okay, I'll turn into a particle too!"

So what we have is practically two sub-atomic particles talking to each other, and they aren't even in the same place.

So now you understand why a man sitting in a room thinking thoughts to himself could possibly affect a lottery spinning machine in the next building.

Don't forget, the man is made of sub-atomic particles. He's blinking in and out of existence and travelling at the speed of light. It doesn't really take him very long for his subatomic particles to get to the next building.

And don't forget - the spinning machine doesn't exist unless it's observed. That's Bohm again. Nothing is real unless it's observed. Observation implies consciousness. If the man turns his consciousness onto the machine in the next building - what happens next?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Or levitate.

You see, at the quantum physical level, everything is blinking in and out of existence.

I could stand on the ground and air could be above my head.

Or I could rise above the ground and air would be below my feet.

Both possibilities are equally easy or equally difficult at the quantum physical level. Air and my body are made of the same subatomic particles. The air and I are blinking in and out of existence ay the same time.

----------

When you watch movies like The Matrix or The Fight Club, do try to understand that such movies did not inspire quantum physics. Quantum physics inspired such movies.

What power lies in these funny little subatomic particles. You'd think that they're almost unreal, just a kind of mental puzzle. Yet Bohm's research into their nature eventually led to the invention of relatively tiny atomic bombs that destroyed the whole of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's how real they are.

You'd say that it's not possible to destroy entire cities with a few small pieces of rock. To you, that's magical too. And therefore not possible.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You see, at the quantum physical level, everything is blinking in and out of existence.

So? That doesn't have an effect on our Newtonian, rational world.

Or I could rise above the ground and air would be below my feet.

Ok, then do it. And film yourself. I'm curious.

Both possibilities are equally easy or equally difficult at the quantum physical level. Air and my body are made of the same subatomic particles. The air and I are blinking in and out of existence ay the same time.

Then it should be easy for you to levitate and show us.

You'd say that it's not possible to destroy entire cities with a few small pieces of rock. To you, that's magical too. And therefore not possible.

Wrong. That's applied physics.

Your magical claims are just that: magical.

I'm still waiting for you to show me any impact of quantum physics in our 'traditional world'. I've still not seen anything that would contradict Newtonian Laws. But, according to you, this should be a piece of cake. So, show me some magic stuff!

[impaul99]

What Marcus is really trying to say is this:

1) IF LoA actually works, then someone who's really good at it please call Larry King Live, get on the show and show us all how to manifest instant cash right there on the show. Make it blink into existance. Then, bring in a few dozen completely respectable scientists to confirm that it actually happened.

2) Sort out the reprecussions of this discovery in society while I wait on the side lines for my new, better world, to organize itself. Just to be absolutely positive that this isn't some TV hoax, send a few scientists over to my house to demonstrate how I can make stuff appear out of thin air as well and then leave me alone for a few days to manifest all kinds of amazing things for myself to play with.

3) Call me once a week and ask me if I'm bored of manifesting everything and playing with everything. If I am bored, send the scientists back to explain to me now the real meaning of life, why we even exist if we can make things appear and disappear. What's the purpose of life then? Who created this world? Where does God fit in if he exists.

4) Send me the person responsible for keeping me in the dark on this all my life so I can manifest a punishment for him/her for all the turmoil I experienced during my life until the point where I was finally show that LoA truly works.

5) Then, if I don't really like the real meaning of life, the whole purpose of existance, then give me the opportunity to go back in time to the point in time before LoA was proven to me so that I can live out the rest of my life in ignorance.

Basically, in the movie The Matrix terms, he wants to be awakened, shown that the Matrix is fake, then sent back to the Matrix to now play with all the cool superpowers he has within it. Then, once he's bored of playing INSIDE the Matrix, playing with every toy imaginable, making love to every beautiful woman imaginable etc. then wake him up again to the "real world" and tell him what is the meaning of the whole world, and then if he doesn't like the truth, send him back INTO the Matrix erasing his memory of what transpired so he can believe the Matrix to be real, but also make him super rich this time so he can still be a God in a world of peons.

I think that more or less sums it up probably, right?

[wolfgang]

Hey, come on! How many of you actually think you can materialize something out of thin air?

"It's only that you don't belive" - hmmm... I can almost buy that but in a way that I choose that as to not have to worry about all the little details and things and objects around me morphing around into whatever whimsical thought I may have. Good thing my chair is still underneath me despite my day dream about a motorcycle ride! It's not going to be possible to unbelieve physical matter too much but what are the boundaries really? And that's what started this thread - what's possible to manifest? (I think it was) We all must have decided to let matter and our senses have some sort of continueity so that we could experience something stable.

is-your-mind-resisting-the-law-of-attraction/trackback/ Interesting...

[impaul99]

I believe materializing something out of thin air is possible. I do not yet choose to allow myself to see it happen right in front of my eyes, so it often happens to me when I'm out of the room, but I do believe it is possible.

I'll give you one example, that I know Marcus will just dismiss as Co-Incidence, but I'll explain to you anyway.

I was reading this forum on Sunday morning and Godot was talking about synchronistic events and said "If you want a more surprising example of synchronicity, you can click on my Wikipedia link and read the plum pudding story."

As soon as I read that sentence my mind had these thoughts:
"Plum pudding? What the heck is that? I've never heard of plum pudding, I wonder if it's like pudding but flavored like plums. I like plum jam so I wonder what plum pudding would taste like. I want to try it."

While thinking these thoughts, my wife called me downstairs as we were just leaving the house. I went downstairs and started to put my shoes on when she remembered she forgot her purse and cell phone upstairs. Since I hadn't put my shoes on yet I ran upstairs to get her purse. I couldn't find it where she thought she left it so I told her that and she told me to check on the dining room table. I went to the dining room and grabbed her purse. Right beside her purse on the table was a red packaged PLUM PUDDING sitting right there. I paused for a moment in astonishment, but since I've done this kind of instant manifestation so many times already it didn't surprise me as much as it used to.

I went downstairs and asked her where the plum pudding came from and she said "Oh, my mom dropped it off cuz grandpa gave it to her to give to us."

Now... 1) I never heard of plum pudding until Sunday. 2) Within 2-3 minutes of hearing the world Plum Pudding for the first time and thinking "I want to try it." it appears on my dining room table. To me, that's instant manifestation. To Marcus, that's co-incidence. His logical explanation is that grandpa gave it to my mother in law who dropped it off that day and I just didn't know about it. My explanation is that it didn't exist until I manifested it and it appeared on the dining room table. Along with the manifestation of it, however, I also manifested a reasonable explanation for it's appearance so that my ego can continue to live it's life the way it does.

I have done this type of thing many, many times and even when I go for lunch with my brothers I sometimes freak the hell out of them by creating synchronistic events that they have a hard time dismissing as co-incidence.

Once again, I'll repeat myself. Nothing will ever PROVE to you guys that these events are being created by you as opposed to simple co-incidence until you start doing them yourself. The difference between co-incidence (non spiritual, totally explainable) and synchronicity (spiritual, physical law defying stuff) is simply the degree of probability between the two.

If you think of a friend and he calls you 5 minutes later, that's an interesting co-incidence but the chances of it happening are like 1 in a hundred lets say which is explainable. Once you start creating co-incidence's that are like 1 in a million chance or 1 in a billion chance, things start to change in your mind, however it ONLY works if YOU create them and YOU experience them. If a 1 in a trillion chance co-incidence happened to me and I explained it here, you guys would all just think I left out details or added something in or simply lied to make it sound more incredible. If it happens to you, it's a lot harder to deny. If it happens to you all the time, it's impossible to ignore.

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

I understand that I am living in subjective reality, I have had visions coiciding with body feelings, realizing I am all the things in my field of view and there is a higher self who is wearing a mask of this reality anyways who are the people in my reality, fake? Do they lead there own lives even when I can't see them?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by impaul99

His logical explanation is that grandpa gave it to my mother in law who dropped it off that day and I just didn't know about it. My explanation is that it didn't exist until I manifested it and it appeared on the dining room table. Along with the manifestation of it, however, I also manifested a reasonable explanation for it's appearance so that my ego can continue to live it's life the way it does.

Interesting take that the manifestation stays in line with what the ego can accept, or what seems to be regularly possible in this mostly Newtonian world. I like your story of how it goes for you, thank you.

A little synchonicity I had once after seeing The Doors movie with a gf. She had always been a Doors nut, even in her family name (Morrison) but we watched that movie and were very involved and glued to the story of their lives and we talked about it alot and were generating feelings around thinking about what it was like for that band. So we were highly focused on the Doors and emotionally charged too. Then we took a ride and started being goofy: "Jim if you can hear us, send us a message" and other outrageous things. Then we freaked out because "Break on Through (to the Other Side)" came on the radio! That was fun!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by DoAnyOfYouExist

I understand that I am living in subjective reality, I have had visions coiciding with body feelings, realizing I am all the things in my field of view and there is a higher self who is wearing a mask of this reality anyways who are the people in my reality, fake? Do they lead there own lives even when I can't see them?

Yeah, I've had and get into those feelings of "being one with everything" - or at least approaching that as a no-boundary feeling that I'm just just this body, tunning in and expanding my awerness to be more encompassing. With meditation or sports or love making or music playing/dancing, but not regularly. Who am I? I'm another self conscious manifestation from the basic oneness that you are from too! Even if it is an illusion of some kind, I'm as fake or as real as you. And I have a whole independant life. Does your mother still exist (as long as she's alive) if you don't talk to her everyday?