Advanced LOA proof and practice.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

Your theories and all the theories in the universe does not change the REALITY that just because you are not observing matter does not mean it does not exist. This is the same byproduct that drives all religeous fanatics, wanting to believe in something because of the fear of death.

Yes, I think that is right, certainly a large part of it. We fear death, we fear our lack of power in the universe, we fear our lack of knowledge...and retreat into simple formulae that make us immortal, powerful, knowledgable and the chosen ones. Then there are all the other advantages - lording it over the plebs, preaching to them, keeping them in line and selling them lots of magic potions and beads, having them build you temples or buy your personal development CDs. We can also look down on the out-group, the unchosen ones, pity them in their ignorance, or just slaughter them in their millions. (The last bit doesn't quite relate to the LoA religion just yet; just give it a couple of hundred years.)

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If everything is perception, then there is no Objective/Absolute truth. But if we are claiming that everything is a perception, then that is an absolute truth, and now we have a paradox.

Well said. And on a related note...

I've had talks like this many times before, with people who quote even more sources and go into more detail than ALG (who seems to do it more than anyone else on this particular forum).

One side of the paradox alone is allowed to prevail when 'sources' are quoted to support the view that there is no absolute truth. It's like we have a black box, and the master is saying "It does not matter what I bring out of the box - it will be purely relative, purely imaginary; it is just in my mind: look - here is a document by someone very clever indeed saying that everything is relative and only in my head!". Strangely, when you suggest that their whole 'imaginary worldview' might just be their overactive imagination and wishful thinking, they don't like it. They demand that everyone else be as inconstant as them.

The objective world - although in the final analysis perhaps out of our human ken - is investigable when we work together and use the rigorous methods of empiricism to get rid of those personal biases. At least, we discover enough that is right for us to make predictions that come true again and again, developing laws of physics from them. Our discovery of these is almost entirely what has allowed us to evolve from stick-wielding scavengers on an African plain to global citizens engaging in electronic discussion and pouring over the latest photographs of galaxies forming billions of light-years away, taken by orbiting telescopes.

Of course, we can deny evolution, Hubble, Africa, the laws of physics, distant galaxies, etc., etc., or demand that they have only imaginary existence in their heads, but to appeal to 'sources' that supposedly prove the matter is just another level of delusion. If it's all in your head, then so are your sources, and they are worthless outside of your head. Just stay there inside it. No problem.

[luckyluciano]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Yes, I think that is right, certainly a large part of it. We fear death, we fear our lack of power in the universe, we fear our lack of knowledge...and retreat into simple formulae that make us immortal, powerful, knowledgable and the chosen ones. Then there are all the other advantages - lording it over the plebs, preaching to them, keeping them in line and selling them lots of magic potions and beads, having them build you temples or buy your personal development CDs. We can also look down on the out-group, the unchosen ones, pity them in their ignorance, or just slaughter them in their millions. (The last bit doesn't quite relate to the LoA religion just yet; just give it a couple of hundred years.)

I do not believe that "matter does not exist unless it is observed." I think this is absurd and obvious unless you are delusional. I do believe in the LOA however. I can only say I have observed it working in my life and the life of others therefore I believe. I know many successful people ( as far as my definition of success) who use this LAW with astonishing results. I also know & observe many unsuccessful people (what I consider unsuccessful) use the LAW with astonishing success, therefore they are quit successful in the use of LOA.

Lucky

[Judge]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

I do not believe that "matter does not exist unless it is observed." I think this is absurd and obvious unless you are delusional.

Then that will be true for you.

If one thing outside of your awareness can exist, then it would follow that every other possible thing could exist, determined by rules and laws that you may also not know exist.

While that could be true, as I can't prove it, then it could be wrong. So I try to focus I what I seem to know for sure and that is only and ever always this present moment.

But I could be wrong of course

Judge

[Angela]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

I think this is absurd and obvious unless you are delusional.

Hey, that's just the kind of thing people are often saying about the Spinning Ballerina.

"Nu-uh!" they say. It's the program making it appear to spin, YOU can't make it appear to spin with your mind, that is absurd and if you believe you can you are obviously delusional!

[Acting Like Godot]

Yup ... Normally, people will argue about whether the lady is spinning to the left, or spinning to the right.

Then suddenly some of them will realise that they can actually control whether the lady spins left or right, and they realise that they can make her switch directions at will.

Then other people will say that the above people are crazy. Then they will get into an angry fight. Someone will try to decipher the computer program. Someone else will ask his friend to stand beside him and simultaneously peer at the screen. Other people will blink their eyes rapidly at the image or do other weird things.

Finally, around this point, I will point out that in fact all these people are looking at a flat computer screen. The lady is flat. In that sense, the lady is neither spinning left or right. You cannot spin in 2D.

All the lady is, is black dots appearing and disappearing on your screen. Essentially, she's quite similar to how reality is merely subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence. The reality of her spinning (left OR right) depends on your perception.

As does reality in general.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, that's just the kind of thing people are often saying about the Spinning Ballerina.

"Nu-uh!" they say. It's the program making it appear to spin, YOU can't make it appear to spin with your mind, that is absurd and if you believe you can you are obviously delusional!

Hi Angela, but don't you see it another way too? You can't, in fact, make it appear to spin with your mind. If the program stopped, it would stop the illusion of movement altogether. You can to some extent deliberately choose to see her rotating one way or the other, and even that seems to be not completely under your control, but you can't make it something it isn't, and we still haven't come to the really significant part - the word at the end of the url is 'illusion'. Don't you see what that means - you and I as human beings who can do science and test theories can actually tell precisely what this strange phenomenon is (admittedly only as far as certain limits perhaps, and long before the quantum level). It is a 2D animation in black and white, which our evolved brains can't help but interpret as some representation of a person moving, and moving in 3D.

While it is running, the opposite is true: you can't NOT make it appear to spin with your mind. No indication to you there that there might be something called physical reality independent of your mind? Can you make it into a sword-swallowing pink unicorn riding a motocycle? Maybe you can just imagine one of those and pretend you turned the ballerina into it. Can you take her out of her imaginary third dimension, have her climb out the computer and fix you a nice fat spliff perhaps? Can I **** her and will our kids be pretty?

I give up.

[Asmoday]

A question about the double-slit experiment:

Is it possible that the "observation device", which I am assuming would have to emit some sort of particle stream, which would bounce off the electrons and bouce back to something which registers the returning detector-particles, in order to detect which slit the particles would enter, could have influenced the particles in such a manner as to restabilize them, and force them to act like "marbles"?

In this sense, the act of observation isn't so much an act of consciousness, but an act of nature.

Just a curiosity question -- definitely an LoA type guy.

[Wax Frog]

Those with limber minds will even see her do alternating half-turns! ---> <---

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

Your theories and all the theories in the universe does not change the REALITY that just because you are not observing matter does not mean it does not exist. This is the same byproduct that drives all religeous fanatics, wanting to believe in something because of the fear of death.

You're not quite following the discussion. Do refer to post 117. The one where I wrote: "It's important to appreciate that neither the "consciousness causes collapse" theory nor the Copenhagen interpretation are the only available theories in this area. There are a couple of other competing theories, and some of these other theories do not say that any form of consciousness is required."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Can you take her out of her imaginary third dimension, have her climb out the computer and fix you a nice fat spliff perhaps? Can I **** her and will our kids be pretty?

I give up.

I also give up.

I don't understand why moderators send me PMs to say that they will delete my posts in this thread, but tone & language like John's is considered acceptable.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Those with limber minds will even see her do alternating half-turns! ---> <---

Funny you say that -- that's what I do. I 'stop' her from turning her back to me, and 'make' her do alternating half-turns so it looks like she's a can-can dancer. A naked one.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

I do not believe that "matter does not exist unless it is observed." I think this is absurd and obvious unless you are delusional.

Yep .... Delusional ..... Poor chaps, here and here.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

The Reality would have to be whatever was here before I had any shred of existence physically, mentally, spiritually, or in any sense (which may not be possible if I've always existed in some sense, which seems to be what your theory depends on).

Not really. See second quote in Post 16.

Also, some of the terms you have used - "before", "always" - depend on the notion of time. Well, you already know what Einstein said about that.

See, now I'm using that circular logic stuff and discussing something that really has no practical purpose.

There IS a practical purpose for it ... But you got a bit lost in the details. Refer to Post 1 and look for the practical aspects.

Side-question for you ALG, or anyone: Do you guys ever get tired of discussing scientific theories or philosophy?

I do, actually. I'm really much more interested in the practical applications than in all these sorts of discussions.

All this physics stuff DID have a use for me, at an earlier time though. If I had not looked into all this at an earlier time, I don't think I would have convinced myself to really try out the practical applications.

Examples of practical applications here.

So, ALG, ultimately in a discussion, there will be a point where the participants have to go their separate ways, and we probably have come to it. Again.

Yep ... Bye.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

Funny you say that -- that's what I do. I 'stop' her from turning her back to me, and 'make' her do alternating half-turns so it looks like she's a can-can dancer. A naked one.

When it comes to IM, I want to go from can't-can't to can-can, and if it takes an exhibitionist GIF to help me get there...

[Angela]

I just got her pregnant.

[Daffy Duck]

I'm having the hardest time getting her to spin right. She keeps looking like she's spinning left to me.

Maybe if she were naked (in a humanish colored way), I could focus better. Than again, something might still be hard.

[cylon]

She makes a good music video for the song I'm recording/listening to now.
I must be putting her into some kind of of sensual-funky trance.

[luckyluciano]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You're not quite following the discussion. Do refer to post 117. The one where I wrote: "It's important to appreciate that neither the "consciousness causes collapse" theory nor the Copenhagen interpretation are the only available theories in this area. There are a couple of other competing theories, and some of these other theories do not say that any form of consciousness is required."

Forget the theories for a minute. Answer me specifically without a THEORY!

a) On christmas eve our christmas tree fell over in the middle of the night. We were not observing it. Does this mean it did not exist? So it did not fall over? It did not make a loud bang? I did not crush the ornaments?

b)If an American soldier drive near a roadside bomb and does not see it... and it kills him...does the bomb not exist?

I am sure we can go on and on.....

[Acting Like Godot]

I'm not sure it can go on and on. I already answered your questions, and you didn't get it, so there's not much more to say.

Okay let me try again. Broadly speaking, you can divide the physicists into two groups.

The first group of physicists say: The stuff exists, only if observed. The question then arises, who is doing the observation? Not necessarily you. Reread my earlier reply to you.

The second group of physicists say: The stuff exists, without observation. They explain the double-slit experiment in other ways. For example, that particles can affect each other at the speed of light regardless of distance; or that we exist in multiple different dimensions etc.

----

And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much it. The answer, I quite understand, is perplexing, annoying and delusional to you, because it's not what you perceive reality to be.

My four-year-old probably felt as indignant as you now do, when I first explained to him that there are very tiny, invisible living things in our surroundings that can make people sick and make milk go bad. Come to think of it, Louis Pasteur must have gotten a lot of flak too.

But that's science for you. I can't help it if you're not inclined to think scientifically, and keep saying, "Forget the theory! Ignore the theory!" etc etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

I do believe in the LOA however. I can only say I have observed it working in my life and the life of others therefore I believe. I know many successful people ( as far as my definition of success) who use this LAW with astonishing results. I also know & observe many unsuccessful people (what I consider unsuccessful) use the LAW with astonishing success, therefore they are quit successful in the use of LOA.

Good for you. It is, btw, unnecessary to have any beliefs or opinions about quantum physics theories in order to use the LOA very successfully. As a matter of fact, you need not know anything about physics at all, in order to use the LOA successfully.

I daresay for most people on these forums, quantum physics is only relevant to two types of people:

(1) people who are highly logical and scientific and hardworking, and skeptical about the LOA, and will not be persuaded to try it unless they can see some possible scientific support for it. The "hardworking" is a requirement, because it does take some effort to digest the quantum physics ideas.

(2) people who already know from personal experience that the LOA works, but are curious and want to find out more about the possible why's and how's of its working.

But the quantum physics aspects are NOT useful for people who are skeptical about the LOA, and are NOT logical, NOT scientific and NOT hardworking.

In any case, quantum physics is definitely not the only area where one can try to explore, to see and test evidence for the idea that mind affects reality. There are many other places to look, eg medical science; psychology; finance; neuroscience; religion; metaphysics; parapsychology; hypnosis etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

My four-year-old probably felt as indignant as you now do, when I first explained to him that there are very tiny, invisible living things in our surroundings that can make people sick and make milk go bad. Come to think of it, Louis Pasteur must have gotten a lot of flak too.

On further reflection, what really disturbed my little kid was the notion that there are invisible waves passing around and through us all the time and they are what causes the radio to emit music.

Maybe that would alarm Luciano too.

No. It wouldn't. Why? Because the concept of radio waves has already grown in his mind by now. He's quite happy to accept them as part of his reality, and so .... they are.

[luckyluciano]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

On further reflection, what really disturbed my little kid was the notion that there are invisible waves passing around and through us all the time and they are what causes the radio to emit music.

Maybe that would alarm Luciano too.

No. It wouldn't. Why? Because the concept of radio waves has already grown in his mind by now. He's quite happy to accept them as part of his reality, and so .... they are.

You continue to spew out many theories in an attempt to educate us all as though you were one of the few who have heard or read or studied these theories and concepts or thoughts. Have you considered that some of us have touched on, studied or considered them in the past and left them behind long ago. I am sure there are some that find your posts educational, informative or entertaining. But there are some of us that find they ramble on and on and I for one skim over them briefly because of too much verbage and sometimes an air of self righteous superiority which I find annoying.

Many of us do not care only care what so and so scientist/study/physicist/theories say or believe and I'm sure that some here feel confort in them. Many of us want to know what what each of us believe and why. Obviously we already know that there are many different concepts & beliefs theories. Just look at Religion.

So what do you belief GOD and why? Do you really believe that the chair you are sitting on does not exist unless you are looking at it.

P.S. I too had similar discussions with my children re: sub-atomic particles, viruses, radio/micro waves and on and on. You are not the only one. They were not perplexed/disturbed. Maybe you were quoting them a bunch of theories.

Love Lucky

[Angela]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

I for one skim over them briefly because of too much verbage and sometimes an air of self righteous superiority which I find annoying.

That's awesome! Congratulations on looking in the mirror, getting your button pushed, and being presented with an opportunity to have a huge leap in self-understanding! You ARE lucky!

Lots of love,
Angela

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I'm having the hardest time getting her to spin right. She keeps looking like she's spinning left to me.

Maybe if she were naked (in a humanish colored way), I could focus better. Than again, something might still be hard.

Try covering everything from her knees up with your hand, and just watch the bottom part of her legs -- it's easier to "switch" her that way.

I find the image very sensual not just because of her sexy shape, but because when I do the "can-can" mental "switch" on her, I actually *feel* it in my body, as I were the one doing the dancing. I *push* her with the outside of my hip to make her go the other way. For some reason, it kind of turns me on -- focuses my attention on my sexy chakra, or something.

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Try covering everything from her knees up with your hand, and just watch the bottom part of her legs -- it's easier to "switch" her that way.

For me it was helpful to fix my gaze on the text below the image, and then shift my attention mentally to the image which I still see in the upper part of my field of vision. But it keeps popping back when I look directly at it

[Daffy Duck]

Aha, I did it. I was able to get her to turn by just telling myself "she is turning right." Eventually my eyes believed me and I saw her turning to the right. Then I had trouble getting her to turn left again, and then it was like she was turning both ways for a few seconds.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

You continue to spew out many theories in an attempt to educate us all as though you were one of the few who have heard or read or studied these theories and concepts or thoughts. Have you considered that some of us have touched on, studied or considered them in the past and left them behind long ago. I am sure there are some that find your posts educational, informative or entertaining. But there are some of us that find they ramble on and on and I for one skim over them briefly because of too much verbage and sometimes an air of self righteous superiority which I find annoying.

Many of us do not care only care what so and so scientist/study/physicist/theories say or believe and I'm sure that some here feel confort in them. Many of us want to know what what each of us believe and why. Obviously we already know that there are many different concepts & beliefs theories. Just look at Religion.

So what do you belief GOD and why? Do you really believe that the chair you are sitting on does not exist unless you are looking at it.

P.S. I too had similar discussions with my children re: sub-atomic particles, viruses, radio/micro waves and on and on. You are not the only one. They were not perplexed/disturbed. Maybe you were quoting them a bunch of theories.

Love Lucky

You should put him on ignore. It's wonderful.

Originally Posted by Angela

That's awesome! Congratulations on looking in the mirror, getting your button pushed, and being presented with an opportunity to have a huge leap in self-understanding! You ARE lucky!

Lots of love,
Angela

That told you lucky. I bet you feel well enlightened now, put straight and with lots of love too.

This is a new concept to me, a moderator who not only does not take part in the threads she moderates unless needing to do so for disciplinary purposes, but actually takes a biased position and adds insult to injury for someone complaining of the rudeness of another member. Well, not exactly new, I've been on the receiving end of it.

I don't see you jumping in to give the believers similarly patronising put-downs. I noticed ALG could get away with badmouthing me repeatedly without a "Gosh, you are learning a lot from John, aren't you? Look, he's got you all in a tizzy!".

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

This is a new concept to me, a moderator who not only does not take part in the threads she moderates unless needing to do so for disciplinary purposes, but actually takes a biased position and adds insult to injury for someone complaining of the rudeness of another member. Well, not exactly new, I've been on the receiving end of it.

"Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to ME?" Because your description of that non-participating-except-to-disclipline moderator doesn't fit me, and yet you seem to be referring to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can only SEE "discipline" coming from me, much as ALG has described. Maybe you're mad because I haven't replied to your last post addressed to me? I don't know.

But Lucky, in case you buy into John's faulty mind-reading of me, please know that my congratulatory post was not meant to be rude, insulting, or patronizing. It was sincere. In case you've never seen any of my (many!) posts on button-pushers, I believe that when you get a button pushed, like getting annoyed or angry about something someone else says, it's a huge opportunity for personal growth. If you felt neutral about what ALG said, you'd just pass it right by without comment, right? Or maybe you'd respond without getting emotionally reactive. But since you say you find his "too much verbiage and sometimes air of self-righteous indignation" annoying, you have a great place to look boldly at yourself as to why it's occurring for you this way. There are a lot of threads around here where people have done just that -- I call it taking 100% responsibility -- and seen hugely helpful things about themselves that they'd never seen before, things that have them being more effective and powerful in their relationships.

"Annoyed" is one of my favorite flavors of button-pushing, because it's a great signpost without the overwhelming pain of an emotion like, say, outright anger, resentment, or passive-aggression. It's an "easy" one.

I don't see you jumping in to give the believers similarly patronising put-downs. I noticed ALG could get away with badmouthing me repeatedly without a "Gosh, you are learning a lot from John, aren't you? Look, he's got you all in a tizzy!".

I'm not the moderator of this particular (I/M) forum, and I'm glad, because I can't be bothered to read all the lengthy exchanges between you and ALG. From what I've seen, it's pretty much the same old stuff all the time. You two sort of remind me of a couple of old guys at the chess park in front of my apartment, who are still arguing about a girl they both courted 25 years ago, and she's dead now.

I would celebrate with you if either/both of you were able to get beyond this seemingly interminable conversation and reach love, understanding, or even acceptance. But if you want to continue to with your curmudgeonly banter for 25 years, that's okay with me, as long as you don't break the forum rules. The moderator of this forum will keep on eye on your threads, and you (and everyone else) is invited to report posts that you feel break the rules, and the moderators will discuss it and if necessary the administrators will get involved.

(Just for clarity's sake, just because what someone says annoys you, that doesn't mean it qualifies as "rudeness" under forum rules. If in doubt, report it.)

[John Freestone]

Ok, Angela, I'm sorry I thought you were the mod here because of your username being in bold. It must be like that on all the forums even when you're not the mod there. Sorry, that was my mistake. It takes most of the sting out of your post, for me, and it wouldn't be good to mention the exceptions after that mistake. As "just another participant", I don't expect you to maintain an objective position.

It wasn't me you quoted there expressing an opinion about ALG, BTW, but luckyluciano. I did back that up, however, and really if I'm supposed to be ignoring him, I should ignore him properly. So there, I've learned something in that exchange too, besides checking my facts before roasting someone.

JF