Can two people manifest opposing intentions?

[SmartAlx]

What would happen if two people tried to manifest two things that opposed one another? For example, what if two people living on opposite sides if town tried to manifest that their pizza parlor would be the number one place in town? Or what if a boyfriend tried to manifest the opportunity to break up with his girlfriend and his girlfriend tried to manifest a way to strengthen their relationship? How about two competing Olympic athletes trying to manifest getting the gold?

What happens if both of them do everything the same way? Meditate the same way? Visualize success the same way? I know in reality it's not possible for both to do everything exactly the same, but theoretically speaking, what if both of them do everything I-M tells them that they need to do to achieve success?

What will happen in these scenarios? Will both somehow succeed? Will neither succeed? Will a third thing happen? Or will the universe blow up?

[joelr]

The Universe blows up. A little, enough to make 2 more separate realities.

The many-worlds interpretation in Physics is the leading theory of reality.
It doesn't always come out on top in surveys but more than not it does.

The theory is not confirmed but it can be used, and almost has to be used, to speculate how LOA effects reality.

We have seen subatomic particle in two place at the same time, giving a little more evidence for MW.

Jane Roberts/Seth talked about this stuff before it was published and named Many Worlds in ~ 1970 .
The theory came about in 1957 but it was called "Relative State theory" and only published in a journal that publishes Masters/PHD thesis papers from students.
I think Seth's idea in the 1960s called "Probable Realities" did not come directly from mainstream science - which is interesting!

[SmartAlx]

So it is impossible for one reality to contain two opposing manifestations? There can not be a reality in which two Olympic athletes (both expert at I-M) attempt to use I-M to win the gold?

What happens when I-M becomes mainstream and every Olympic athlete uses I-M to win? You all are hoping that I-M becomes mainstream, right?

[Judge]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

What would happen if two people tried to manifest two things that opposed one another?

Here is the anwser.

The Law of Attraction

Judge

[SmartAlx]

Um, thanks Judge, but if the answer to my question was in your link I would never have asked it. The question is there, but the answer is not.

Let me quote some of it.

What happens when people put out conflicting intentions, like two people intending to get the same promotion when only one position is available?

Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about. So what's Steve's answer...

This whole situation is your creation...

...Maybe you have some beliefs (thoughts and intentions) about who will get the promotion, in which case your expectations will manifest...

Well, that's just not true. Not in the slightest! Ever hear of an upset? Something happens that defies everyone's preconceptions!!!

I suppose Steve rationalized that with this...

But you may have a higher order belief that life is random, unfair, uncertain, etc., so in that case you may manifest a surprise because that’s what you’re intending.

Except that in a sporting event, there are perhaps millions of people thinking about the game. And an upset happens when the majority of those people are wrong. What the majority intended did NOT manifest!

So really, Steve's answer is no answer at all. Either case could happen, and you (as the judge) would determine my intention (blame me) after the outcome manifested. It's postdiction, and not very helpful.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

So it is impossible for one reality to contain two opposing manifestations? There can not be a reality in which two Olympic athletes (both expert at I-M) attempt to use I-M to win the gold?

What happens when I-M becomes mainstream and every Olympic athlete uses I-M to win? You all are hoping that I-M becomes mainstream, right?

Well I explained that. Many Worlds involves a continuous branching of new realities. Anyone with an intention to win may actually win but in an alternate reality.

This is also one of the leading explanations of the interference pattern seen in the Double Slit Experiment (Quantum Physics) when a single photon interferes with itself and creates a wave pattern that would normally take at least TWO waves (photons) to make.
It's believed that the photon is interfering with itself. Itself existing in all of the other "probable" worlds.


Even without invoking Many Worlds it's fairly easy to surmise what would happen, the best athlete wins.
If both have intentions laid out to win the stronger intentions wins. If both could possibly be equal then nature does what it always does with energy systems - it chooses at random.


I am impartial concerning mainstream opinion and LOA.

[SmartAlx]

Let's ignore randomness and who is the better athlete for now. It's just an example and I'm interested in the point behind the example, not the example itself.

Originally Posted by joelr

Well I explained that. Many Worlds involves a continuous branching of new realities. Anyone with an intention to win may actually win but in an alternate reality.

So what happened in reality 1, whereby Jorge won the gold? What happened to Arthur? In Jorge's reality Arthur failed, but then in that reality Arthur did not fulfill the circumstances of my question. He failed with I-M.

Same thing goes for reality A, whereby Arthur won the gold. Jorge did not fulfill the circumstances of my question. He did not succeed with I-M.

If both athletes truly are equal, and their usage of I-M is truly equal, in true reality, neither "reality" is possible because that would require that both fail at I-M. So a third party must win the gold, the party that did NOT use I-M. Haha! But then again, both would have to fail at I-M.

Assuming the universe chooses one at random, then one of the athlete's failed, even though he did everything right. The LoA did not work for him.

Now expand that to 6 billion (or more) people. What happens when the entire human species starts to use the LoA to succeed? We are back to square one. The better athlete wins. And if both are athletically equivalent, then the luckier one (the one the universe randomly selects*) wins.

How is that different than a universe without LoA?


*Statisticians agree that there must be lucky and unlucky people.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Let's ignore randomness and who is the better athlete for now. It's just an example and I'm interested in the point behind the example, not the example itself.

So what happened in reality 1, whereby Jorge won the gold? What happened to Arthur? In Jorge's reality Arthur failed, but then in that reality Arthur did not fulfill the circumstances of my question. He failed with I-M.

Same thing goes for reality A, whereby Arthur won the gold. Jorge did not fulfill the circumstances of my question. He did not succeed with I-M.

If both athletes truly are equal, and their usage of I-M is truly equal, in true reality, neither "reality" is possible because that would require that both fail at I-M. So a third party must win the gold, the party that did NOT use I-M. Haha! But then again, both would have to fail at I-M.

Assuming the universe chooses one at random, then one of the athlete's failed, even though he did everything right. The LoA did not work for him.

Now expand that to 6 billion (or more) people. What happens when the entire human species starts to use the LoA to succeed? We are back to square one. The better athlete wins. And if both are athletically equivalent, then the luckier one (the one the universe randomly selects*) wins.

How is that different than a universe without LoA?

The model of probable many worlds I'm using is similar to how nature handles probabilities with any quantum object (and lately this has been seen in macroscopic objects).

For example once an electron attaches to an atom all the possible states are realized. Including a state where the electron falls off the atom and one where it appears "far" from the atom. Even if an impenetrable lead barrier is in the way it doesn't matter. So if event "A" suddenly becomes a probability in your future, all outcomes are realized. Including the option where you do not use IM to influence a particular event or lose the race.
The opposing athlete who may have lesser skill is simply trying to experience a less-likely probability where he wins.

The concept you're not taking into account here is LOA is General not Special. individual events are not as important as you make out. Experiencing general well-being, love, wealth, can come in an unlimited variety. One specific event is meaningless. A LOA practicing silver medalists at the Olympics could easily be living an incredibly fulfilling life in contrast to a Gold medalist. It's not specific-event related. The goal of LOA is to raise your general energy so that over time, outer and inner events lead to experiencing a life in tune with the GENERAL concepts you visualize. The overall pattern leads you to this result.
You don't choose the exact path. If 2 runners are working on manifesting success, the act of losing a race could lead to an infinite variety of better results. You can only see the full picture AFTER you achieve your general goal. Since their are an infinite paths to success no one has to fail. Focusing on a specific event is fine but one of the most important elements - detachment - forbids one to insist on any particular result.

Getting back to the electron, it's constantly "losing" and being destroyed and falling out of orbit. The General pattern however is a very successful and stable system. If you focus on just ONE point in time you may see the electron in a state of complete dis-order. Like focusing on one race.

6 Billion people practicing LOA? No problem. There are an infinite amount of situations, new industries, technologies that could manifest to create a harmonious and productive world.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

*Statisticians agree that there must be lucky and unlucky people.

That's because people are not the same as inanimate objects when speaking statistically. There have already been scientific studies with random number generators that show consciousness can favorably alter probabilities. That can be called luck but it's more of an intrinsic feature of consciousness.

[livewire516]

Let's try this hypothesis. There is no stupid law of attraction. Stop trying to believe the world can be molded by wishful thinking and repeating mantras; save yourselves months of your life and realize that all things are earned by a combination of effort and random luck.

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

What would happen if two people tried to manifest two things that opposed one another? For example, what if two people living on opposite sides if town tried to manifest that their pizza parlor would be the number one place in town? Or what if a boyfriend tried to manifest the opportunity to break up with his girlfriend and his girlfriend tried to manifest a way to strengthen their relationship? How about two competing Olympic athletes trying to manifest getting the gold?

What happens if both of them do everything the same way? Meditate the same way? Visualize success the same way? I know in reality it's not possible for both to do everything exactly the same, but theoretically speaking, what if both of them do everything I-M tells them that they need to do to achieve success?

What will happen in these scenarios? Will both somehow succeed? Will neither succeed? Will a third thing happen? Or will the universe blow up?

For the first paragraph, whoever had the clearest intention would win.

Second paragraph, maybe a tie or they both win rewards.

[Mister Change]

Originally Posted by livewire516

Let's try this hypothesis. There is no stupid law of attraction. Stop trying to believe the world can be molded by wishful thinking and repeating mantras; save yourselves months of your life and realize that all things are earned by a combination of effort and random luck.

Or perhaps we can try this hypothesis: the law of attraction is absolutely real, in the sense that your reality is entirely molded by thoughts and intention. It's not necessarily wishful thinking, though. In this hypothesis, all thoughts shape reality, no matter whether they are good, bad, or neutral.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sold on either hypothesis, although after much personal and ongoing experimentation, I'm leaning in favor of the LOA. There have been far too many coincidences for me to ignore, on both a small and large scale. This is not to say I don't have my doubts, but I'm doing my best to keep an open mind.

I really wanted to respond because of your reference to random luck. When I think of randomness, I tend to think in terms of probability. I've been thinking a lot about the LOA model of reality and the probability of any event occurring at any given moment in time, and if perhaps LOA is a tool that alters these probabilities.

One of any number of possible situations could occur, as long as those situations fit into a set of events that would not "break your reality," a phrase I've seen used by others on this forum. By using the LOA, one could effectively alter probabilities and increase the chances of something happening. So if you've been meditating on finding a boyfriend or girlfriend, and are open to that possibility, then you may find yourself getting "luckier" and meeting more people who are potential partners.

If you had perfect control of your thoughts - in the LOA model - there would be no "luck" at all.

Of course, I am just theorizing and trying to make sense of a reality I don't quite understand.

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by livewire516

Let's try this hypothesis. There is no stupid law of attraction. Stop trying to believe the world can be molded by wishful thinking and repeating mantras; save yourselves months of your life and realize that all things are earned by a combination of effort and random luck.

I stumbled onto this website, and enjoyed a number of posts about self-discipline, independence, and visualization.

But, I have trouble with this LOA stuff.

My view is this: people believe what they want, and what helps them. In spiritual matters, it isn't wise or fair to judge too harshly. Every major religion are a few oddball beliefs, and that doesn't make (in my opinion) the spiritual insights of those religion unhelpful or stupid.

I still get hung up on this, and I have two main concerns about it:

First, is it seems to have a status as half-science-half-belief. I was raised Catholic. The Church has lots of "mysteries." You can debate them if you want, and theologians will write about them, but in the end you will never logically defend them. If you need to defend them logically, you should just probably give up and leave the Church. The Trinity makes no sense, for example, no matter how you parse it. Accept it, reject it, but don't poke at it, because it does not good and it will only torture you.

The LOA, though, seems to be a different concept, where people think they can fine tune it. It's just painful to listen to.

Second, there is the ultimate logical ethical conclusion, which is that people are to blame for their misfortune, even when it comes to problems like cancer.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

It's just painful to listen to.

Then do the best thing for your own reality.

Don't listen to it. Take your attention away from it. Put your mind on the things that are personally meaningful and worthwhile to yourself. Why waste time on things that cause you unnecessary pain. The more you think about such things, the more irritation and annoyance you'll bring into your own life.



I just gave you some very good advice, didn't I?

It all springs from basic LOA principles. Now you know what a formidable source of wisdom it is.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Don't listen to it. Take your attention away from it. Put your mind on the things that are personally meaningful and worthwhile to yourself. Why waste time on things that cause you unnecessary pain. The more you think about such things, the more irritation and annoyance you'll bring into your own life.

But what if I have this insatiable NEED to tell others I disagree with them? How can I fulfill that NEED to tell others I think they are wrong, without someone to tell that they are wrong? Please don't try to take away my sense of superiority. I need it.

[iSteven]

Perhaps only ENLIGHTENED BEINGS can perform such miracles?

After all, there does seem to be good evidence to back the theory, but not many capable.

I bring this into the mix, because an Enlightened Being would always serve the WHOLE, the ONE, and not look to gain at the expense of another.

The higher self always seeks peace and harmony.
The ego always seeks conflict or competition ( where somebody has to be a loser ).

So opposing intentions are a NO-NO!
Impossible for beings capable of LOA that is!

An enlightened being would always want the OTHER person to win.
And in a world where everybody attained such an enlightened state, and possessed a WILL to serve THE ONE, conflict and competition would collapse.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by iSteven

I bring this into the mix, because an Enlightened Being would always serve the WHOLE, the ONE, and not look to gain at the expense of another.

Yah, but here's the flip-side of the coin on this statement.. if were all the same being then there is no "gain" at the expense of another.. everyone gains.. get it???

Originally Posted by iSteven

An enlightened being would always want the OTHER person to win.

This isn't, exactly, true.. An enlightened being would have no problem winning themselves.. but that depends on how "enlightened" they are

Originally Posted by iSteven

And in a world where everybody attained such an enlightened state, and possessed a WILL to serve THE ONE, conflict and competition would collapse.

This is a description of likely 4th and higher densities..

We our serving the one/ourselves.. even in this limited form.. (and by serving I mean we choose to serve we came forth with excitement/love.. not any negative connotations it may have like slavery)

[iSteven]

QUOTE ...
Yah, but here's the flip-side of the coin on this statement.. if were all the same being then there is no "gain" at the expense of another.. everyone gains.. get it???

This would give me permission to do all sorts of things, if true, but I think it's a bit weak. Probably just the ego trying to fit things to suit.



In particular, I was thinking about the story of Jesus as an example.
This man seemed to be very good at manifesting things, but it was always to the benefit of others, and never SELF SERVING. Wasn't it?

I am just speculating, perhaps this is a key.
Although, I have heard some great stories about people winning large sums of money on fruit machines. But then again, how do we know which stories really are true?

I have opened a thread titled ' Betting Dilemma ' which really focuses on this.
Basically, because I really want to believe your statement, as this would benefit me financially. But I don't want what I do to have a negative effect on anybody else. I was speculating on that thread, as to whether ( in the big picture ) everybody gains in some way, perhaps even if it is just a learning experience from the loss? And who are we to judge or know what benefits another?

As for the enlightened being having no problem manifesting for themselves, and it depending on how enlightened they are - do you want to add anything to this of substance? It just sounds like management speak to me. In short, why do you say this?

As for the other last statement you made, you lost me with the structure of your sentence. Didn't make any sense?

But thanks for responding to my speculative suggestion The Master

[themaster]

Originally Posted by iSteven

This would give me permission to do all sorts of things, if true, but I think it's a bit weak. Probably just the ego trying to fit things to suit.

Write yourself a permission slip.. The ego is the one making up all these rules and quandaries.. it's the one always say "no that's not possible" "that can't be true" etc.

Originally Posted by iSteven

In particular, I was thinking about the story of Jesus as an example.
This man seemed to be very good at manifesting things, but it was always to the benefit of others, and never SELF SERVING. Wasn't it?

Jesus taught self empowerment which is "self serving" his planned "second coming" is this idea of new age..

Originally Posted by iSteven

I am just speculating, perhaps this is a key.
Although, I have heard some great stories about people winning large sums of money on fruit machines. But then again, how do we know which stories really are true?

Why doubt a single story?
What if they are all true?

Why judge one true and one not?

Originally Posted by iSteven

I have opened a thread titled ' Betting Dilemma ' which really focuses on this.
Basically, because I really want to believe your statement, as this would benefit me financially. But I don't want what I do to have a negative effect on anybody else. I was speculating on that thread, as to whether ( in the big picture ) everybody gains in some way, perhaps even if it is just a learning experience from the loss? And who are we to judge or know what benefits another?

And I have perused.. it reads like overcomplicated 'drivel' to me (and I know drivel is a negative type word.. so let's see a neutral word is..) just over-complicated.. (excuse my negativity )

I sometimes just can't see why everyone on this planet has to make things more complicated when they really are very simple..

How’s this idea.. everything going on in the planet can be broken down to simple ideas/concepts that explain away the complication

I was speculating on that thread, as to whether ( in the big picture ) everybody gains in some way, perhaps even if it is just a learning experience from the loss?
Everyone gains believe me.. were all gaining right now!

The idea is; per my understanding when it comes to winners and losers is.. that there will always be both but the thing is when you factor in multiple universes or really the fact that a trillion billion quadrillion EARTH's exist right this second and we hop from one to another every single nano-second.. well that starts to give away the idea of how things can happen for all

The biggest benefit you can be to this planet is to be yourself.. and not be wondering around judging yourself as "evil" cause you have $1 or $1 million dollars more than "joe schmoe" (who incidentally is a great guy )

You are just looking for a excuse to "release yourself" from this self imposed idea/prison you are in.. do yourself a favor "release yourself" plenty of fun to be had, wealth to be created.. whatever.. just stop holding yourself back..

Originally Posted by iSteven

As for the enlightened being having no problem manifesting for themselves, and it depending on how enlightened they are - do you want to add anything to this of substance? It just sounds like management speak to me. In short, why do you say this?

Substance.. you need a real world scenario.. what substance do you need??

I don't know what "management speak" is..

The enlightened idea is per say.. to understand again "all party's benefit in a billion ways from one interaction even if they do not always see it in their limited lives"

Originally Posted by iSteven

As for the other last statement you made, you lost me with the structure of your sentence. Didn't make any sense?

Okay, if you insist a re-phrase

Originally Posted by iSteven

And in a world where everybody attained such an enlightened state, and possessed a WILL to serve THE ONE, conflict and competition would collapse.

Who said were not serving the one.. with conflict and competition?

This is a description of likely 4th and higher densities..
I said that the reality you’re talking about exists.. and here is it's likely name..

We our serving the one/ourselves.. even in this limited form.. (and by serving I mean we choose to serve we came forth with excitement/love.. not any negative connotations it may have like slavery)
I said in essence it is my understanding we are all the same being seeing ourselves in different perspectives in this LIMITED reality.. and I said from a higher perspective we came forth happily to this limited and sometimes downer reality And I also said we our here for a reason, we are serving ourselves/exploring ourselves/experiencing ourselves

Originally Posted by iSteven

But thanks for responding to my speculative suggestion The Master

Your very much welcome.. it’s been a pleasure reflecting with you Steve

[iSteven]

Now that's much more like it TheMaster. I knew you were holding out on me ;-)

Lovin' and appreciating the in-depth version, and the idea of a 'permission slip'

Reads very much like a 'Conversation with God'

I like your account for obvious reasons, but I am intrigued ...

Is this concept born out of ...

1. Scientific finding ( If so, any links for my interest )

2. Books you have read ( If so, which ones )

3. Another source

Apologies for the 'management speak' reference, and my drivel.

I had been asking and not receiving, and was beginning to doubt the LOA!
I guess you just have to 'knock' if you want to open 'some' doors, eh ;-)

On reflection, you told me exactly what I wanted to hear!
How cool is that? Confidence restored :-)

[iSteven]

Another thought ... I am surrounded by stuff in my world that I simply have no interest in, and didn't CHOOSE!

What's it doing here? Why hasn't it 'forked' off yet?

Thanking you in advance :-)

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by iSteven

Another thought ... I am surrounded by stuff in my world that I simply have no interest in, and didn't CHOOSE!

You are aware only of a very tiny portion of your own thoughts.

Freud called it the iceberg model of consciousness.

You know only those thoughts of yours which are floating on the surface.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by iSteven

What's it doing here? Why hasn't it 'forked' off yet?

Sometimes I think we're the ones who are getting forked off

[themaster]

Originally Posted by iSteven

Another thought ... I am surrounded by stuff in my world that I simply have no interest in, and didn't CHOOSE!

What's it doing here?

Technically you did choose it, if you’re here.. The experience was created this way to give you the ability to rub up against it and decide if you like it or don't.. these experiences will be available for a while longer but they are going away, you will either be a part of that wave or not.. your choice

Why hasn't it 'forked' off yet?
It's going to happen, within our 'lifetimes' is my understanding.. there will be a separation of people still rolling in the mud and others wanting a higher perspective.. this separation will actually need 1% or less of the population.. this doesn't mean all 6 billion won't come with us (remember, multiple universes )

Originally Posted by iSteven

Lovin' and appreciating the in-depth version, and the idea of a 'permission slip'

Reads very much like a 'Conversation with God'

Yes.. "Permission Slips" is a course/lecture done by my teacher.. he also mentioned "Conversation with God" as a great way to learn how religion got screwed up or what is the truth to it.. I was thinking of looking at it.. just cause he mentioned it But I honestly don't care that much about religion separation ideas.. (seems to be a hang up for a few on the planet)

Originally Posted by iSteven

Is this concept born out of ...

1. Scientific finding ( If so, any links for my interest )

2. Books you have read ( If so, which ones )

3. Another source

On the concept of multiple universes.. yes there is science on this.. but the best I've done is seen a BBC special or two I believe there called "Horizons"

My main teachers are called Abraham and Bashar either’s material will point you in a good direction but if you need advanced stuff then only would I say Bashar is the message I highly resonate with.. for example here is his permissions slip lecture..

YouTube - Bashar Permission Slips Pt 1

[MillenniumMike]

If two people want something, it is a matter who wants it more. Who believes in it more.

[iSteven]

I considered the idea ...

We are nothing more than BIO-COMPUTERS operating in a WAN or WWW program. That most of what we do, we do as a triggered response from what we have previously learned, in a bid to get pleasure or avoid pain ( Neuro Linguistic Programming ). We grow and learn in much the same way an Artificial Intelligence does.

This in mind, how does a computer step OUT of the program in order to have INPUT? While you are IN it, you cannot add anything that isn't already a part of it. It's like we exist within a MATRIX?

In short, how or when does a computer (A I ) start to consciously act, and not react? When does it start to get CREATIVE?

Something inside me, tells me that there is something to be gained from drawing a parallel.

It's a bit like the story of Pinocchio. Isn't it?
The whole lesson of life, and the personal development from artificial to real.
And dare I say it ... the 'When you wish upon a star' LOA element.

Just realised I have started to go off original topic ... apologies.

[iSteven]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Sometimes I think we're the ones who are getting forked off

Yes! Very good!

[iSteven]

Thanks again The Master.

Have read all the Conversation with God books, and they did resonate with me. In questioning anything in it, I guess I am just seeing if anybody else can find fault.

[iSteven]

Acting Like God ... Thanks for Freudian angle. Noted.
Will put that to one side and see if I can build around it.

[993125002]

just a quick point on the earlier part of this forum.

Even if MW doesn't exist, 2 people can still manifest the same thing.

2 equally skilled athletes (track and field in this example) that practice I-M at the same level can still win the same gold medal.

Possibility 1- the gold medalist could lose their medal 2 weeks after winning it due to steroid testing (coach could have snuck it into the athlete somehow, or there was an error in the testing). Therefore the gold would be passed down to the silver winner and so on.

Possibility 2- They tie for gold

Possibility 3- One athlete may have intended to win the gold medal on that particular time, location (eg. Olympics), and event, while the other one may have intended a gold medal only for their event (they may win gold at the World Chapmionships and/or Commonwealth games a year later).

In the case of 2 people trying to manifest the same promotion when there is only one possition available.

Pos 1- first guy to get it may decide they didn't want it after all and may go back to their previous job, while the second guy takes the promotion.

Pos 2- one of them may find an ad for a similar (but better) job and take it.

Pos 3- another position for the same promotion may open up later.

[bananya]

[QUOTE=Kanzeon;367779]
My view is this: people believe what they want, and what helps them.

well, I believe that EVERYTHING you really belive in will work for you, if you REALLY want it to work
What makes me think that LOA actually does work is that it happened with me many times before I even knew about this law. I remember I just had this burning feeling inside of really wanting something but had no idea how this could be true, but deep inside I never forgot those wishes and many of them did happen. Like LOA says I accidentally met people, or saw an article or advetrisement that eventually led me to my dream and it's amazing.
I don't think though that all we should do is sit all day vizualizing things, because then you end up "dreaming your life" and not "living your dreams".
So I think the best is to know what you really want, believe it can happen, notice "signs" on the way and take actions!!

so I really don't see why argue who's right or wrong.
Find your own way, smth that works for you and if it makes you happy - great!