what kind of law is LOA?

[supremum]

Physical, Psychological, or Mystical?

Edit: what I really intended to open with (quote from later post):

Originally Posted by supremum

I asked whether it was physical, psychological, or mystical because I wanted to know onto what category the community places most emphasis. Perhaps this should have been in my OP, but it was around 2 in the morning .

Is the experience predominantly about trying to transmit unrevealed thought-transmissions to the seemingly receptive universe? (Physical)

Or is it about trying to change your subjective reality, in particular your self-concept and your worldview, in order to allow yourself to become more receptive to that which you are trying to attract. (Psychological)

..Or have we conceded that it is a supernatural phenomenon and thus have accepted the law on faith? (Mystical)

Being a physics major and a weak atheist, I lean to the psychological interpretation of this LOA. I don't accept physical laws that aren't accepted my the physics community, since I myself am not a physics authority. I also don't easily digest anything "supernatural" affecting our nature, because I see an inherent contradiction in that relationship (If a supernatural entity would intervene in the natural universe, it would by definition of its existence be forced to obey the natural laws... and thus cease to be supernatural).

[joelr]

It's a theory about the physical universe. It involves psychology because it deals with thought patterns, beliefs etc. A lot of the mechanics behind the physical are unknown so those could be thought of as mystical until science catches up with them. Like electricity or fire.

[jeff3]

Metaphysical

[supremum]

Originally Posted by joelr

It's a theory about the physical universe. It involves psychology because it deals with thought patterns, beliefs etc. A lot of the mechanics behind the physical are unknown so those could be thought of as mystical until science catches up with them. Like electricity or fire.

So it's physical. Are there any mathematics involved? I find that, when a theory about physics is being developed, but not entirely proven, it's primarily mathematical. Then experiments are used to confirmed the mathematical hypotheses.

String theory is just a mathematical framework, although this hypothesis did come about from an observation that the fluctuations of a particular particle could be explained if that particle weren't a ball, but actually a string. It explains things smaller than the plank-length, so we haven't accrued the energy enough to shoot really really really high-energy particles at each other. Brian Greene said it would take the kinetic energy equivalent to a million nuclear explosions in a single photon to develop the accuracy to detect a 1-dimensional string.

What sort of experiments were conducted, or relationships discovered, about the physical universe that prompted the development of LOA?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by supremum

So it's physical. Are there any mathematics involved? I find that, when a theory about physics is being developed, but not entirely proven, it's primarily mathematical. Then experiments are used to confirmed the mathematical hypotheses.

String theory is just a mathematical framework, although this hypothesis did come about from an observation that the fluctuations of a particular particle could be explained if that particle weren't a ball, but actually a string. It explains things smaller than the plank-length, so we haven't accrued the energy enough to shoot really really really high-energy particles at each other. Brian Greene said it would take the kinetic energy equivalent to a million nuclear explosions in a single photon to develop the accuracy to detect a 1-dimensional string.

What sort of experiments were conducted, or relationships discovered, about the physical universe that prompted the development of LOA?

String theory came about when an Italian Physicist found that the gamma function could be used to explain some physics of interacting particles. Then it was noticed that the equations were suggesting a string and were at much smaller scales than originally thought. It was thought that this might have been an explanation for the graviton existing at sizes closer to the Plank length.
Special relativities 3 main points - mass/energy, relativity, photons are quantized - came about as a concept rather than mathematically.

LOA can be found in different degrees in Eastern philosophy, Buddhism, Hindu and in Western thought in places like the Thomas Gospel. So in a historical sense it is more mystical.
Although we see some connection to consciousness in the Copenhagen interpretation there is no mathematical model for LOA.

William Tiller has recently done experiments on intention and HAS created a mathematical model to outline how conscious intent interacts with the physical. His work and papers can be found online to download.

Anyone can find enough free articles (this site) to learn the basic ideas and meditations, history, points of views of experts, laymen and skeptics and preform their own experiments or decide to move in a different direction.

In fact everything I've said is already well written about. But if you resonate with the ideas there are some excellent books on the subject.




Oh - it's still bigger than the Plank length. At that length spacetime or anything else that could possibly be that small gets dominated by quantum fuzzyness and would be blinking in/out of existence, foamy, incredibly energetic and bad stuff I don't know of.

[Acting Like Godot]

The LOA is a convenient phrase to describe the sum total of the relationship between mind and reality.

The concept is therefore very large. Essentially it extends to anything and everything that you will ever know and experience (since there is nothing in your reality which you will ever know or experience, without your mind).

Therefore, to explore the LOA, you could, in principle, start with examining literally anything in your reality. This examination is by no means limited to those areas of investigation that physicists or mathematicians traditionally explore.

To give you a few starters:

1. You could consider the doctrine of "technical analysis" which is a school of thought (within the discipline of finance) on how stock markets perform. Here the theory, in its pure form, is that the performance of stock markets is a perfect reflection of investors' thoughts; and it is irrelevant & superfluous to consider economic fundamentals.

2. You could also consider the placebo effect and nocebo effect in medical science. These effects describe how patients' beliefs (in the efficacy or otherwise) of the medical treatment they receive produce corresponding effects in their recovery process.

3. In the field of psychology, you could consider how people's beliefs about themselves (or even other people) affect some objectively-measurable aspect of themselves, or those other people. For example, in the famous Rosenthal experiments, teachers are duped into believing that assessments had shown some of their students to be particularly bright, or particularly dull. This information was false. Nevertheless, the teachers' false beliefs produced corresponding changes in the students' IQ scores, eight months later.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by supremum

Physical, Psychological, or Mystical?

Technically speaking it's spiritual.. but it can be seen as physical/mystical sure.. but it doesn't really require labels it just is

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by supremum

Physical, Psychological, or Mystical?

Mental

[supremum]

Originally Posted by themaster

Technically speaking it's spiritual.. but it can be seen as physical/mystical sure.. but it doesn't really require labels it just is

...so there is a spirit involved? Not to my understanding... I asked whether it was physical, psychological, or mystical because I wanted to know onto what category the community places most emphasis. Perhaps this should have been in my OP, but it was around 2 in the morning .

Is the experience predominantly about trying to transmit unrevealed thought-transmissions to the seemingly receptive universe? (Physical)

Or is it about trying to change your subjective reality, in particular your self-concept and your worldview, in order to allow yourself to become more receptive to that which you are trying to attract. (Psychological)

..Or have we conceded that it is a supernatural phenomenon and thus have accepted the law on faith? (Mystical)

Being a physics major and a weak atheist, I lean to the psychological interpretation of this LOA. I don't accept physical laws that aren't accepted my the physics community, since I myself am not a physics authority. I also don't easily digest anything "supernatural" affecting our nature, because I see an inherent contradiction in that relationship (If a supernatural entity would intervene in the natural universe, it would by definition of its existence be forced to obey the natural laws... and thus cease to be supernatural).

[Angela]

I think it's a "law" in the sense of being a "tendency" -- like the "law" of reciprocity or the Murphy's "law."

It's something I've noticed, that works well to align myself with -- the tendency for my heart's desire to show up in my reality when I'm thinking thoughts that feel good when I think them, and for contrast (things I don't want so much) to show up in my reality when I allow old habitual negative thought patterns to run me.

That's all. It's not a supernatural phenomenon, although it often feels magical, like a superpower.

[supremum]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think it's a "law" in the sense of being a "tendency" -- like the "law" of reciprocity or the Murphy's "law."

It's something I've noticed, that works well to align myself with -- the tendency for my heart's desire to show up in my reality when I'm thinking thoughts that feel good when I think them

That's great. I totally agree with that.

Since I don't expect anyone to devote enormous time in answering this heavy question, can someone point me to any well-developed explanations of LOA (not its use!) (I'm not talking about wikipedia or a popular new-age blog here). I've read The Secret (which is LOA - sshh) two years ago while I was at a camp/forum thing, but that didn't sufficiently explain the law for me. It was more of a pseudo-spiritual, pseudo-scientific rambling.

[Angela]

If you resonate with what I just said, maybe you would enjoy "Ask and It Is Given." There is the supernatural concept of channeling in there, but supernatural belief is not required for getting all kinds of value out of that book.

[gigij]

Try Gregg Bradens books - 'The Divine Matrix' and 'The Spontaneous Healing of Belief'

[supremum]

Originally Posted by supremum

[The Secret] was more of a pseudo-spiritual, pseudo-scientific rambling.

Although, too be fair, I will share this. After reading that book, I tried LOA spontaneously at a dance to some girl to come over to talk with us. To keep it brief, she eventually did, but that could have been a consequence of us being the only people to talk to, or my being more (non-verbally) receptive as a result of the steps. I'd like to think that it worked because I became more receptive. I like feeling like I'm the cause of things .

@Angeli & gigij: thanks for the recs.

Edit gigji: Although I found the reviews discouraging, the most helpful two-star review on Amazon revealed that "The Spontaneous Healing of Belief" gets its view of the universe from "David Bohm's theory that the universe is a holographic computer." But that link is to the "holonomic model of the brain", not of the universe... Good stuff.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by supremum

Since I don't expect anyone to devote enormous time in answering this heavy question, can someone point me to any well-developed explanations of LOA (not its use!) (I'm not talking about wikipedia or a popular new-age blog here). I've read The Secret (which is LOA - sshh) two years ago while I was at a camp/forum thing, but that didn't sufficiently explain the law for me. It was more of a pseudo-spiritual, pseudo-scientific rambling.

The basic concept is this:

That which is like unto itself is drawn. That's it.

The "why" from my perspective is because everything is consciousness. This includes: matter, mind, energy, time, space, etc. They are all different patterns of intelligent energy. You could even refer to these patterns as "vibrations".

Everything is connected through the reality of consciousness. There is a oneness. Because of this oneness, all energy is intelligent by default. Not necessarily in the way you and I are intellectually intelligent, but in the sense that every point of consciousness is aware of its personal reality, whatever that reality is. Obviously, the reality of a cell is much different than the reality of a human, but they are both aware of whatever they are experiencing. You actually don't experience reality, rather, reality *IS* your experience.

Thoughts are the shape of your awareness at any given point in time, and every thought that has ever been thought still exists. When you think about any thought, your awareness or attention is activating that particular thought in your consciousness. It is like a vibrational signal. Sometimes you don't have immediate access to a given thought and you have to "work" (release your resistance) your vibration up to that level. You only have access to thoughts within your vibrational range. If you are in a state of jealousy for example, it is very difficult to think valid thoughts of abundance, because jealously is not an abundance mindset -- quite the opposite really.

All these different patterns of consciousness have different boundaries of existence, which you could call their logic or "reality gestalt". Logic gestalts determine how one form of consciousness interacts with another form (square pegs don't fit into round holes, but they do fit into square holes as an example).

But basically, consciousness is attracted (or perceived) by similar consciousness and this is the law of attraction. It is a metaphysical law, in the sense that is more intrinsic than other laws.

[supremum]

Yeah I'm not going to believe that. I believe in the law, but no. Not that. That type of hand waving is the reason I threw The Secret away and cursed myself for not just reading a wikipedia article.

[joelr]

If you are looking for a more scientific explanation you will only find more pseudo-scientific ideas.

If the concept is to become a law (it's probably a conjecture right now) there has to be a process behind it but it cannot be explained with our current physics. Obviously there is much more to be discovered so maybe at some point we will have a better understanding of the possible energies involved with consciousness influencing matter.

Right now physics only offers clues. Like entanglement which may involve some type of higher dimensional superluminal energy. Or the fact that in the double slit experiment it is not the detector collapsing the waveform but the observers knowledge of that information that causes the collapse. Even if the knowledge happens in the future.

Like it or not the happenings in many of our experiences with sub-atomic (and now even Macroscopic!) are indeed supernatural in that they clearly defy natural logic. They also defy our rules of matter/mind relationship. It may be swept under the rug and rarely philosophized upon by scientists - you can't sound like a quack in those circles - but what's magic one day is science the next.

[Acting Like Godot]

If you are a physics major, you might enjoy reading "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne MacTaggart, or at least checking out its bibliography, which lists several hundred studies published in scientific journals, each examining some aspect of how consciousness affects reality.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by supremum

Yeah I'm not going to believe that. I believe in the law, but no. Not that. That type of hand waving is the reason I threw The Secret away and cursed myself for not just reading a wikipedia article.

If you are looking for a strictly "physical" interpretation of how the "law of attraction" works, you would probably just be better off chalking it up to "luck" because that's the only way you will ever physically accept and explain all the "why's" of it.

All information is communicating with all other information. That's the only way to explain ALL "coincidences" that arise as a result of applying LoA. Incidentally, this invokes ideas that transcend normal physical rules, so you won't likely be to keen on that idea.

Best regards.

[Acting Like Godot]

The proof is in the pudding. Not in the recipe for the pudding.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the LOA, many people are unable to get past the recipe stage. They read the recipe, and they say to themselves, "But how can this possibly work?"

To put it another way, the trap they fall into is that they reject the possibility that a thing could be true, on the basis that they cannot find an acceptable theory for that thing.

It's a variation of the old bumblebee story ....



"Entomology Note No. 10 - Everyone, except the bumblebee itself, knows that a bumblebee can't fly. Its body is too big for such small wings and furthermore it isn't particularly streamlined like the wasp"

[supremum]

Originally Posted by joelr

Right now physics only offers clues. Like entanglement which may involve some type of higher dimensional superluminal energy. Or the fact that in the double slit experiment it is not the detector collapsing the waveform but the observers knowledge of that information that causes the collapse. Even if the knowledge happens in the future.

And yet a countless number of quantum physicists, many of which extremely intelligent, do not believe that the thought determines the position of the electron:

"A common layman misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system." (Source)

Your interpretation of LOA is the observer effect taken to the extreme. If you knew physic's current interpretation already, do not be so arrogant as to believe you are right and the experts are wrong. I am not making an appeal to authority fallacy. I'm simply and humbly making sense.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The proof is in the pudding. Not in the recipe for the pudding.

I'm not rejecting that the recipe doesn't make the pudding. I'm just rejecting your (i.e. Anagogy's) explanation of why the recipe works. Like I have said, I didn't discount the possibility of Rhonda Byrne's recipe working at that dance. But I did mention that the effect could have been a consequence of some psychological property. Each step, after all, _was_ a psychological process (visualize, believe, thank). I'm looking for articles that expound on this assumption.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"Entomology Note No. 10 - Everyone, except the bumblebee itself, knows that a bumblebee can't fly. Its body is too big for such small wings and furthermore it isn't particularly streamlined like the wasp"

"According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beats per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists 'proving' it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under 'the power of its own ignorance'. The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty." (Source)

Also, we all know bumblebees don't think. They are little biological machines without a scintilla of thinking capacity. Why you would let that common sense escape you is a testament to the harmful effects of believing with conviction that something is true when it's proof has not been given. You start believing in anything to prove it.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by supremum

Also, we all know bumblebees don't think. They are little biological machines without a scintilla of thinking capacity. Why you would let that common sense escape you is a testament to the harmful effects of believing with conviction that something is true when it's proof has not been given. You start believing in anything to prove it.

I love this because there is no way you can "know" a bumblebee doesn't think. Are you a bumblebee? Just because their thoughts aren't on the same caliber as a human being's doesn't mean they don't have thoughts. If a bumblebee did not have awareness it wouldn't be able to react or survive in a given environment. Sounds like you've got some beliefs that need proof as well.

And just out of curiosity, why did you come and start a thread wondering whether the law of attraction was a "physical, psychological, or mystical" when you had already decided beforehand it was a psychological law? Please understand, I'm not attacking you, I'm just genuinely curious.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I love this because there is no way you can "know" a bumblebee doesn't think.

Of course a bumblebee thinks.

It doesn't think like human beings, that is all. It certainly possesses consciousness and responds to external stimuli. Try to destroy a bumblebee's nest with a stick and see how they all immediately make a very sensible response to your attack.

And after you've wisely retreated, they will do the next very sensible thing - rebuild their nest.

In fact, there are even other studies have shown that bees exhibit considerable complexity in their decision-making processes about which flowers to visit and collect nectar from.

Insects do have brains. In fact, Wikipedia describes athropods (which includes insects) as a class of invertebrates which have "notably complex" brains.

Brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[themaster]

what kind of law is LOA?

It's the 3rd law..

Since I learned something new I'm just sharing

Basic principles that underlie all reality on all levels
1. You exist.
2. The all are the 1, the 1 is the all.
3. What you put out is what you get back. <--- Also called law of attraction
4. Everything changes except the first 3 laws.

[supremum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I love this because there is no way you can "know" a bumblebee doesn't think. Are you a bumblebee?

It's still a lie that bumblebees only fly because they think they can. Therefore, it doesn't matter if they think. Bumblebees don't support your interpretation of LOA.

Originally Posted by Anagogy

[W]hy did you come and start a thread wondering whether the law of attraction was a "physical, psychological, or mystical" when you had already decided beforehand it was a psychological law?

I guess I need to lurk moar. Or just go away. I'm probably not smart enough for this forum, anyway. You guys are certainly on a different plane of thought than a mere layman such as myself.

Thank you for letting me join your exclusive MENSA group about personal development. However, in the interest of the group I will have to respectfully decline membership.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by supremum

And yet a countless number of quantum physicists, many of which extremely intelligent, do not believe that the thought determines the position of the electron:

"A common layman misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system." (Source)

Your interpretation of LOA is the observer effect taken to the extreme. If you knew physic's current interpretation already, do not be so arrogant as to believe you are right and the experts are wrong. I am not making an appeal to authority fallacy. I'm simply and humbly making sense.

Heh, first off you gave a nice quote of why Schrödinger's paradox may not be valid for macroscopic systems. This has nothing to do with the observer effect in Youngs experiment which concerns the sub-atomic and now microscopic.

It's not observer effect to the extreme!? I mentioned observer effect as a connection not a final model. There is obviously much more to discover in physics. We will eventually find the connections, I'm sure it will involve a yet unknown physics.

I do not think you have studied physics in any serious capacity.

There are plenty of physicists who believe thought determines the collapse of the wavefunction. The Copenhagen interpretation is the LEADING interpretation of quantum mechanics. You used Wiki as a source, you can find that Wiki confirms that.
Sure there are other interpretations that may be mechanistic.

I also know that physicists DO NOT generally like to philosophize on the mind/matter connection. They simply observe the results and let it be. Therefore the "current interpretation" is to leave it for the philosophers.



"If you knew physic's current interpretation already, do not be so arrogant as to believe you are right and the experts are wrong."

That same argument is used for religion as well.

I'm not sure why you sound so defensive, you asked questions about LOA, I answer and you call me arrogant? That's not "humble" as you claim to be?

It's obvious your agenda all along was to come in and debunk LOA, the initial "innocent" sounding questions were to set up a non-scientific explanation of LOA which you could rag on. Everyone knows full well that there is no mathematical equation to LOA.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by supremum

Thank you for letting me join your exclusive MENSA group about personal development. However, in the interest of the group I will have to respectfully decline membership.

See. People are taking time to engage you with answers and discussion in a reasonable way and suddenly your a sarcastic bee. Speaking of not MENSA level conversation!
Anagogy asked a reasonable question.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by supremum

Thank you for letting me join your exclusive MENSA group about personal development. However, in the interest of the group I will have to respectfully decline membership.

Ah. Oh.... Um. Alright then.

Best of luck.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by supremum

It's still a lie that bumblebees only fly because they think they can.

You mistook my point.

My point was about the proof being in the pudding, not in the recipe.

Meaning that if a thing works, then it works. Whether it works or not does not depend on whether you are able to find an explanation which, to me, shows that it works.

Thus, by analogy, if a bumblebee flies, then it flies. Mathematicians and physicists may apply their formulae and say: "According to my calculations, a bumbleebee should not be able to fly". Whatever they may say, the fact remains - a bumblebee flies, and in fact, with quite a lot of speed and very high degree of manoeuvreability.

Unfortunately, when I googled to find info about the bumblebee, the top hit was a website which said: "Everyone, except the bumblebee itself, knows that a bumblebee can't fly."

That statement, in all likellihood, was meant to have been slightly humorous - the writer probably did not mean to make any point about what kind of knowledge a bumblebee possesses or does not possess, and did not mean to imply whether such knowledge or lack thereof prevented or enabled it to fly.

As I said - it was merely an analogy, made to illustrate a point. The point is - if the LOA is genuine, then it is genuine; if it works, then it works. Whether it works does not depend on whether you correctly classify it as a "physical", "pscyhological" or "mystical" law, and whether you thereafter correctly explain it in terms of physics, psychology or metaphysics.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by supremum

And yet a countless number of quantum physicists, many of which extremely intelligent, do not believe that the thought determines the position of the electron:

"A common layman misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system." (Source)

Schrodinger's Cat? That is interesting, but probably not the best starting point for yourself.

Really you should be looking at the Copenhagen interpretation.

However, on whether quantum effects can translate into observable effects on the macroscopic level, the answer is yes.

(No, I'm not going to snidely mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki here, although they are rather excellent examples).

What I suggest is that you look at the much more modern and recent experiment by Tom Rosenbaum and Sayantoni Ghosh on holmium crystals, which give a clear example of quantum effects being observable at the macroscopic level.

Their paper was published in what's probably the world's top scientific journal, Nature, in 2002.