Subjective Reality? And Steve bending reality to fit the LOA

[Toulon]

So the whole reason Steve made the "true" nature of reality podcast and came up with the theory of subjective reality is cause he couldn't reconcile some issues with LOA and objective reality.

Aren't there a lot of issues with that premise itself?

I mean what if the real issue is not how to reconcile some facets of the LOA theory with objective reality, but if the LOA even exists in the way most believe? Or even exists period.

The shorter way to the truth seems not by changing reality to fit LOA, but changing LOA to fit reality. Or discarding it.

There are so many holes in the S.R. theory, so many. Principally that is it is not the best explination of realty. It just isn't if you disregard the LOA as total fact, its only reason for existance is the LOA reconiliation. And thats what awareness is about, thats what science is about....finding the BEST possible explaination of something, the fits with all the relevant variables.

Its only strength is that its unfalsifiable ( I think, but I am sure some scientist has a good rebuttal in the form of some thought experiment on the whole thing). And also it makes no sense what so ever. The same way an invisible dragon is unfalsifiable and makes no sense. Why, if everything is my creation, did I even begin to believe in objective reality in the first place? Hell why did all the things in my life happen the way they did any way.

Why right now am I bound by the all the laws of phyics?

Because I believe them and if I unbelieved them they would disappear?

What made me believe them in the first place????????

\end theory

Its fringe thinking, it has so many holes. I am sure a physicist could point them out.

It's total nonsense.

But.

Carl Sagan once said something along the lines of "you can be the pillar of the community and be wrong and you can be the scum of the earth and be right, the truth does not belong to anyone"

I think thats fitting for Steve Pavlina, in the sense that he has some odd, erroneous theories, but at the same time he is the most knowledgable person I am aware of on Personal Development. Though I think he is wrong on this theory, I still would recommend his site and that doesn't make any of his great articles on P.D. wrong. I just have an issue with this one theory.