Several people have suggested to me that we alter the Million Dollar Experiment to make it more scientific and controlled in order to objectively prove one way or the other whether the intention-manifestation model works.
There’s only one problem with that — it’s impossible.
Intention-manifestation works on an entirely different level than cause-and-effect. To add controls to this experiment would only corrupt the experiment.
On the cause-and-effect plane (i.e. objective, external reality), the word experiment means “a test under controlled conditions.” However, on the intention-manifestation plane (i.e. subjective, thought-created reality), we’re using an alternative but equally valid dictionary definition of experiment: “an innovative act or procedure.” So on the cause-and-effect plane, the purpose of an experiment is to test, to measure, and to validate or invalidate. But on the intention-manifestation plane, the purpose of an experiment is to create and to experience.
The Million Dollar Experiment is NOT a scientific experiment.
The Million Dollar Experiment is the second type of experiment. This is a creative exploration, not an act of measurement.
You cannot have both definitions of experiment working at the same time without one corrupting the other. You cannot test something from the outside at the exact same moment you’re experiencing it from the inside. You will either corrupt the test or corrupt the experience. Anyone who’s ever had a sexual orgasm can readily attest to this. Can you study the experience objectively as you experience it subjectively, without changing the experience? Of course you can’t. In order to do so, you’d need to be in two conflicting states of mind at the same time. Or you’d have to bring in an outside observer, but from the standpoint of your own consciousness, there is no outside. You can’t use the viewpoint of objective reality (which assumes the existence of outside observers separate from your own consciousness) while at the same time fully subscribing to subjective reality (which assumes that everything is created by consciousness and nothing is outside of consciousness). From the subjective reality standpoint, if you think that bringing in an outside observer will be effective, then you are using your consciousness to help manifest objective reality, including all its inherent limitations.
In order to escape the trap of your beliefs affecting reality in this manner, you would have to step outside your own consciousness. Otherwise, your consciousness is possibly at risk of corrupting the experimental data. Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t see a way for me to remove myself from my consciousness while simultaneously consciously observing the experiment. How can I have X and NOT X at the same time? There’s no way to prove any subjective experience objectively. To make the attempt is paradoxical by its very nature. In order to rely on outside observation to prove a subjective experience to you, you’re forced to make unprovable assumptions about the nature of reality, and those assumptions will corrupt any experience that requires that you don’t make those assumptions.
Using scientific controls to study intention-manifestation is like slicing your own chest open with a knife to study health. If you’re lucky you may gather some interesting data and draw some conclusions, but ultimately you won’t have actually learned a thing about intention-manifestation because all you’ll be studying is its projection into objective reality, which is cause-and-effect.
Particles and Waves
Think of the particle-wave model of light. Intention-manifestation is the wave, and cause-and-effect is the particle. When photons are measured, they behave like particles. Otherwise they must be treated as probability waves. Similarly, when you look at intention-manifestation with the goal of seeking proof, you undergo a similar form of quantum collapse — you reduce intention-manifestation to cause-and-effect. But in doing so, you lose the wave-like properties completely. The wave-like properties of intention-manifestation can only be experienced. They cannot be scientifically analyzed or understood by the logical mind. Why not? Because the mind itself will force intention-manifestation (a wave) through a quantum collapse of sorts, thereby turning it into a cause-and-effect projection (a particle).
For example, suppose you hold the intention to manifest money. The next day someone brings you an opportunity, you act on it, and you make some money. The manifestation of your intention is actually the whole apparent causality chain of discovering the opportunity, acting on it, and receiving the money. The intention is the wave, and the causality chain is that waves projection onto third dimensional reality. It looks like the opportunity produced the chain of events that led you to receive the money. But in fact it was the entire causality chain that manifested from your intention.
Ultimately this comes down to a question of belief — or faith. You can choose to work with particles or you can choose to work with waves. If you subscribe to objective reality, you’re dealing with particles… with cause-and-effect. If you subscribe to subjective reality, you’re dealing with waves, with intention-manifestation.
The purpose of the Million Dollar Experiment is for those who participate to experience intention-manifestation without merely reducing it to cause-and-effect. Those who are able to approach this experience with an open mind will see it working for them. Those who approach it will the goal of seeking proof will only collapse it to cause-and-effect and will be unable to manifest money except through the vehicle of cause-and-effect.
I’m already noticing in the feedback I’m getting that those who are treating this experiment from the attitude of skepticism are manifesting little or no money, while those who approach it as an experience are already seeing money flow to them. For the skeptic, the wave-particle relationship is to hold an intention of failure and then to manifest little or no causality chains. But for the open-minded person, the relationship is to hold an intention of success and then to manifest some interesting causality chains where a string of unexpected events seems to produce extra money. But the apparent third-dimensional causality chain isn’t the true source of that money (or lack of money). It’s the wave-like intention. No wave, no particles.
Every wave (intention) is a field of possibilities. Your causality chains can only manifest within the scope of that field. So whatever you rule out as impossible, you eliminate from the field, thereby constricting the number and variety of causality chains you can manifest. This simply means that skeptical people may be limited to finding coins on the ground and such, while open-minded people will have a wider field of possibilities open to them.
All participants are free to choose how to regard the experiment — as a test or as an experience. I’ll admit I originally went into this experiment with a bit of the test-oriented mindset. But as I’ve been seeing the results come in, I’ve moved over to the experience side. To put it simply, that’s where the money is.
The only way to come close to scientifically proving intention-manifestation works is to be predisposed to believing it may work and thereby to manifest the very proof you seek. But that is not an act of measurement — it’s an act of creation.
If you’re approaching this experiment looking for proof, you’ll be disappointed (both in terms of the proof you seek as well as the money you’re able to manifest). This is an experiment in creation, not measurement.