3 idiots walk into a quantum mechanics

[QuickTwist]

@QuickTwist

I'm sorry dude, you're not making much sense to me.

It's cool if you believe in the law of attraction or w/e, but I don't see how it's evident in reality. If I check the wiki page one of the first things I read is:

The Law of Attraction has no scientific basis and has been dubbed a pseudoscience.

So when you say what I'm talking about is theoretical and not based in reality, but that this other thing is based in reality despite no evidence, it comes across a little like "you're wrong because I believe different".

It's pretty damn easy to spot in your own life. The reason it isn't true according to science is because science doesn't know what to do with that. Its too complex and science doesn't really answer things that are too complex. If there were one, two, three variables, sure, you can quantify it, but were're talking about everyone's subjective experience, and because of that, it assumes taking out personal experience from the premise in the first place. Since it's individualized to the person, you can only conduct a "Test" by yourself. So because everyone's experience is different, it means you can't take the individual out of the equation. By taking out the individual, there's not "Proof" that the Law of Attraction exists, but I challenge you to see if what you think about happens to you or not.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's pretty damn easy to spot in your own life. The reason it isn't true according to science is because science doesn't know what to do with that. Its too complex and science doesn't really answer things that are too complex. If there were one, two, three variables, sure, you can quantify it, but were're talking about everyone's subjective experience, and because of that, it assumes taking out personal experience from the premise in the first place. Since it's individualized to the person, you can only conduct a "Test" by yourself. So because everyone's experience is different, it means you can't take the individual out of the equation. By taking out the individual, there's not "Proof" that the Law of Attraction exists, but I challenge you to see if what you think about happens to you or not.

It's fine that you believe in it, but you don't understand or speak for science.

This is the simplified factor breakdown used in my honours thesis:

These are the variables I looked at in an undergraduate study. There are more used by the PhD student who designed the study, and these are just the IVs. This is only one experiment, and does not even begin to reflect the investigation conducted by the entire field.

If you don't believe in science, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you get to decide what it can or can't do, what it does, or what it is. You're not educated in it and you demonstrably have little clue about it. If something is really obvious, as you say the attraction principle is, then it's almost guaranteed that science can have a good look at it. Because the more obvious something is, the more observable evidence there necessarily is for it, right?

Science answers loads of complex things. If you think it's too complex for science to grasp, but you understand it because it is 'obvious', you're fooling yourself every time. The law of attraction would be easily testable. Wish yourself into billionairedom. Wish the world out of poverty. Wish for a cure for cancer. Wish to change my mind.

If you want to believe in what's convenient for you that's fine, but stop your proselytising, don't correct me about what you don't understand.

 

[QuickTwist]

Chaos theory (which is based in mathematics) basically states that if you have 3 things in motion (and we have 7.7 Billion) you can't predict what is going to happen. How would you conduct the Law of Attraction as an experiment?

 

[Hadoblado]

@mods
Can we get this derail moved please? (sorry 1step)

@QT
Can you explain to me the relevance of chaos theory in propping up a non-deterministic model (attraction) in a non-closed system (the people in the world) when we're not trying to predict the exact motion of the actors, but a property of individual actors?

 

[redbaron]

It's pretty damn easy to spot in your own life. The reason it isn't true according to science is because science doesn't know what to do with that. Its too complex and science doesn't really answer things that are too complex. If there were one, two, three variables, sure, you can quantify it, but were're talking about everyone's subjective experience, and because of that, it assumes taking out personal experience from the premise in the first place. Since it's individualized to the person, you can only conduct a "Test" by yourself. So because everyone's experience is different, it means you can't take the individual out of the equation. By taking out the individual, there's not "Proof" that the Law of Attraction exists, but I challenge you to see if what you think about happens to you or not.

 

[Black Rose]

LoA is kind of a Ni type thing, I believe.

I have experienced it several times myself.

Scientifically it would have to do with split timelines in the multiverse. (the multiverse is still theoretical)

 

[QuickTwist]

@QT
Can you explain to me the relevance of chaos theory in propping up a non-deterministic model (attraction) in a non-closed system (the people in the world) when we're not trying to predict the exact motion of the actors, but a property of individual actors?

I would still like an answer on how exactly we would conduct an experiment on whether the LoA exists or not.

But to answer your question, I am assuming consciousness is what gives us direction. Ofc what this doesn't tell you is what the unconscious is doing. The unconscious eventually becomes one with consciousness and then both bubble up to the surface of your consciousness and what you do is an act of will. If this is the case, then because we don't fully understand the unconscious, this means that the part of us that is directed by the unconscious is not known. All we know about is the conscious mind and how it affects out actions. If we account for consciousness accounting for our actions, then what we can infer is that what our conscious mind does is what happens to us. Since everyone has their own consciousness, then that is why what happens to one person doesn't overlap with another.

 

[Hadoblado]

The law of attraction would be easily testable. Wish yourself into billionairedom. Wish the world out of poverty. Wish for a cure for cancer. Wish to change my mind.

To think that all the unfortunates in the world are where they are because they just didn't wish hard enough is insane. Bad shit happens to good, optimistic people, like... all the fucking time.

Also, the way you think about the burden of proof is backwards. Just because something is difficult to disprove doesn't give you a reason to believe it. If I told you I had five arms, you wouldn't assume it was true until you could prove otherwise. You just want this to be true, so you bend your thoughts around accommodating it by shifting what evidence you'll accept.

 

[QuickTwist]

The law of attraction would be easily testable. Wish yourself into billionairedom. Wish the world out of poverty. Wish for a cure for cancer. Wish to change my mind.

To think that all the unfortunates in the world are where they are because they just didn't wish hard enough is insane. Bad shit happens to good, optimistic people, like... all the fucking time.

Also, the way you think about the burden of proof is backwards. Just because something is difficult to disprove doesn't give you a reason to believe it. If I told you I had five arms, you wouldn't assume it was true until you could prove otherwise. You just want this to be true, so you bend your thoughts around accommodating it by shifting what evidence you'll accept.

Do you know why we are having this diff? It's because our idea of what consciousness means is radically different. If we want to actually come to a mutual understanding on things, we are going to have to talk about that issue.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I don't like the Law of Attraction, it's basically dog shit. Just insights gained from quantum physics and eastern Buddhist spiritual philosophy shelled out mainstreamly for the public's consumption. No hard work or math/science required, just the results. So now everyone can be "woke" with very little understanding, just intuitive grasping. I haven't read that (or "Quiet" by Susan Cain) doesn't mean I don't understand it or can't apply it - because I've actually studied the physics and science it's based on and get it.

It's just a competition to see who can investigate everyone else the most. People don't get that Sherlock Holmes was a cop for hire, and really only used his powers to investigate crime scenes he was actually paid to, or unless he was hanging out and messing with Watson. Using too much logic is a tool that can get you killed - bottom line.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not going to talk to you about consciousness. I don't want to hear about what you hope consciousness is. I don't respect the way you come to conclusions, so don't care to discuss how our conclusions differ.

 

[computerhxr]

It's fine that you believe in it, but you don't understand or speak for science.

This is the simplified factor breakdown used in my honours thesis:

If you don't believe in science, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you get to decide what it can or can't do, what it does, or what it is. You're not educated in it and you demonstrably have little clue about it. If something is really obvious, as you say the attraction principle is, then it's almost guaranteed that science can have a good look at it. Because the more obvious something is, the more observable evidence there necessarily is for it, right?

Science answers loads of complex things. If you think it's too complex for science to grasp, but you understand it because it is 'obvious', you're fooling yourself every time. The law of attraction would be easily testable. Wish yourself into billionairedom. Wish the world out of poverty. Wish for a cure for cancer. Wish to change my mind.

If you want to believe in what's convenient for you that's fine, but stop your proselytising, don't correct me about what you don't understand.

You don't understand the Laws of Attraction, you're not educated in it, and you've demonstrated you have little knowledge in it. If you don't believe in the Laws of Attraction, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that you get to decide what it can or can't do, what it is, or how it works.

 

[redbaron]

it's not like the law of attraction is complex or difficult to understand in what it claims to do. its complexity doesn't even remotely approach the complexity of even basic science.

i see three people here who regularly fail to understand basic scientific principles trying to claim the legitimacy of their preferred pseudoscience. simultaneously telling someone who is at the very least much more well-versed in the understanding of scientific concepts and its limitations than any of these three people the limitations of science

 

[QuickTwist]

it's not like the law of attraction is complex or difficult to understand in what it claims to do. its complexity doesn't even remotely approach the complexity of even basic science.

i see three people here who regularly fail to understand basic scientific principles trying to claim the legitimacy of their preferred pseudoscience. simultaneously telling someone who is at the very least much more well-versed in the understanding of scientific concepts and its limitations than any of these three people the limitations of science

Why do you assume the science paradigm is the correct one?

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm not going to talk to you about consciousness. I don't want to hear about what you hope consciousness is. I don't respect the way you come to conclusions, so don't care to discuss how our conclusions differ.

Well, that's too bad because I was hoping we could do something more than just surface level issues detached from each others emotions, but I guess not.

 

[redbaron]

so just to be clear, you're asking me why i 'assume' that a system of producing replicable results across numerous contexts produces more reliable information than the law of attraction?

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not arguing with anyone. (?)

 

[redbaron]

"The Law of Attraction dictates that whatever can be imagined and held in the mind’s eye is achievable if you take action on a plan to get to where you want to be."

if you think of stuff, and then you do that stuff, that stuff happens

wow so complex imo..

science low iq concept for smoothbrain normies, law of attraction for galaxy brain high iq people with dense cortical folds

 

[redbaron]

so i'm imagining this thing in my mind's eye, where i make a post on a forum

now i take action by typing words into the box

and when i press the post reply button, this happens

checkmate scientists

 

[QuickTwist]

RB, did you eat paint chips as a kid? Asking for a friend.

 

[Black Rose]

Since I do not have a mind's eye, what I do is open myself up and be as receptive as possible so that significant/meaningful things happen spontaneously. Something might be behind it. (?)

 

[QuickTwist]

Since I do not have a mind's eye, what I do is open myself up and be as receptive as possible so that significant/meaningful things happen spontaneously. Something might be behind it. (?)

Sounds alright to me.

 

[redbaron]

RB, did you eat paint chips as a kid? Asking for a friend.

i didn't actually

i guess i just didn't wish hard enough

 

[The Gopher]

The law of attraction clearly doesn't work because I've wished for a long time that I wouldn't be surrounded by idiots.

 

[QuickTwist]

The law of attraction clearly doesn't work because I've wished for a long time that I wouldn't be surrounded by idiots.

Your negativity is fueling your circumstances. Sorry.

 

[redbaron]

wow stop wishing for me to post a lot in this thread

 

[The Gopher]

The law of attraction clearly doesn't work because I've wished for a long time that I wouldn't be surrounded by idiots.

Your negativity is fueling your circumstances. Sorry.

Oooh I see! I instead should be wishing that intelligent people surround me!

 

[redbaron]

your post is now surrounded by my posts

it worked!

law of attraction confirmed

 

[Black Rose]

The law of attraction clearly doesn't work because I've wished for a long time that I wouldn't be surrounded by idiots.

Now I understand what happened to the previous President.

 

[redbaron]

i wished for breakfast cereal

i took actions to obtain breakfast cereal

i got breakfast cereal

law of attraction: 1

science: 0

 

[QuickTwist]

The law of attraction clearly doesn't work because I've wished for a long time that I wouldn't be surrounded by idiots.

Your negativity is fueling your circumstances. Sorry.

Oooh I see! I instead should be wishing that intelligent people surround me!

Not wish, believe it will happen. Big difference.

 

[QuickTwist]

i wished for breakfast cereal

i took actions to obtain breakfast cereal

i got breakfast cereal

law of attraction: 1

science: 0

OK, that's actually funny. Nice one.

 

[QuickTwist]

The law of attraction clearly doesn't work because I've wished for a long time that I wouldn't be surrounded by idiots.

Now I understand what happened to the previous President.

The question is which president? Or not. Maybe it applies to all presidents...

 

[Black Rose]

The question is which president? Or not. Maybe it applies to all presidents...

Mufasa was real mad President Gopher did not attend Simbas ceremony.

 

[computerhxr]

Reducing the Laws of Attraction to 'you get what you wish for' is like reducing science to 'I believe what can be seen'.

 

[Hadoblado]

I’m pissed off for these reasons:

• QT derailed a thread to talk about the new thing he’s read about (again)
• QT told me I was wrong without explaining why I was wrong
• QT invoked a standard of evidence (being based in reality) and then failed to meet it with his own ideas
• QT claimed my perspective which is pretty concrete (people find meaning in the environment they’re exposed to) was merely theoretical
• QT said science doesn’t deal with complex things (which is blatantly wrong), but soft-claimed that he could because he understands what science does not (also wrong)
• QT claims that AT is easily observable, but that somehow science fails to observe it because it is complex. However he hasn’t given any evidence for this.
• QT shifted the burden of proof such that whatever cannot be disproven is true. This is not how it works.
• QT invokes chaos theory on a system that isn’t closed
• QT invokes chaos theory in order to show that we cannot possibly tell anything about a system, when chaos theory is about making predictions over time for evolving states.
• QT invokes deterministic chaos theory to support non-determinist conclusions
• QT then pivots into shitting on about consciousness and explains that the only reason we disagree is because of differing views on consciousness. He acts as if he’s not the one that initiated what he now sees as a misunderstanding.

Any of these things in isolation would be fine, but he just stacks shit on shit. I’m tired of this. If anyone wants to talk me down from this perspective I’m open to it, but I’m blocking QT because he’s triggered my jimmies to over-rustle.

 

[computerhxr]

I’m pissed off for these reasons:

• QT derailed a thread to talk about the new thing he’s read about (again)
• QT told me I was wrong without explaining why I was wrong
• QT invoked a standard of evidence (being based in reality) and then failed to meet it with his own ideas
• QT claimed my perspective which is pretty concrete (people find meaning in the environment they’re exposed to) was merely theoretical
• QT said science doesn’t deal with complex things (which is blatantly wrong), but soft-claimed that he could because he understands what science does not (also wrong)
• QT claims that AT is easily observable, but that somehow science fails to observe it because it is complex. However he hasn’t given any evidence for this.
• QT shifted the burden of proof such that whatever cannot be disproven is true. This is not how it works.
• QT invokes chaos theory on a system that isn’t closed
• QT invokes chaos theory in order to show that we cannot possibly tell anything about a system, when chaos theory is about making predictions over time for evolving states.
• QT invokes deterministic chaos theory to support non-determinist conclusions
• QT then pivots into shitting on about consciousness and explains that the only reason we disagree is because of differing views on consciousness. He acts as if he’s not the one that initiated what he now sees as a misunderstanding.

Any of these things in isolation would be fine, but he just stacks shit on shit. I’m tired of this. If anyone wants to talk me down from this perspective I’m open to it, but I’m blocking QT because he’s triggered my jimmies to over-rustle.

It's the Laws of Attraction in effect.

Quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, chaos theory, and Schrödinger's Cat, all shed light on the Laws of Attraction.

Chaos theory, in regards to the butterfly effect, describes how seemingly unrelated effects all point to a central cause. Even a small change in the initial state can alter the course of events dramatically over time. Your state of mind will alter the course of your life dramatically over time. The correlation of events can not be measured scientifically, but that doesn't mean that the ripple of cause and effect are a coincidence or unrelated.

Quantum mechanics describes changes in state in an isolated system (a very small scale). However, on a large scale the theory breaks down and classical physics is then a better explaination to describe events. Do you think that the laws of physics are inconsistent and science is shit due to this descrepency?

The double slit experiment illustrates how observation (in other words, measurement) alters the state of quantum energy.

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." — Nikola Tesla

"All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle." — Nikola Tesla

"But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile." — Nikola Tesla

"As I review the events of my past life I realize how subtle are the influences that shape our destinies." — Nikola Tesla

 

[onesteptwostep]

Wow what's going on in here. What's LoA. It's like one letter away from LoL- is it a game?

-edit well okay from skimming over wiki it seems to be positive mind brings positive things? I mean that's cool for some people so.. hmm.. and it seems to have brought gopher out of the woodworks so it must have some power..

 

[computerhxr]

Wow what's going on in here. What's LoA. It's like one letter away from LoL- is it a game?

-edit well okay from skimming over wiki it seems to be positive mind brings positive things? I mean that's cool for some people so.. hmm.. and it seems to have brought gopher out of the woodworks so it must have some power..

There is a lot condescension from people who think they're top shit geniuses, but lack the faculties to understand anything that doesn't fit in their flawless logical scientific paradigm. They have this expectation that everything must fit in their box or it's irrational and therefore false. Then they get all triggered from the dissonance generate by alternative modalities of belief. It's outside of the domain of science, but they want a scientific explaination...

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle describes a bubble that necessarily is beyond the realm of scientific deduction.

The double slit experiment shows that observation manifest alternate realities.

 

[redbaron]

There is a lot condescension from people who think they're top shit geniuses

at least you're aware of your problem, that's the first step to becoming a better person

i believe you can do it

 

[Hadoblado]

It's the Laws of Attraction in effect.

Quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, chaos theory, and Schrödinger's Cat, all shed light on the Laws of Attraction.

Chaos theory, in regards to the butterfly effect, describes how seemingly unrelated effects all point to a central cause. Even a small change in the initial state can alter the course of events dramatically over time. Your state of mind will alter the course of your life dramatically over time. The correlation of events can not be measured scientifically, but that doesn't mean that the ripple of cause and effect are a coincidence or unrelated.

Quantum mechanics describes changes in state in an isolated system (a very small scale). However, on a large scale the theory breaks down and classical physics is then a better explaination to describe events. Do you think that the laws of physics are inconsistent and science is shit due to this descrepency?

The double slit experiment illustrates how observation (in other words, measurement) alters the state of quantum energy.

Okay. I'll accept that state of mind can change outcomes. What I don't accept is the proposed mechanism for changing outcomes. If I want something I'm more likely to attend to opportunities to seek it etc. While a joke, RB's explanation is a legitimate point, and so for the purposes of bringing about change in your life, perception can be a good place to start.

I also think that since the only connection our consciousness has to the environment around us is the our subjective experience which is malleable, that by changing our perception we are meaningfully changing the world we experience, even if this direct change is only at the filter level, there is a feedback loop which will in turn affect the environment we experience.

I don't see how chaos theory or quantum mechanics leads to the conclusion of the LoA. I'm interpreting them as reducing confidence in scientific explanations, but haven't connected them to how they lead to LoA.

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." — Nikola Tesla

"All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle." — Nikola Tesla

"But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile." — Nikola Tesla

"As I review the events of my past life I realize how subtle are the influences that shape our destinies." — Nikola Tesla

Tesla quotes aren't convincing to me. Smart people think silly shit sometimes. It's just an appeal to authority.

There is a lot condescension from people who think they're top shit geniuses, but lack the faculties to understand anything that doesn't fit in their flawless logical scientific paradigm. They have this expectation that everything must fit in their box or it's irrational and therefore false. Then they get all triggered from the dissonance generate by alternative modalities of belief. It's outside of the domain of science, but they want a scientific explaination...

I don't think I'm a top genius, or that science is perfect. I see science as heavily limited. I just don't see an argument for LoA. I find science more compelling than other epistemological beliefs. That doesn't mean I haven't considered them. I'm frustrated, but keep in mind I didn't go out of my way to crap on LoA. It was shoved in my path by QT without reason.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

The double slit experiment shows that observation manifest alternate realities.

Looks like someone is studying quantum physics from you tube.

 

[computerhxr]

You guys are funny.

 

[Pizzabeak]

There could still be some benefit to reading material like The Secret to get more information about it in a positive way, one doesn't preclude the other. Just because in conversation if someone gleans information from something said so it could be looked at as the opposite or an opposite conclusion so as to appear a "key" or answer finally, doesn't mean it is. So it's not only for mainstream audiences or shelled out supermarket everyday normal product (i.e. "useless" or "not special"). It doesn't mean you're a bad person if you read it.

It creates a trap and conundrum. Just because you can get some knowledge of it through particular sources instead of a comprehensive review new system, doesn't make one more valuable than the other. It creates ego games, embodying a vessel with superior status possibly delusional for perceived extra content memory they may contain because events witnessed. You're looking for value. I don't think that idea really exists or is applicable, it's just new and exciting, and people trying to apply it so they seem smart or clever, basically trying to reap as many benefits as possible.

 

[computerhxr]

Well, one of the Laws of Attraction is 'like attracts like' which I think I've been able to demonstrate in this thread. Look at the response that I got by being intentionally condescending. I received condescending comments in response, just like I expected.

I used general terms and people assumed that I was referring to them.

I even go so far to swap out the wording of a post to reflect the behavior.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Life isn't about starting random conversations. Although, what if it could be. "Reality is made out of language and meaning." They say if you know the right words you can cast the right spells. Essentially that is manipulation, influencing reality or perception.

 

[computerhxr]

Life isn't about starting random conversations. Although, what if it could be. "Reality is made out of language and meaning." They say if you know the right words you can cast the right spells. Essentially that is manipulation, influencing reality or perception.

That's a good question. Manipulation has a negative connotation. Aren't we always influencing reality? If were not, then we are just victims of circumstance, powerless to control our environment.

 

[computerhxr]

The law of attraction states that "like attracts like." This means that people with a low frequency -- people who are insecure and self-abandoning -- attract each other, while people with a high frequency -- people who love and value themselves -- also attract each other.

 

[Pizzabeak]

You can't necessarily just manifest the reality you want or desire automatically. It can't be guaranteed. Skepticism will only get you so far. I wouldn't place too much stock in bizarre hopes or ideas, life is about balance. Live in the now, it's the only moment that is.

 

[QuickTwist]

You can't necessarily just manifest the reality you want or desire automatically. It can't be guaranteed. Skepticism will only get you so far. I wouldn't place too much stock in bizarre hopes or ideas, life is about balance. Live in the now, it's the only moment that is.

Sure. That is why there are things like dedication and hard work - because sometimes you have to actually show the universe you mean business with what you believe.