Is law of attraction an absolute hoax?

Okay. I was done with this thread, bt since you posed your question in form of an essay I will answer you.

If you dwell on a thought in law of attraction, perhaps you are discussing dolphins with a co-worker at length over lunch.

Note: Some will argue that you will notice the following because you are looking for them, but consistent thought can draw what really will seem nothing short of miraculous.

After the dolphin discussion you may pass a dolphin mascot in the street, see a dolphin calendar, and a few of the television shows you watch in the evening may also feature dolphins.

Without debating whether the note above is true as that must be overcome via personal observation, here is how it possibly relates to The Copenhagen Interpretation.

Let's pretend that the Law of attraction is true (for discussion) and that these "syncs" (coincidences) were caused by your conversation. This means someone was purchasing a dolphin costume and filming television episodes months in advance with dolphin references to suit your attraction on this given day. History is changing to suit the present.
So basically I am saying that in my beliefs of the law of attraction (this topic) the past is not fixed and can be altered to suit the present. There is no real timeline.

Now imagine the two cats in schrodingers box. I would suggest that if you and a co-worker were discussing death, funerals, dead animals, then you would return to your lab and open the schrodingers box and the cat would become dead as you open the box to fit your thoughts. It could have been alive, but your mood has altered the history of the cat while it was contained in the box. Had you discussed playful animals and pets with your co-worker in a posiive mindset then perhaps the animal stands a higher chance of becoming a live animal when the door is opened. Your thoughts have affected the history of the cat in the same way they affected history in the first example.

The idea that we can play out various life scenarios while existing only as probabilities is not part of any Interpretation, however is a theory I have read elsewhere and find intriguing. The many worlds theory is also very popular today and in that scenario we actually live out every decision in real life. I think living out probabilities is more likely than that, and fits more with my beliefs.

So in my opinion the Law of Attraction seems to alter the past to work, and I also see the possibility (in my opinion) of a mystic type Interpretation (moreso than the Copenhagen one, but related) allowing history t be altered up until the moments of conscious collapse (likely (in my opinion) to be individual collapse).

You must understand that I have likely seen a lot more Empirical Evidence that supports telepathy, precognition, LOA than people who won't even bother to try them. They are all simple enough to do, but harder to prove and should be experienced firsthand repeatedly. I would have been happy if I could open a textbook and read a theory that explains telepathy and LOA, however I have not found any. Until then I will explore and/or create my own hypothesis.

All religions and Witchcraft endorse LOA type magic. Belief, ask for, sow/reap, etc.

I bet you have even done a witchcraft ritual inside your home.

YES. I BET YOU HAVE DONE A WITCHCRAFT RITUAL INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME!!!!

Believe me...

I will get back to that however...

Egypt was known to have great schools of thought called "Mystery Schools", and perhaps Jesus and some famous Greek philosophers and Mathematicians allegedly attended.
Now Egypt surrendered to Rome with the fall of Cleopatra, and Rome fell to the Catholic church with the Forgery of Constanine, so we know that any magical knowledge was buried by the Catholics, but it is very possible people were more commonly manifesting and using telepathy. Nostradamus wrote in mysterious Quatrains to avoid being put to death by the Catholics, but he made many accurate forecasts. Much more than is commonly known. He hid his books from the Catholics, and the drugs (yes he used drugs) he used are never to be known as they were lost with his books and was probably burnt by the inquisition.

The Catholics killed/slaughtered over 10 million heretics and innocents in their campaigns, and wiped alternate thinking from their path.

So what remains.. A few textbooks and the idea of witchcraft.

I said YOU HAVE PRACTICED WITCHCRAFT IN YOUR HOME.
Many people...
a) light candles - offer sacrifice and time
b) make a wish - issue intent
c) blow out the candles - let go of intention.
although nowadays this ritual is ofte accompanied by family and friends singing "Happy birthday".
So you have done witchcraft unless you have no friends.

How would history need to change to bring this manifestation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTg3sB-wyNw

If you contemplate the link story then you must see history must change for it to occur. I know history changing is a DEEP thought, but when you look at many scientific choices it is normal. A) How did the Universe start.
B) was there ever nothing?
c) Many Worlds
d) entanglement

are equally strange.

Anyways.. That is how I think The two can be related, and now i am done with this thread. Questions about the Law of Attraction or debating my NOTE are not going to happen here. That has been covered before. Try reading entire thread and google rest.

I don't expect many here to understand these views, but I don't quite care yet.

Good-luck, Have fun..
Get your pets spayed/neutered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LMFAO
You even point out how, in the example of a show on T.V. about dolphins, it was made months before you "attracted it" and yet... you claim history itself was changed by your wanting to see dolphins. ROFLMAO
And somehow, that makes more sense to you than the idea that people are noticing what is on their mind when they normally wouldn't have paid attention?

Hilarious.

Your "views" are understood. Stop acting like we're stupid morons that just don't understand you. No, we understand it fine. I also understood your incorrect interpretations in the previous argument. I get what you're saying. But what you're saying is still absurd.

Sorry, you're not an elite genius beyond our comprehension.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you don't realise that one can't influence the result of a waveform collapse, under any of the interpretations of QM... that it collapses to a random result in line with it's probability function (assuming one's interpretation at least allows for the concept of waveform collapse).

You can no more influence a collapse than you can tell a single radioactive atom when to decay. All observation does, under the CI, is cause the collapse.

Everything you describe with regard LOA has no relationship to QM, due to this inability to influence the result.

It is this lack of comparability that is perhaps confusing people as to your argument - as you seem to be relying on something that is considered impossible.

But if you genuinally think that you can influence the output of such quantum observations, feel free to posit how.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's play a game in which you guys try to explain the double slit experiment.

The Many Worlds theory is far more absurd than what I postulate, yet it is among the most accepted still. I have said this was not my hypothesis, but it makes more sense than the Many Worlds theory and such.

The many Worlds theory was celebrated across the globe as a great revelation, but if you look at what it is all about it might sound a bit woo'ish to people skeptic bound.
The idea is that every decision you and other make separates you into 2 different worlds, and that in our reality there are millions upon millions of planet earths where you are living out every possible variation of your life. In many lives you are full of woo, and in some I am the skeptic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwhqgA4S5NE

I suppose you can either see their brilliance or call most of Quantum Scientists nutters. I am guessing you will call them nutters so I am in good company.

 

This is called, "Shifting the goal posts."

 

Let me see, um yes, as a teen I often believed in ESP, ghosts, Out of body experiences, astrology and psychics.

My great-grandmother used to brag to me that I come from a long line of witches and that we even had a personal , not so "good", spirit watching over the women in my family. Oddly I saw this spirit and after learning my supposed family history even my 2 exhusbands and one mother in law saw it. By the time my mother in law saw it I no longer believed in it but the power of suggestion on a superstitious mind is an endlessly entertaining thing to watch.

As I got older, learned more about science and psychology, (in other words got more education) I let go of these silly superstitions and embraced logical reasoning.
But you have suggested that strong belief in the LOA would likely be necessary in order for it to work because doubt would negate the results of any test.

Well let me tell you the results I had testing this LOA, without knowing what it was even, back then I just called it faith. I prayed for things constantly. roughly out of 100 prayers a day (guessing of course) I would have maybe 5 of them answered. Of those 5, 3 were likely to have been answered because along with the prayer (ie wishes issued to the universe) I also took steps to increase the likelihood of those prayers being answered. 1 prayer came true, usually because I had prayed for something that regularly came to pass anyway, like leaves turning orange in the fall, And the last one would be answered because it was also a desire that other people shared and they did things to ensure that it happened. Every now and then, I think maybe 4 times in my life (out of 100 or so prayers daily) a prayer would be answered without me having any understanding of how it could have happened, it was purely chance, coincidence, or..... the universe coddling my little whims. Such as picking the winning lottery scratch off ticket.

Now as far as practicing witchcraft at home, is it witchcraft if the person doing the activity has no intent or believe in witchcraft. For instance, I put lit candles on my son's birthday cake. Because it is tradition and it is fun. Especially since I put trick candles on that have multicolored flames. My son blew out said candles. Because he likes a challenge to see if he can get them all out in one breath. And because I told him too. Not to mention it is hard to eat cake when there is a small torch sticking out of it.

If he made a wish I do not know. But I know none of my wishes ever came true as a kid. I never met Michael Jackson, I never even got to go to a concert and now the fucker is dead, I never got a real cabbage patch kid. My mom and dad never got back together. And I never once got a toy for any holiday as a gift by merely wishing or praying for it. I always had to reveal my desire to someone in order for it to materialize. In spite of being told, "now don't tell anyone what you wished for or it wont come true". Sometimes I just wished for my brother to get better, or for my step dad to stop drinking. Today that step dad is dead. So I guess I got the wish for him, he has stopped drinking.. but my brother isn't better. He is in pretty bad shape with drugs, alcohol and mental illness. Something he didn't have when the wish was made. Then he just had asthma. That hasn't gone away either.

but you make a good point, if you mean to say that people who pray and light candles and make wishes, expecting that some supernatural force is taking note of these activities and making arrangements to accommodate the desires expressed are practicing witchcraft even though they insist it isn't real. I agree with you. But you kinda have to believe in fairy tales to have any intent or hope that these activities will be anymore fruitful than just living by our wits, taking logical steps to increase teh odds of achieving our preferred outcomes. Or taking our chances with events we have no control over.

You see, I am a skeptic, because I was a believer most of my life. And the things I believed in failed to materialize with any kind of consistency. The experiments in faith failed more often than not. Looking at the results of these experiments made throughout my life, especially during the years that I had strong faith, led me to the conclusion that my faith was misplaced. That the only real force in the world is my will to physically do what is necessary to change what I can, and the emotional aptitude to accept the results if I fail.

By the way, you may have overlooked my posts but have you gotten my phone number yet? I have been sending it to you the last couple of nights. Please post it on the forum when you get it. That way, you have a way of proving to us all, that we are the nitwits, not you. I will continue sending it to you nightly until I see you post it online.

 

@ Seagypsy,
That is why I have posted experiments for people that are easy to do. If you went through your teens imagining you could project an entire phone number accurately, then it's little wonder all your tests failed.

There are ways to overcome negative thinking that will sabotage your affirmations.

I think the best way to attract a situation into your life is constant repetition of a short affirmation like, "I have my promotion and new office and am very happy". Do this 15-30 minutes upon awakening and at nightime, and as often as possible through the day. Make a list of things you will do differently if you have that office. Maybe you will install a coffeemaker or secret television.

That is better than blowing out candles, but I was making a point that some pagan rituals are hidden in our daily lives. I was demonstrating that witchcraft would be a lot more accepted had it not been for the Catholic Church owning all the secret texts from Egypt / Rome and their Inquisition age that burned libraries.

I dislike that you refer to Michael Jackson as "Fucker", he has kids that search the internet and it seems disrespectful.

The one experiment I outlined in my telepathy thread is so simple.
When I was 17 I knew a girl who vanished from our circle of friends. I was reading a book called "E.S.P. by Harold Sherman". He was known for a year long telepathy only experiment (very accurate btw and witnessed by many officials) with an arctic explorer who was out of reach by radio for months on end searching for a missing Russian Aircraft. He outlined that you wait for a subject to sleep and repeat a short message to them (visualize them or photograph) such as "wake up at 3am.". I waited until 2 am and started sending this girl a message without the required photograph. I sent the message, "(girls name)! (my name) misses you very much, get in touch!". I did it for the full required hour.
Five days later a letter arrived from Rochester New York. I live in Canada. It was very vague about who sent it and only gave clues like "We went to a toga party together", and stuff like that. At the very end of the second page was the line "LAST NIGHT I HAD DREAM ABOUT YOU THAT PROMPTED ME TO WRITE." This was 5 days after I had sent the message.

That story obviously has no "proof" but I swear it's true.

Now a skeptic might think that is random. Perhaps she just dreamed about you coincidentally on the same night as you sent the message.

So my first experience with telepathy worked in a different country so I was introduced to telepathy under better circumstances than you.

There was a dream telepathy experiment that was conducted that also was VERY successful.

http://www.espresearch.com/dreamtelepathy/

They defied odds of over 75,000,000:1, but like Neverfly said skeptics will NEVER accept beaten odds as proof. The research was all lab settings with video of participants (I've seen these videos, but they are not public). Sender were sent into locked rooms where they would open their target photograph and the receiver would be woken during REM sleep and asked to describe their dreams. It was incredible. You should see the way these receivers describe scenes so much similar to the senders.

I have seen LOA, telepathy, precognition do some things that I would describe as miraculous. I have been around thirty years almost since that first successful transmission and I know it works. I also know that people only start to believe it when they do it themselves. I turned an Engineer from California into a psychic just from blogging with him. This stuff works.

Forget blowing candles on a cake. Create something real. It is easy.

@ Neverfly,
I made a valid point though. I'd like to see anyone attempt to explain QM, Spooky action at a distance (Einsteins term for it , not mine), or how the Universe came from nothing rationally which is what you asked me to do. You dislike the theory I ascribe to, but you fail to show what is the correct theory. The problems are is that all QM, Spooky actions at a distance, and attempts to explain how we evolved from nothing make very little sane sense to anyone.

The example of Law of Attraction I linked would require the past to alter, and so would the stories of the millions of people who believe in LOA. I am not saying history will change to suit me,, I am saying it must alter course to allow many LOA stories to become reality. I have explained my views, you have had a laugh (even though to me, it does not reflect well on your mind), so now you can show me how easy it is to stand behind something. Triple dog dare. lol

 

Supposed beaten odds with Cold Reading techniques is not "proof"- correct.

When did I ask you to do any of these things? Although, your claim does demonstrate you lack understanding of BBT as much as QM...

What are you going on about here? Elucidate.

You're assigning your own assumptions onto others. Projecting your misunderstandings onto others.

What is the dare? All your smug rambling did not show any dare in there.

You're damn right I laughed at you. You claimed that history alters course to appease someones nightly wishing. That's funny stuff.

 

Its all funny stuff at that level was the point which you didn't get.

Nevermind.

You either understood and were afraid to stand behind a dumbass view , because they are all sounding stupid at that level.
Or
You really Don't know enouh about QM to see there is some very weird reasoning in all the cases. Many Worlds Theory as one.

Either way I shall ignore that post for lack of one or the other. I can't expand on my views but I laugh at your inability to grasp it (or any QM theory), as much as you laugh at its absurdity.

ROFLMFAO.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers,

P.S. Just saw Cloud Atlas. That movie would suck for skeptics .. stay away.
-- And nobody understands BBT. You're deluded if you think so. I suppose you do though.. cheers again. lol

 

Alternatively you could actually address the issue I raised - that you're trying to lay claim to affecting the outcome of a quantum waveform collapse?

BTW, not all interpretations require such a collapse - and some don't even postulate waveforms.
But your claims seem to rely on certain interpretations and not others?

Absurd to who? To those who don't understand QM perhaps.
It does not sound absurd to me.
Your claims do.

There are certainly some questions that arise from it, and criticisms. But "sound a bit woo'ish"? No.

Yet how does any of this support your claims that go against the CI, which you claim supported it?
How do you propose one affects the outcome of a quantum waveform collapse, which are otherwise considered random?

All you're currently doing is saying "QM is a bit weird... and some QM scientists might be a bit woo'ish... I'm being considered a bit woo'ish so I should be as accepted as QM scientists - and thus QM supports my claims!"

 

I get that QM is weird. I also get that a lot of that weirdness is due to our inability to "see" at that level, a level below using the properties of light even, to observe. I get that it's exceptionally difficult to perceive that realm due to its tiny size, not due to magic, an underverse or any other wild harebrained conception.

You presented the Copenhagen Interpretation and Bohr as stating the exact opposite as to what they actually say. Don't tell me I don't 'get it.' I understand what your misconceptions are, I have shown how they are misconceptions. The only one not 'getting it' is you and you are trying to make it appear as though you've gone over my head- Hate to bust your bathtime bubbles, baby, but you haven't.

Bull. You're avoiding having to answer any of my questions by pretending (In your fantasy world) that I've failed to grasp (I haven't) and that you're superor intellect shouldn't be wasted on me (You're carrying clear and obvious misconceptions and you refuse to examine them which counts as choosing ignorance.)

Yes, I'm deluded, too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

QM might be weird, sure, compared to the classical physics most of us were brought up on, but you're seriously equating QM with abiogenesis and evolution in terms of weirdness??

I'd put the joint down, Kwhilborn.
Such past-altering effects can theoretically happen in QM but only where the effect from the future event is "hidden" until after that event has taken place. And at no time can one influence the outcome.

But you seem to be applying this aspect of QM to the macro-level... and relying on the equivalence of the "mystery" of both QM and your claims to provide support.
And still you don't show how it is possible to influence the outcome of a waveform collapse under CI, which is what your previous explanations apparently relied upon.

Your "explanation" is akin to "What I claim is mysterious. QM is also mysterious. They are both mysterious therefore equally acceptable."
Yes, you have tried to go into a bit of detail about QM and tried to link it more than just reliance on their mysteriousness, but your linkages are flawed.

Have another go.

 

@ Sarkus,
you say

I would be more open to explanations of our universe that can explain LOA, and telepathy as I view them as fact. I would never bend on this point, but can understand the flawed skeptics view. You have never seen evidence (or looked for even) of telepathy. Skeptics choose to ignore probabilities, but experimental evidence can show probabilities that would seem impossible. The reason you have not seen this evidence is for two reasons. a) You have not looked, and b) In a case where it is a billion to one odds in favor of telepathy, the skeptics cling to that one and say the billion was just a long series of flukes. I accept such probabilities because I have seen them firsthand and have also see much more behind the scenes Empirical evidence as well.

Before I state this next paragraph I'd like to remind any that I have often said LOA is the same as a religion, and that asking the universe and praying are the same thing. This is consistent with what I have said much earlier in the thread.

You say it is theoretically possible for past altering effects to happen in QM prior to collapse, and I agree.
I believe that Schrodingers cat is not only influenced by the observer, but I would argue that the observers expectation can influence the result.

Although Schrodingers cat was only a thought experiment this could be put to the test in a lab setting.

Have an item that has 50% chance of turning blue or red put inside a box. Tell the lab techs that it has a 75% chance of turning blue. If there are more blue items at the end of the experiment we have demonstrated that expectation can influence collapse. Since this is no longer a thought experiment we would need to get rid of using cats or we'd just be killing a bunch of cats. If I could think of something that would go 50/50 then I might conduct the experiment myself. I just thought of that experiment actually, so I am unsure how to do it. Maybe have an Iphone connect to a website that does 50/50 background colour schemes. A lot of strangers would be needed for such a experiment though.

If somebody prays for a Kidney and then a donor becomes available as soon as the prayer is over is that because god/universe killed someone with a matching organ, or could it be that HISTORY CHANGED and someone signed their donor card 3 years previously when up to that point it was not signed.

That is probably a bad example, but it might show the point.

I believe there is no past set in stone, and we can alter history. I cannot see any way around that and still allow loa/miracles to occur.

The Many Worlds theory is more bizarre in my opinion and I cannot imagine there is millions/billions of Earths out there where we are all living out every decision we ever make in an alternate reality. That theory is wrong in my opinion.

I am not interested if this belief is shared by anyone here as you 3 (sarkus,seagypsy,neverfly), are obviously biased skeptics. I understand the skeptic viewpoint as well, but I have seen enough to know that stance is flawed. I am not interested in whether that is believed either; as again, a skeptic must argue the points.

Thank-you for this interaction however. The above experiment would be interesting to propose to various circles, and perhaps someone may actually do it (sans cats).

 

And you consider yourself open minded? Just not to the possibility that your understanding is in error? You want such things to be true. You want explanations that fit with your preconceived ideas.
This is not a rational approach.

And you know me, right? To know that I have never looked, or even seen anything that could remotely be understood as telepathy??
Don't presume to know anything about people on this site other than what they tell you.
If you must know I have seen plenty that could be interpreted as telepathy - and my twin brother used to be adamant that we could communicate telepathically - in small things, such as both trying to phone the other at certain times, or both thinking about the same thing at the same time, or even knowing what the other was thinking when in the same room.
But it was mere coincidence, borne or close proximity.
So don't you dare presume to know me, or what I have or have not tried, other than what I inform you of through this site.

No, experimental evidence can not. Nor has not.
And guess what - probabilities are possible BY DEFINITION!!
You see a one in a million chance happening and see something mysterious behind it - yet ignore the other times nothing happened.

Which is more likely - a one in a billion chance being the result of some "mysterious" phenomena, or due to the mere obeyance of the laws of probability?
And please provide this empirical evidence that you claim exists - and show how you know that it is not merely some charlatan performing tricks in a less open way than, say, Derren Brown - who can "read minds", influence people in ways that, to you, would be clear evidence of telepathy etc.
Or that it is not mere coincidence.

You seem to have no real conception of probability... or what constitutes a statistical "anomaly" that might need further reviewing.
How many times would you suggest running this experiment, and how large a blue% would you need to be convinced of your result?
Furthermore, if it failed, would you concede your position, and accept that it is not possible?

A genuine 50/50 chance means that as the number of occurrences approaches the infinite, the expected outcome is 50/50.
It does not mean that "if you do it 100 times then you will get 50 of one and 50 of the other - otherwise something mysterious is going on".
A swing to one colour would be no proof at all of anything mysterious.
But you don't seem to understand this particularly well.
You latch on to coincidences and read so much into them that you ignore the most simple explanation: that it is a coincidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Such QM oddities do not work at that level!! The card being signed is an observed event. Either it is or it isn't. The person can not sign it without observing it! The waveform for that event would have collapsed at that point... not at the point that someone thinks/prays for it.

Yes it is a bad example, and no it doesn't show any point other than your misunderstanding of the applicability of QM.

And here's the crux... you have already convinced yourself about the results, so fit the theory to fit - regardless of the absurdity of the theory. What you seem to have utterly failed to do is see if your interpretation of the results really is correct, and whether it is not more likely that your interpretation of the results is flawed.

Great. Noone is asking you to accept it. Most QM scientists don't consider it to be the most rational, plausible, acceptable either.
But, to be blunt, what has that to do with the price of eggs?

To be biased we have to be presented with evidence to the contrary. There isn't any that rationally lead to the conclusions and claims you are making. To be biased we would have to ignore evidence... we aren't, we just conclude that the evidence is more rationally interpreted differently to you.
There is only one person in this discussion who could be accused of bias.

Yet you can't show how it is flawed other than "I have interpreted the results differently!"
Provide the evidence that shows the stance is flawed, that telepathy is fact, that you can influence the outcome of a waveform collapse.
At the moment you are just arguing from confidence, and with a lack of clarity around QM.

 

That last post was drivel at its finest.

- 75,000,000:1 odds for telepathy do not just happen.
- To take the skeptic stance you are automatically biased against paranormal.
- Derren Brown is not new to me. I could list favorite episodes such as the Simon Pegg episode. I am also a magician as he was for 10 years in a restaurant. When I was younger I was a busker and could make over $500 cash on some days. I still have a busker license for fun. I am fully aware of embedded commands and suggestion/NLP. I have not been taken in by any "Derren Brown" types anchoring their way into my belief system. If you want a few simple magic ideas invest in d-lites and a fake thumb.
- I did not interpret results differently. I have said I support a concept where the results were read differently.
- You say 75,000,000:1 odds would never seem impossible. That means 75,000,000 against probability since you seem confused. You argue that like it is insignificant and seemingly argue for the point of arguing. Pretty lame. I'd like to see anyone attempt to break odds of 1000:1 at will.
- Repetitive swings to the color expected would be evidence to support LOA provided the colour did not swing the opposite direction. If it consistently showed desired results then of course it would show statistical anomalies. The more he experiment is repeated the more accurate the results. Does your brain hurt when you think?

Yeah. Sorry for the 2 minute response, but I had a hard time taking that post seriously. lmao.

I asked you lot what interpretation you subscribe to, but you either fear ridicule or you don't have one (or heard of one). I have answered all questions, yet you bunch are afraid of what?

So please. I even triple dog dared you. Please, Please, Please; tell me you favorite Interpretation of the Double Slit Experiment. lol

please, please.

 

Sylvia browne claims a 90% accuracy in her psychic predictions. In actuality, it's closer to 13%.

 

They would be expected to happen at least once every 75,000,000 attempts - if the odds are genuine.
One might say that winning the lottery at odds of 12m:1 "do not just happen". Tell that to the people who have won it.

No, the skeptic just doesn't jump on one explanation when there is a more rational one at hand. The skeptic is not biased - just neutral. There is no bias other than against the irrational. Many of us would love telepathy and any other psychic powers to be real and provable... but there simply is no evidence that leads one to rationally conclude that they are.

I'm sure most of Derren Brown's "victims" would also claim they were not taken in by him. Even Simon Pegg did, before he was shown how he was.
I suggest that you have been taken in by, if nothing else, a series of coincidences and your own romantic notions of the paranormal.

??? Where have I said you interpret the results differently? And differently to who?? Sorry - this comment is lost on me as I can not see how it relates to anything I have said in my previous post.

I know exactly what those odds mean - and have explained above. And what on earth does the phrase "against probability" mean when using it to define probability itself?
I'll explain again exactly what it means: that as the number of occurrences approach infinity, you would expect 1 in 75,000,000 of those occurrences to give a positive result.
You don't "defeat/beat probability" when you acheive a positive result, as you seem to think - unless you can show that you can do it on command (and not rely on a potentially lucky run some 8 years ago as sufficient evidence) and to an extent such that it is statistically anomalous. And repeatably.

It depends on what the occurrence is. As said, people do win the jackpot on lotteries all the time... so is a single occurrence significant? No. Given the number of attempts an occurrence is expected. But you undoubtedly see it as something "mysterious" and that they have "defied probability".

We all would - as it would show that either the odds were incorrectly calculated (i.e. based on inadequate information) or that the person has psychic ability.
Do you have evidence that someone can "break odds" of 1000:1 at will??

My question is how many times would it need to repeat for you to consider it evidence of LOA? 2 in a row? 3? 4 out of 5? More than 50% over 100 attempts?
And how many times would it need to fail for you to consider LOA false?

Should it? Does yours?

Perhaps it is because you don't take it seriously that you seem to be so gullible and biased toward the idea of psychic abilities. Perhaps if you did take it seriously you would actually pay attention to some of the key issues raised in such posts (that you have failed to address - presumably because you have no answer). Perhaps you might even put up or shut up, as the phrase goes.

Why should we subscribe to any of them, given that none of them have any evidence that demonstrate their truth over any of the others?
And how does what interpretation (if any) we subscribe to have any bearing on the criticisms laid at the feet of your claims that you have simply not addressed?

So again, how do you propose to link your requirement for the future to influence the past events for LOA to happen, to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM that you feel allows for it but which actually does not, given the RANDOM (i.e. uninfluenced) nature of the waveform collapse?

Your move.

 

There is a lot of hype about LOA and other matters and how many people talk about it is not accurate. It does exist and it does work and be careful what you believe out there. Like I said, there is a lot of hype and the meaningfulness of it has been diluted with many trying to use it for marketing purposes.

There are many videos on YouTube, as well as material by Abraham Hicks and look up material online and sites by Hemal Radia (and his book "Find You & You Find Everything: The Secrets to the Law of Attraction") which explain it well.

 

Yes. I agree. I have seen some extremely weird events occur while using Law of Attraction. I believe that thoughts are somehow real things and that we are created in gods image with the same powers to create. I will not argue for it anymore but have in this thread. Those who are open minded enough to try this may be pleasantly surprised.

 

There is no scientific evidence nor basis for the LOA. It is often considered an unscientific notion which relies on anecdotal evidence that is maintained through selection bias and confirmation bias.

There are certainly some others on this site that believe as you do, however, so at least you will have company.