CONTINUED FROM PART ONE.
When we last left off, Emma was watching a video in the car, waiting for her father to return with meals from McDonald's.
I accidentally slammed the door a bit too hard when I got back to the car, but Emma was too excited to even comment on it. Instead she gushed about the video she'd just watched.
“Wow, Dad, that video was intense! He started at the double-slit experiment, dug deep into the observer effect and problems in quantum measurement, and more. I could tell he was trying to make it simple, but since I don’t know the ‘language’ of quantum mechanics, it was super complex.”
“Oh, so you didn’t like it?”
“No, I just mean, I normally can’t sit through boring science stuff like that, but I guess I’m so hungry to know if our consciousness really does control our reality, I was motivated to give it a chance. Paraphrasing Radin, ‘Everyone offers theories about consciousness but few real, solid, rigorous experiments are actually done.’” Emma took the chicken nuggets I was offering as we talked.
“Yes, it’s definitely interesting and seems to be fairly rigorous scientific experiments and testing, right?”
“Totally!” Emma’s enthusiasm was the perfect note for us to get back on the road, so I hit the gas.
“Well, be careful, the whole point of this conversation isn’t that classical physics is ‘right’ or quantum physics is ‘right’ or that Dean Radin is ‘right.’ The whole point isn’t for you to take some other person’s work or ideas as gospel, it’s for you to think things through for yourself, and more importantly...
Experiment well for yourself, in your own life.
I’m cherry-picking videos and resources that lean heavily towards ‘believing’ in the law of attraction and the impact of consciousness on reality. Some of the videos have religious agendas, monetary agendas, ego-driven agendas, and more. They may be enlightening, or off-putting. They may be right about some things, but there’s also plenty of stuff out there that will say that's ‘not real science’, or everything I’ve shown you is all conjecture from ‘quacks.’ There’s lots of people out there discrediting people’s ideas, sometimes with noble intentions, sometimes out of knee-jerk insecurities.”
“Well, there’s countless books and videos that explore opposing views. A fun example might be this entire reddit thread where people say quantum mechanics proves nothing about consciousness’s place in life. There are other people in the same thread quoting many famous physicists who say otherwise. You’re going to find lots of ‘smart’ people arguing that ‘their view’ is ‘right’ and everyone else is wrong. And then there’s another reddit thread discussing the validity of the debate in the first reddit thread. Which side is right? Which philosophy is right? Which science is right? Who’s science was ‘most precise’, ‘most fair’, ‘most rigorous?’ Can science even really say anything about consciousness, reality, manifestation, or law of attraction? Does it even matter?”
‘Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon. It is impossible to specify what it is, what does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it.’ - Stuart Sutherland, International Dictionary of Psychology, 1989
Emma’s jaw hung open as I tore apart the resources I’d been offering her and questioned the validity of most arguments made by most scientists, but I just barrelled on.
“Radin’s earlier works have been criticized as ‘misreported’ or ‘loose’ or ‘unscientific’, so he responded by being even more precise and rigorous with his more recent experiments, so they might be reliable to form some conclusions from…”
“...or they might be falsified, mistaken, or overturned in a few years anyway. I see what you’re getting at.” Emma laughed, “I’m starting to see a pattern with all these ‘scientific discoveries.’”
“You know it…
So did Radin’s quantum experiments convince you that our consciousness creates our reality?
Or maybe this recent experiment proves that 'extended networks of observers' defines the structure of physical reality itself, or this one on the observer-affects-reality principle is good enough for you? Or maybe they’re not. Are they true? Accurate? Can we dismiss these experiments out of hand? How about when we compile them together with countless other experiments showing similar things?
“Well that Radin video kind of did, and it looks like it convinced most of the 3,800 commenters too, judging by the comments. It seems that quantum physics shows us that there’s an important place for consciousness (and mind-over-matter) in science, because consciousness is actually the metaphysical basis of everything, the extra-physical ‘observer’ that turns all the ‘wave realities’ we can’t experience into ‘particle realities’ we can… even though some people don’t realize it or admi it.”
“Indeed, that does seem to be the case. Though you’ll always find someone who dismisses results like this for one reason or another.
Most famously, Einstein was not a fan of today’s quantum physics, saying:
'God does not play dice with the universe.'
“Yo! Are you saying Einstein was a quantum-mechanics hater?”
“Yes and no. Einstein won a Nobel Prize for his work on the ‘photoelectric effect’ — a phenomenon that helped develop quantum mechanics. But despite helping develop quantum mechanics, Einstein didn’t like the idea of every particle not being real, and instead being ‘random waves’ that we as observers control. He believed we can calculate both the speed and position of particles, definitively, the observer-effect be damned. He did not believe in the existence of ‘superposition’, where particles exist in multiple states at once, and can’t be measured properly, only becoming measurable particles once some ‘observer’ has put attention on them.”
“But the video I just watched was really, really convincing and everyone in the comments seemed to agree.”
“Just so. And here we are, years after Einstein’s death, and there's not a shred of evidence of the ‘definitive measurement law’ that Einstein hoped for, and all experimental evidence suggests that quantum mechanics is, well, real. So Einstein was probably, um, wrong about this.”
“Well, nice to know he was human, I guess.”
“As are we all. Everything I’m telling you here could, technically, be overturned tomorrow. It wasn’t just Einstein who didn’t believe in quantum mechanics, entire scientific groups like ‘Reductive Materialists’ and ‘Classical Physicists’ say there’s no place for consciousness (or mind-over-matter) in science. They’ll use scientific dismissals such as ‘falsified results’ ‘too many standard deviations,’ or disbelief in apparent ‘5-sigma results and z-scores,’ and on and on. They’ll dismiss things such as this quote:
‘When we compound the statistics from the several independent findings, we compute a bottom line deviation of more than 5 sigma, representing evidence for structure where there should be none in the random data. We think this carefully established anomaly relating consciousness and physical randomness bears implications for both the study of human consciousness and our understanding of the physical world.’
From a paper called: Mind Matters: A New Scientific Era by R. Nelson with a wave of their hand.”
“Um, hello? Was that English?”
“I’m not really sure, myself, haha. Basically it’s an example of how formal, intellectual scientist’s argue. One says they found ‘5-sigma’ proof that consciousness creates reality, another dismisses those 5-sigma results, basically saying ‘You Done Effed Up Your Experiments, Foo’.”
“Oh, so 5-sigma results just means ‘major proof’, or something?”
“Yep, and 6-sigma is even more reliable proof. And it usually takes a lot of work to produce such levels of proof, and Nobel Prizes can be awarded for new or groundbreaking 5-sigma results. But even when those results are produced, other scientists may still take issue with them. And maybe they’re right to do so. But like I said before, ‘out-of-hand dismissals’ isn’t the mark of an open-minded, truth-seeking scientist, so be careful if you see any of the YouTube comments hand-waving someone’s life work and experimental research away. And like I also said, I told you I’d provide you with ‘the best science has to offer’ on law of attraction. Well, there aren’t a whole lot of well-crafted (or well-known) experiments on the nature of consciousness or it’s effects on quantum mechanics, and even less that are walked through clearly on YouTube, so… you might as well explore it for yourself.”
“Thanks, I appreciate it, I never would’ve found any of this stuff on my own, no matter how long I googled.”
I grinned, it always feels good to receive gratitude from my daughter. “Ok, so what are your takeaways?”
“Well, I learned that since all particles are also waves, and so every particle of the universe hasn’t really been ‘decided’ whether it’s moving fast or slow, heavy or light, what flavor it is, etc. until it gets ‘observed’ somehow. This is what science calls a particle being in a ‘superposition’ state, as in, it doesn’t have a set position in reality yet, because it’s like a wave in the ocean, existing in many states at once. I learned that the reality I’m used to isn’t really real until I observe it or perceive it or measure it. When a wave gets ‘measured’ or ‘observed’ or ‘interacts with any environment’ it becomes a particle, this is called ‘decoherence’ and it’s through decoherence that quantum probabilities or quantum realities become actual realities that we experience. This can even happen over large distances, because of ‘quantum entanglement’, and it may play a role in the power of prayer, mind-over-matter, or even unexplained psychic phenomenon!”
“Oho! Now who’s using a bunch of whacked-out science terms that aren’t english?
“What do you mean? I thought I explained that pretty well, no?”
“Sure, for me, but pretend you’re talking to someone who hasn’t seen any of the videos! They’d be clueless. They’d be lost as soon as you mentioned ‘quantum entanglement, for example. Do you even know what that is?”
“We-ell, I’ma be honest, the video you sent me confused me, so I did some of my own research and found a video called ‘What Can Schrödinger's Cat Teach Us About Quantum Mechanics?’ by Josh Samani on the TED-Ed channel, and that helped a lot.”
“See? Even you got lost! So, your explanation would definitely confuse others.”
“Ah, true, that’s my bad. But I’d just tell them what you told me, if you want to discuss this stuff, you better learn the language first. I’d tell them to google ‘superposition for kids’, ‘quantum decoherence for beginners’, ‘quantum entanglement for quick summary’, or whatever else I could think of to help them learn the terms.”
“Very wise, Emma. And in case that ever does happen, most people don’t even know what to look up or where to start, so I often point them to The Map of Quantum Physics on the Domain Of Science YouTube channel. It’s a fun, friendly list of most key terms and concepts involved in quantum science & computing, with super-quick summaries of each, and it’s a great starting point if people don’t know what to look up, even though it’s not very law of attraction focused.”
“Great! And speaking of which…
I’m starting to get how quantum physics ties into the law of attraction.”
“I’m glad. And what is your summary?”
“Everything is made of tiny particles, atoms, protons, electrons, quarks, and so on. Each of these particles have a certain ‘energy’, too. Anyway, the universe is an elegant system, because everything we’ve ever experienced is made up of these tiny particles. They’re like the ‘lego’ building-blocks of reality. Basically, these tiny particles are literally what ‘manifests’ as our experiences. But there’s something extra special about each of these particles… they’re not actually particles. Instead, they’re waves of probability that we, as humans with consciousness, can influence through our attention. It’s our attention that ‘particlizes’ them or ‘realizes’ them. So literally… our focus, attention and attitude towards things influences every wave/particle in them towards either being something we desire, or something we don’t desire. Our attention, acting upon tiny ‘wave-particles’ and energies (‘quanta’) heavily influences the manifestation of different things. I once read an Eckhart Tolle quote that said:
"You are the universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while."
So, we’re all made up of same ‘energy’, ‘matter’, ‘stardust’ or whatever that manifests galaxies, stars, suns, life, consciousness, and once we realize this, we can tune our consciousness more and more towards joy and love, resulting in a life experience that reflects more and more joy and love.”
“Bravo!” I slapped my knee with genuine glee Emma had summarized the connection between quantum physics and the law of attraction quite well for a teenager.
“Yeah, all these video resources you’ve sent me are a lot of food for thought, but I can see how ‘stronger and stronger evidence’ is ‘pointing towards’ the law of attraction being real.”
“Right, but do you also see how human science, math, and physics aren’t really adequate in their current state to actually prove it once and for all? Do you see how you, or anyone, asking for ‘proof’ has missed the point of how life’s deepest truths work?”
“I do. But I’m starting to feel it might be ‘enough proof’ for me. At least enough for me to give it more than a shot than my sulky whining and half-hearted visualizations earlier. I’m starting to think this stuff is worth actually practicing, because there seems to be some pretty substantial scientific exploration of it going on.”
“I’m glad to hear it. The ‘Placebo Effect’ alone is a topic of huge interest and debate in scientific circles, and also responsible for some pretty ‘miraculous’ improvements in certain people’s lives. Some scientists, like Dr. Joe Dispenza, swear the placebo effect is a powerful tool for reality creation, others swear it’s hogwash. Either way, it sounds like it has crazy potential and I’m honestly surprised more people aren’t exploring that for themselves as a starting point.”
“Yeah, the only people I know who’ve tested it for themselves are people in hospitals with untreatable diagnoses, so they start playing with mind-over-matter, because, what else can they do?”
“I hear ya on that. I’d love to see more people trying their own Law Of Attraction experiments. I’d like to see people testing to see if their consciousness affects reality, the same way kids test whether or not pedaling fast keeps their bike balanced, or copywriter’s test one headline over another.”
“Well I tested that already this week and they all failed.”
“I mean, those are pretty ambitious tests, miss. When you’re dipping your toe into the realms of quantum physics and law of attraction, maybe start with smaller tests?”
“Well if you really want to try, you could check out a book called E-Squared: Nine Do-It-Yourself Energy Experiments That Prove Your Thoughts Create Your Reality by Pam Grout. It’s not the be-all-end-all on the subject but it’s a great way to get your feet wet for beginners. There’s also some ‘muscle testing’ experiments you can play with in the book Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior by Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D.”
“Awesome! I’ll Amazon it, easy-peasy!”
“Lovely. Now they’re both fairly light reading, and doesn’t go too deep into the quantum mechanics of things, so if you want to go hardcore into that stuff, you’ll want to explore the complex works of early quantum mechanics founders such as: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Max Born, Planck, Jodan, Pauli, Zeilinger, and Dirac. Or you can get more recent with works by people such as von Neuman, Wigner, Wheeler, Stapp, Penrose, Kafatos, Stephen Barr, Feynman, Rosenblum, & Kuttner. Actually another good starting place might be ’Something Deeply Hidden’, an intriguing book by Prof. Sean Carroll. He may rely too heavily on the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum physics, but still, worth a read. You could also explore Reality Transurfing by Vadim Zeland, Becoming Supernatural by Dr. Joe Dispenza or The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz & Sharon Begley.”
“What do you mean by ‘many worlds’ interpretation?”
“Well, remember how tiny quantum particles can be ‘many things’ at once, because they’re waves with their properties in ‘superposition’?”
“Well the ‘many worlds’ interpretation sees this to mean that every particle in our body creates infinite branching possibilities, everytime we make a choice. This is why some LOA-fans believe we’re all living in our own virtual realities, creating infinite branching paths of what we want to happen. They believe we’re channel-hopping from one reality to another every second without noticing it, so we can eventually channel-hop to the reality where we’re president, or have a harem, or are obscenely rich, if we keep using our consciousness and beliefs correctly.”
“Well, from what I’ve learned about quantum physics, that’s not so implausible.”
“Maybe, maybe not. German-American astrophysicist Bernard Haisch had this to say about the ‘Many Worlds’ interpretation:
‘One tiny atom's quantum behavior replicates the entire universe and defines each alternative by all the possible consequences of that behavior. But at any moment, within each human body, there are on the order of a billion times a billion atoms, each making quantum transitions. In the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every human being, therefore, creates a billion times a billion times a billion alternative universes every second. Multiply that by the billions of humans on the planet...’ - The God Theory, Bernard Haisch
Still sound plausible?”
“Errr, no? Yes? Maybe? I don’t know.” Emma’s eyes grew anime-wide with a deer-in-headlights look.
“That’s the point. The human mind has trouble grasping such insane infinite possibilities, and on top of that, it sounds kind of dumb. Like, Occam’s razor says this would be horrendously complex, inelegant, and inefficient. Would the universe really be designed this way? Duplicating infinite worlds for every particle, in every body? Just so people can ‘control life’ and ‘manifest what they want’?”
“My brain’s starting to hurt again.”
“Yours, mine, and many other people’s. It’s why there’s multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics and the double-slit experiment. Scientists are still proposing different things that might possibly explain these things like the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation,’ ‘Pilot Wave Theory’, ‘Quantum Bayesianism’, and more. But look… we’re here!”
We’d arrived at Niagara Falls, so I quickly found some pay-parking and Emma and I picked up our discussion in a much more scenic area than the interior of my vehicle.
The falls roared beside us as we walked along the boardwalk, flecks of water dotting our clothes and a mist hanging in the air.
“Dad, this was super helpful. I’d seen people asking for proof of Law Of Attraction on Reddit and stuff, and the answers were mostly shallow and unhelpful. They all gave me the impression that there is no proof.”
“And that’s essentially correct, there’s no ‘conclusive proof’ of the irrefutable kind most skeptics are so hungry for.”
“Right, but there is substantial, strong, noteworthy evidence pointing in the direction that Law Of Attraction is real, practical, and worth exploring with an open-mind.”
“That’s my take on it, and it sounds like it may be yours now as well, but I can’t stress this enough, you will encounter some pretty hard-nosed people who simply refuse to give it a chance, and they’ll claim their complete dismissal of Law Of Attraction is scientific.”
“I’m ready for ‘em, and I’m willing to bet anyone who is doing so has deliberately avoided conducting any open-minded manifestation experiments for themselves. Or at least any appropriate ones.”
“It’s possible you’ll find a ‘healthy skeptic’ somewhere, but in this radicalized, polarized society, triggered extremists are much more likely.”
“Speaking of triggered extremists…”
“Well what about people who say Law Of Attraction is a scam, or B.S., or harmful to others?”
“What do you mean?”
“Well one lady wrote this LOA take-down blog that said stuff like…
‘Law Of Attraction dismisses medical conditions such as depression?’”
“Ah yes, I’ve heard stuff like this before. It usually comes from knee-jerk reactions to a surface-understanding of Law Of Attraction and almost always someone who hasn’t done the work, maintained an open-mind, and refined their practice. Remember when we were talking about athletes earlier, and how they visualize better performance? Well, CEOs have done the same thing with their business successes, and similarly depressed people can and have made use of Law Of Attraction (not only visualization) to achieve a better mental state. I can’t get too deep into it right now, but you may want to do your own research into what depression actually is, and think it through yourself, like a thought experiment.”
“I thought I was doing that?”
“Well, dig deeper into questions such as, have humans had emotions and thoughts since Neanderthal times? If we have, did they have bleak survival thoughts back then? Were cave-men ever suicidal? Did they overcome it? How? They didn’t have therapists, right? They didn’t have medication either, right? Did they have access to the law of attraction back then? Could their consciousness affect their reality? People today act like depression is some crazy, merciless, world-ending thing, but did people always view it as such an insurmountable thing? And even more relevant, are truly accomplished and wonderful LOA teachers such as Abraham-Hicks, Joe Dispenza, or Neville Goddard ever dismissive of depression, or imply that LOA wants people to ‘ignore’ it?”
“Hmmm… those are all really great questions.”
“Yeah, and how much do you want to bet whoever wrote the article you’re speaking of hasn’t asked a single one of them to themselves. How much do you want to bet they jumped immediately to blaming the law of attraction and raging against its proponents?”
“I wouldn’t want to take that bet, haha.”
“She also said that…
‘…Law of attraction teaches that any failure means we’re ‘just not trying hard enough.’”
I laughed out loud, guffawing from deep in my belly. “Why are you laughing so hard?”
“Because true teachers of the law of attraction teach that ‘trying too hard’ and ‘over-effort’ is a major obstacle to manifestation, and would never encourage people to simply ‘try harder’ if things aren’t going correctly. They’d acknowledge that a certain level of applying oneself and adjusting one’s thoughts, moods, and beliefs is called for, but that it can be done in ways as gentle and effortless as petting a cat (animal therapy is a real thing), or helping an old lady across the street in order to feel more valuable as a human being.”
“Then why would the lady say LOA teaches ‘just try harder.’”
“Because she’s not the brightest bulb in the bunch, babe.”
“Don’t be mean!”
“I’m not. I mean it sincerely, she has not applied very deep thought to the issue. She has not sought to truly understand the law of attraction from a wide variety of reputable sources. She has taken things out of context in order to justify her rage. Her arguments are in bad faith. If they had merit to them and she could cite leaders in the LOA field who actually said these things and meant them clearly, I’d be happy to give such accusations their due, but if she’s just talking out her ass, I’m sorry, I have to laugh.”
“OK, well, she also says…
‘LOA teaches that support groups full of others who are struggling brings that negativity back onto yourself.’”
“Hmm, that’s the first thing she’s said that’s even close to true. Law Of Attraction teaches that ‘like attracts like,’ and the environments we place ourselves in have a strong potential to influence us. For example, an addict hanging around people shooting up isn’t really doing themselves any favors, and could easily manifest a relapse unless they have incredible discipline, focus, and are able to ‘vibe higher’ than the environment they’re in. What’s going to help someone struggling with weight-loss more, hanging around a bunch of people moaning how hard it is to lose weight, or hanging around a bunch of weight-lifters, dancers, or martial artists who’s habits and attitudes rub off? What’s going to help someone stop relying on French more, moving to an English-speaking country, or practicing English once a month with a fellow Parisian?”
“I get your point. Honestly, I think maybe she runs a support group, or has friends who do, which may be why she’s touchy about this.”
“That’s fair, but it doesn’t change how LOA works.”
“So LOA really does say that support groups are bad?”
“Oh no, not at all. Apologies if I gave that impression. Law of attraction doesn’t ‘judge’ and ‘label’ certain actions or paths as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ It doesn’t declare support groups as bad or anything. In fact, there are plenty of people who spend time in support groups and get value from them.”
“Then what is your point?”
“My point is the Law Of Attraction simply says to be very conscious and intentional about what environments you place yourself in, how long you stay in them, and what your vibe / mood / attitude is when you’re interacting with those environments, because a lot of the time, there are much better environments to be in than groups whose main activity is to commiserate over how hard change or healing is.”
“It reminds me of a Jay Z line from ‘Moment Of Clarity’:
And I can't help the poor if I'm one of them / So I got rich and gave back, to me that's the win-win.'”
“Perfect! Perhaps I should listen to this ‘Jay Z’ fellow you speak of.” I grinned to let Emma know I was familiar with the rapper.
“Anyway, this blogger also says that…
‘LOA encourages inaction to the point of delusion, because of live-as-if you’ve already achieved what you want.’”
“Again, she’s either misunderstanding something, or learning her law of attraction principles from very poor sources, or deliberately misinterpreting. Her bone to pick with ‘Acting-As-If’ sums it up to something like this:
- If you’re poor and want money, Acting-As-If says to spend even more, as if you’re rich.
- If you’re fat and want to lose weight, Acting-As-If says to eat like a fiend as if your metabolism is epic.
- If you’re unknown and want to be famous, Acting-As-If says to act like you’re the center of attention and it’ll manifest.
This is not only an inadvisably extreme application of Acting-As-If, it’s also unnecessary, and LOA does not insist on it. Acting-As-If is one, single, solitary LOA method that can work for some people in some cases. Actors and rappers are often quite good at this, but not always. But Law Of Attraction never suggests that there is one method that all 8 billion people on the planet must apply. Law Of Attraction says if a method doesn’t feel good to you or resonate with you, don’t do it. There are plenty of other processes that can help manifest the reality you want such as visualization, meditation, positive-aspect lists, etc. Did she explain all this and outline how flexible LOA is and how you absolutely don’t have to ‘act-as-if’ in order to manifest?”
“She did not.”
I put on my best sarcastic face and gasped, “Wow, I’m utterly flabbergasted. From what you’ve told me of her so far, I was sure she’d present a well-rounded understanding of these things!”
‘LOA teaches to just believe and things will magically come to you.’”
“Seriously? This argument’s still around? It became popular back when The Secret came out, and we’ve had so many great LOA teachers clarify it since then.”
“Well, is it true?”
“Of course not. Look around. Humanity has manifested a ridiculous amount of things, turning imagination into reality, but rarely by ‘just believing.’ No, Law Of Attraction teaches that belief is the foundation that leads to inspired action, and without it, little-to-no progress, growth, or manifestation will happen. Every artist, CEO, or creator you look up to brought their imagination or their vision to life through lots of inspired actions, often taking them on quite a journey, and Law Of Attraction is totally aligned with that… but none of them would’ve accomplished jack-all without the insanely important foundation of belief first, which is why LOA teachers emphasize it so much. They also point out that occasionally ‘belief alone’ is enough to manifest things ‘out of thin air’, such as people getting an inheritance or being chosen to participate in a paid study, right when they need it most. In those cases, literally ‘only’ belief was necessary, but it’s certainly not the majority of how LOA manifests things. LOA is very action-oriented, and tends to manifest things through actions that arise out of a healthy vibe and elevated, high-value beliefs.”
“She also says…
‘LOA teaches that all our suffering is in our control.’”
“I’m not sure if ‘all’ of it is, but such a huge percentage of it is that it makes the other ~1% or so not worth discussing.”
“So then why does this lady feel like her condition defines her? Why does she feel like there’s ‘just no easy solution’? Why is she so anti-LOA?”
“Because for her, in her current state, there is no easy solution. Her mind isn’t open to it, and anyone suggesting otherwise would rock her core beliefs, identity and philosophy so hard it would feel like a personal attack. She can’t access LOA very effectively, even if she wanted to. It’s like lifting a heavy weight when your muscles are atrophied. It’s doable, but it’s going to take time, effort, practice, just like it took time, neglect, and lethargy to atrophy muscles in the first place.”
“Are you saying people have ‘LOA muscles?’”
“In a way, yes. All people have a mind that they started out in control of, and that they can reclaim control of, with practice. All people have feelings and emotions that are their compass and guidance towards their dreams, if they (re)learn how to navigate them. The reason some people feel that they’re at the ‘mercy’ of their suffering with no agency or control over it, is because their ‘mood muscles’ and ‘belief muscles’ are rusty. Most people have practically forgotten what to do when negative emotion hits. When they were toddlers, they knew how to navigate, regulate, and elevate their mood whether it was rebalancing after a tantrum, an injury, an injustice or whatever else. Thing is, as time has gone on, most people have relied on their ‘vibe-elevating’ muscles less and less, and then in the midst of a deep depression or suffering, mood can then seem ‘unliftable.’ It’s not true of course, just like your other muscles, you can always strengthen them through applying yourself and practice, but most people would about their situation rather whine than take personal responsibility… for anything.”
“She also says…
‘LOA teaches that doctors are bad.’”
“Now you’re just, uh, ‘trolling me’, right Em?”
“No, she really said that!”
“OK, well I’m not even sure how to dignify that with an answer. Dr. Joe Dispenza is an LOA-teaching chiropractor, and certainly believes doctors have value. Deepak Chopra is an LOA-teaching ex-doctor, and certainly believes doctors have value. Wayne Dyer was an LOA-teaching doctor who certainly believes doctors have value. Those are three major, MAJOR teachers of LOA, and none of them go around hating on doctors. Where is she getting this stuff? Law Of Attraction, again, judges no path or action. A medical path can be a path to manifestation for some people, depending on their vibe and journey in life. A non-medical, mind-over-body path can also be a path to manifestation, for people like Wim Hof and his students, who demonstrate often superior body-healing than what the medical community has managed. Both paths are fine ways to manifest. No LOA teacher I know is sitting around judging or shaming people who go to doctors. The farthest I’ve heard any go is to say that people may want to tune into themselves, their bodies, and their emotional guidance in order to see if and when doctors are truly necessary for them. There are countless people who have healed themselves through mind or diet, and there are countless people who have healed themselves through western medicine. LOA says to do whatever suits you best to manifest the solutions that satisfy you. Anyone is welcome to go the Wim Hof body-control path or the dice-me-open-and-remove-the-cancer path. You know that your grandfather is mostly bed-ridden right?”
“Well, he could ‘law of attract’ himself out of that situation in many ‘action-paths’, but they all start with a strong, positive belief, which is what LOA emphasizes. If he really, truly believed he was ‘on his way’ to healing and mobility, he may manifest a new bionic leg. He may manifest an overwhelming enthusiasm to rock his rehab and physio. He may manifest an impulse to start playing wheelchair rugby. He may manifest the ability to lucid-dream or astral project. He may manifest money to get a top surgeon in the field to operate. He may manifest any number of solutions that grant him mobility. But how’s he been doing for the last couple years, Em?”
“Basically no change.”
“Exactly, because he’s put zero attention into elevating his beliefs or mood, in which case, no solutions will really be forthcoming. Just like the athletes who visualize better performance, he can visualize better mobility. If so, he’ll manifest progress, if not, he’ll get the status quo. That’s just how LOA works. Thoughts become things. Even Einstein, 'hater' of quantum mechanics, knew this and said as much in quotes like this:
‘Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality'' and believed in imagination.’”
“Wow, that makes a lot more sense than what lady-blogger claimed LOA taught, that’s for sure.”
“Yes, well, if this woman learned to cook she’d probably yell at Gordon Ramsay telling him he ‘just told her to turn on the stove and voila, she’d have a seven-course meal.’ It’s been awhile since I’ve seen someone misunderstand something so thoroughly and make so little effort to truly get it.”
“Well, thanks for taking the time to go over her objections, and even more…
Thanks for helping me explore the ‘scientific proof’ aspect of Law Of Attraction…
…that me and so many others are hungry for.”
“My pleasure, Emma. And look, I get it. Science is crazy, it always has been. Making a human-being’s legs move so fast that they could break the four-minute mile was so crazy, that extremely smart biologists and doctors at the time wrote it off. Launching hunks of metal piloted by people into the sky was so crazy, even other scientists of the time dismissed it. And now, suggesting that consciousness literally creates reality by manipulating quantum particles also sounds crazy. Science has always been born out of ‘crazy.’ It’s an amazing tool, but it’s just that. A tool. Science is just one tool of understanding something, and any poet, mystic, or artist can show you how it’s not the only tool to understand things, and ultimately it takes an incredibly closed, narrow-mind to assume that something is false just because science can’t back it up (yet), or authoritative voices have ‘dismissed’ something and you’ve accepted what they said by default, rather than exploring it for yourself. Dr. Masaru Emoto’s water-intention experiments have been torn to shreds, but still, are we sure we want to write them off entirely? Or do we just want to explore them further, deeper, and with more scientific rigor than Emoto did?”
“That just gave me the shivers for some reason. I like it. It’s stupid to assume something is false just because scientific proof isn’t ‘conclusive enough’ yet.”
“Indeed. It’d be nice if people stopped demanding the world ‘prove LOA’ to them and opened their minds to possibilities, rather than dismissals. I believe ‘string theory’ is also unprovable with current technology last I checked, so do we go around dismissing string theory?”
“Uh, I don’t even know what that is.”
“Well, it doesn’t really matter. Each person's internal experience is subjective and can't be accurately quantified or measured. So even after all these books, videos, experts, studies and more that I’ve offered you, ultimately… no one can prove that what happens inside your personal consciousness does indeed manifest outside for you. Because consciousness-manifesting-reality is something that people need to practice and experience for themselves. It isn’t measurable or repeatable in a scientifically satisfactory way. Creating a ‘control’ for this is impossible for our current tech. Think about it, how can you prove someone is actually doing the ‘inner, psychological work’ and not just claiming they are, or lying to themselves and others? And although quantum physics can give us some insight on how this stuff might work, and we can see shadows on the wall of how manifestation may work… science can’t actually prove any of it. And science probably won't get to that level of proof in your lifetime.”
“Then why did we discuss all this? What am I supposed to do?”
“Do what all of us human-beings do, explore life, experiment, find ways that work for you, no matter how they look to others. There’s tons of interviews where celebrities share sincere, honest stories of how they became successful, and it’s stunningly common how often they all say the same things, and how often it all starts to sound like Law Of Attraction. If all your heroes are saying similar things… maybe it’s worth your honest practice and applied effort?”
“Success leaves clues. Go figure out what someone who was successful did, and model it. Improve it, but learn their steps. They have knowledge.” - Tony Robbins
“Yeah, I know you’re right, I just had a moment of panic.”
“Thank you. So since science will let you down on major life questions like ‘does god exist’ or ‘how big is the universe’ or ‘is LOA real’, I highly recommend you look into other ways to gain knowledge and understanding outside of humanity’s clearly inadequate science (so far). My favorite way is personal experiment, personal practice, and personal introspection. What I’m saying, my sweet child, is that I understand your deep hunger for scientific evidence of the law of attraction, but the truth is… all this science doesn’t matter nearly as much as something far more important.”
Far more important than the world’s science, is you. Your life matters. And you deserve to give yourself the best chance at a great life that you can. And that means experimenting with things for yourself. Why experiment? Because as Alan Watts says:
‘People can’t be talked out of illusions.’
The whole point of life is to apply yourself, experiment, practice, and discover what’s true for you. Hearing scientists speak, or getting input from me, is just data for you to play with. They're ideas for you to try on for size. It’s fuel for your own experiments. And I believe you’re going to do them. I believe in you. I believe you’ll get the hang of the law of attraction, and manifest the life you want. Whether you do it in ‘woo-woo’ ways, scientific ways, or you just simply stick to a committed, refined ‘visualization’ practice like many athletes do, I don’t really care. What I do care about is my daughter living her ‘best life’ and realizing as much of her dreams as possible, and I really hope you care about as much as I do, or more, because as Henry Ford said:
‘Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right.’” — Henry Ford
“Awwwww, Dad!” Emma hugged me in front of Niagara Falls, and for that moment, I felt like the best Dad in the whole wide world.
Want more of my LOA posts?
- Law Of Attraction Explained: Explainer Video With Doodles
- Money Manifestation Demystified!
- 5 Myths About Manifesting A Specific Person, Busted
- 3 Simple Steps To Manifest... Anything
- 4 Levels Of Belief - An Average Joe's Approach To LOA
- Why You Suck At Manifesting & LOA (Probably)
- Confusing Law Of Attraction Terms: Explained (Properly!)
- The (Not So) Hidden Truth About Jesus & Law Of Attraction
- Law Of Attraction: Going General Vs. Super Specific
- The Gratitude Secret That No Law Of Attraction Teacher Explains
Stock images courtesy of epic stock site, Envato.com