What does /x/ think about the Law of Attraction? Is it new age

its misunderstanding of consciousness effect on probability. you just have to fight the odds

I think it works, but most of the time we end up making wishes for other people or fucking ourselves with bad outcomes because we don't really comprehend how it all works.

File: tmp_2717-Facebook-·-d7d6441482704474.png (34KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x316px

>>19048525
Elemental sets:

[AvX]
[BvX]
[CvX]
[DvX]
[EvX]
[FvX]
[GvX]
[(A^B^C^D^E^F^G)=~X]

Thus correlation paired with mutual exclusivity of the target manifestation, X in respect to the correlated data, leads to causation. Done.

Basic propositional logic. It's colloquially referred to as "making your own luck."

I just mathematically proved how the law of attraction works. Any more questions?

>>19048606
Now in English, Please.

It's a watered down version, like magick, of the fact that your reality is entirely subjective and under your control, like a dream. Of course it's a hard redpill to swallow, which is why these more digestible techniques of reality manipulation exist, but it's the truth. Nothing is real, not even you (phisically) but you are everything. You are the spectator and creator. When you realize this your life will change forever. The only reason you think you have no control of it is because you've been indoctrinated to think so since you were a kid, like many other things. Pretty much anything is possible when you realize this, but it's not as simple as saying "oh well everything is in my control" and suddenly your life is fixed. It is VITAL that you are in complete control of your mind. Everything, literally everything you think will affect your life somehow. This is why you're told to be positive, as much as it may sound like feel-good shit it's because your thoughts and assumptions harden into facts over time. Everything (good and bad) that exists has been imagined. Your imagination has a god-like power that you're not aware of. I'm not telling you to believe this (because someone will probably reply to this and call me satanic, schizo or some bullshit like that) but I definitely suggest you consider it. Reflect on your previous thoughts and you'll see sooner or later it affected your life somehow. How it works, I don't know, but my life has completely changed since I realized this. I can only remember a few bad things that have happened to me since years, and it's only because I sometimes lose control of my mind. It's not an easy task and this is why many people think LOA and other stuff like this don't work, it takes a lot of rewiring of your brain.
"The world of mortalitywhich appears without,is but a shadow oftheinner worldof imagination" as William Blake once said.

Well it's a Law....must be real....

>>19048627
how can I manifest a subservient female into my local reality? is all I fucking want, years after years, ritual after ritual, and nothing seemed to work, I realize I'm blocked by myself, but what's the fucking trick to unblock me, I'm desperate, I'll try anything crazy.

>>19048606
>Basic propositional logic
>Proceeds to pull shit out of his ass and not follow any rules of propositional logic whatsoever
>hurr mathematically proven XDDD

>>19048525

Law of Attraction is a misnomer by science.

It is the Law of Intention.

File: tmp_2717-1494606934799229484393.jpg (100KB, 540x494px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 540x494px

>>19048624
Yes, of course.

A person follows possible trains of thought, using confirmation bias to either support their desired manifestation, X or maybe some other random explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G. Then, they check the probability that either they were manifesting X into existence, or it was always the other random explanations all along. So long as they follow these trains of thought in such a way that manifesting their desire is mutually exclusive with the random explanations, this mathematically raises the probability of their manifestation coming into observation EVEN IF in physical reality the ordinary explanations were still correct all along.

Usually this takes the form of a sort of imagined alternate reality game the person plays with their self, which seamlessly overlays the physical reality.

It's just a mnemonic for teaching people who aren't quasi-autistic staticians that count every thing they observe in their life how to use the human brain's natural story telling mechanics to hone in on desired outcomes.

A computer could do it.

>>19048650
I am well studied in propositional logic. If you cite a legitimate inconsistency with my logic form, I will correct it.

I have no patience for people who claim that I do not make well formed formulas, when they do not first demonstrate an understanding of Chrysippus' logic form.

Criticize me in a logic form, or I will ignore you.

>>19048525
It's new age woo-woo feel good shit.

>>19048645
Leave any rationality aside, and imagine, in first person, a situation that would imply you already having that subservient female is a reality now. Do it every night before sleep and if you no longer feel the need to then it worked, and it's on its way. I can't tell you when, but it won't be late. You must remove all limiting beliefs before this, just remember that everything is happening right now and there is another reality where your wish is true. You just need to move towards it by living in the assumption that it is true. Do not tell you anyone unless you want to be called autistic or crazy, there is no point. It is an entirely subjective experience. Your whole reality is subjective, remember that. The only "crazy" think you have to do is believe in your new reality. That's it. The only reason you life is whatever it is right now is because you believe it is, you're being dictated by your senses which are not even real either. Defy your senses because they're one of the most limiting thing you'll encounter. Your reality should harden into fact and become physically real, you can go back to believing in your senses then (otherwise you wouldn't enjoy it, right?)
That all I can tell you. If it's too hard to believe then idk try magic or LOA techniques but it all essentially comes from the same place anyway. Ideally you could just decide for a subservient female to materialize but I doubt your mind is close to having that power yet.

Isn't this similar to chaos magick? How are they different?

law of attraction only works because the illuminati used advanced technology to change the world in a way that would make it possible.

>>19048694
They're the same shit, all rituals of all kinds, all religions come from the same source. Rituals just make it easier for us to believe.

>>19048683
Ok just one question tho, is there a limit to this? like what if I want something that's "not possible" like wanting to manifest something that's seemed as science fiction or fantasy? I'll just be wasting my time trying to make it happen?

And could you share what was the first thing you "made happen" with this knowledge?

I think I've already used it before, but I was a kid, and I did something sort of bad, I convinced myself that something happened, and it happened. So I guess that could help me recreate the moment when I "made" that happen, I just don't know how to convince myself of doing it again. Would someone else be able to notice I did this without me telling them?

>>19048525
Its called convince fat lazy fucks to try, be positive and stick with things for the long term and they get results.

Its a good thing but its not some magical law its how they trick you into doing it on your own and taking partial credit.

Then again whos to say helping to motivate someone isnt deserving of partial credit.

>>19048659
sooo basically, shit's already gonna happen anyway but if you think about every possible outcome and then it happens, you feel like you made it happen even though shit was already gonna happen whether you were even paying attention or not?

>>19048679

I appreciate your candor anon (I am not that other anon, though)

>>19048525
Like the other poster said it's a watered down version of basic occult principles. Check out Ophiel's Art and Practice of Creative Visualization for his explanation of the Sphere of Availibility.

>>19048679
Chrysippus is outdated by a few millennia, m8.

Besides which, your logic can’t be criticized, since all you’ve done is write some arbitrary formulae without citing any inference rules or axioms at all. That’s not propositional logic, it’s just bullshitting in order to look smart to people who haven’t actually studied it.

>>19048714
I assume the limit is up to you. I limit myself to stuff inside this reality because I still have limiting beliefs and honestly it's pretty scary knowing you could do it. Fear is a big limiting factor too.
As the first things I've done, I did light physical changes (making myself slightly taller, making hair and eyes slightly lighter, made some changes to my face) to strengthen my belief with little steps. People noticed which is what solidified my belief to me (I mean if people don't notice then you're just tricking yourself psychologically and not actually altering reality).

>>19048606
Could you explain what is meant by "elemental sets" here? Are you treating a disjunction of two propositions as a set? (A set of what?)

>>19048739
Incorrect.

It is the act of considering the possible outcomes--and which possible outcomes are considered--which effect the probability of them occurring.

It is macro quantum entanglement.

People who can't control which possible outcomes they consider before they do so are physically incapable of collapsing macro wave states this way. Thus in order to control macro wave form collapse this way, a method other than considering the possibility of doing so is required. This is fundamentally impossible for a person who requires absolute certain proof that any given method of control will have efficacy *before* attempting the method and choosing how powerfully to memorize the method's efficacy after its causation has been observed.

Or in colloquial terms, this method requires a leap of faith in order to work. Because if you are already 100% certain that it will or won't work before you try it, then the wave form is already collapsed, relative to your own observation.

>>19048806
...That's not how wavefunctions work. You can’t collapse wavefunctions by being certain about them, but only by making a measurement of their parameters.

>>19048792
Sounds kinda retarded senpai.
I want a lamborghini. How get?

>>19048833
Maybe, but it works. Basically what I said to the other anon before, just imagine the Lamborghini is yours until you shift to the reality where it's yours. Don't just observe it, feel as if you were driving it, cleaning it, whatever. But always in first person. Your brain doesn't know the difference between a vivid scene in your imagination and reality.

File: 91Aoztc9asL.jpg (915KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 2560x1707px

>>19048653
yep

>>19048773
This is not a formal logical argument. I will not accept an informal answer to my formal logical argument.

>>19048805
Those are the premises.

Disjunction is the correct operator to describe correlation. The final line denotes that the *only* way X can be true, is if ALL other explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G are false.

By holding the premises true, the probability of X being true is matched to the probability of all A,B,C,D,E,F,G being true.

The conclusion is irrelevant, because it is always here and now. The elemental sets are meant to be the operating procedures by which a computer, biological or otherwise, searches for a the probability that law of attraction occurred in a given data set. (In other words, checking data sets to see IF those elemental sets are all true reveals if the data set is one which correlation leads to causation.) However, a sufficient conclusion would be that the correlated data sets are mutually exclusive.

I wrote it that way so that the code could be plugged directly into a quantum computer, since the collapse of the disjunctions on each line prior to the last need to occur simultaneously in order to be accurate.

File: tmp_13352-1494587116105-625492625.jpg (74KB, 621x694px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 621x694px

>>19048829
In physical reality, you can't be certain of things without making measurements of their parameters. I can't help if you're dishonest with your self. Mark that down as the interference parameter of the wave equation, that physicists put in when their instruments have measuring errors.

It's not my fault if you can't aim the interference pattern caused by the composite physical matter in your body. But it does make an interference pattern, because all matter makes an interference pattern, and whether or not you can aim that well enough to know if you're doing it or not is up to you.

Some people just got good.

>>19048842
I always thought that the law of attraction was more about thinking about a thing until you cultivated habits that led to that thing. eg. I imagine how badass the Lamborghini is and work my ass off to get one. is it not that, or is it some magic power? reading this thread makes it sound like hopping between universes until i get to the one where my desired outcome happens. Obviously, I am not going to magically appear a Lamborghini in my driveway. Teach me more senpai.

>>19048883
>The final line denotes that the *only* way X can be true, is if ALL other explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G are false.
You might want to correct it, what it currently says is that X can be true only if and only if it’s not that case that ALL of A,B,C... are true, i.e. the way you’ve written it, any one of A,B,C,... can be true alongside X so long as it’s not ALL of them that are true. Think about what the ^ operator means; it returns TRUE if and only if ALL of the connected propositions are simultaneously true.

What you want to write to express mutual exclusivity of any one of A,B,C,.... with X is not
>[(A^B^C^D^E^F^G)=~X]
but
>[(AvBvCvDvEvFvG)=~X]
since a logical disjunction of a series of propositions is true if and only if ANY of them is true.

>>19048883
>my formal logical argument
You haven't made any such argument. Nowhere do you say formally how your conclusion follows logically from your premises. Again, where are the rules of inference you used to reach your conclusion? Show us step by step, mathematically. Unless you can explicitly lay it out, there’s no "formal logic" here. Only bullshit.

>>19048937
The way I wrote it is correct. The final step in manifesting a desire is to test the desired outcome against the truth of all other possible explanations together as a unit.

I understand that (F^T)=F and that (TvF)=T, commutivity included.

>>19048925
No, that's just motivating yourself. That's the most realistic way of getting it. The law of attraction is some kind of magic power or law according to LOA gurus, which is okay if you believe that but it goes much deeper like I elaborated before ITT. Don't take me as a teacher either, I'm just talking based on my personal experience. And IMO it's all that matters, which I highly suggest you try what works for you because it is YOUR reality and it's entirely subjective. Ideally you would just decide what happens instantly in your life as you would for example in a lucid dream, and that's essentially what life is. Just a slower lucid dream (if it worked exactly like a lucid dream life would be a cluster fuck which is why things take to manifest, but it gets faster with time the more you get a hang of it, depends on how detached you are from reality, if you wanted shit to materialize out of nowhere you would need a big level of detachment there).
So yeah, you're on the right track there, it's kind of jumping realities. In fact, you supposedly are doing it all the time unconsciously and you don't even notice it which is why you can take control of it. It could explain shit like Mandela Effect and other weird stuff you remember very differently. However it usually doesn't change that much because like I said before, it would be too chaotic. You need to rearrange your mind in order to create a future you desire and feel that future as if it were happening right now in your imagination. Honestly the best teacher I've found about this is Neville Goddard, if you can digest the biblical references he does it is really eye opening stuff, he's usually referenced as a LOA teacher but he predates that shit for years. I think he's got the closest to the truth about this. This is something you can only experience yourself so try to keep it secret and see how it works for you.

>>19048883
>I wrote it that way so that the code could be plugged directly into a quantum computer, since the collapse of the disjunctions on each line prior to the last need to occur simultaneously in order to be accurate.
...you do know that logical disjunctions are not the same thing as states of a wavefunction, right? Disjunctions express relations between truth values; they can't "collapse" any more than the relation of "if... then..." can collapse.

Wavefunctions are states of existence of a physical system that you can represent as points in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. *They* are what "collapses" in quantum mechanics when you make a measurement of some parameter. Also, quantum computers don't "directly" read propositional logic any more than any other computer, they're just normal computers capable of making calculations using qubits. It's clear you've never studied either mathematics or quantum mechanics in the slightest beyond a New Age book or two.

>>19048978
>against the truth of all other possible explanations together as a unit.
Making a conjunction out of all the other possible explanations gives you the intersection of their truth values, though. If that's what you mean by "together as a unit" (and it might well be), then your earlier statement that
>The final line denotes that the *only* way X can be true, is if ALL other explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G are false.
should instead be
>The final line denotes that the *only* way X can be true, is if ANY other explanation, out of A,B,C,D,E,F,G, is false.
Is that more accurate to your point?

>>19049066
No. You're reading it incorrectly.

All A,B,C,D,E,F,G is not the same as each individually A,B,C,D,E,F,G.

All means all, as in together as a unit. As in if any one of A,B,C,D,E,F,G is false, then they ALL together as the unit of the conjunction (A^B^C^D^E^F^G) returns false.

>>19048525

LOA is cool except for the extreme people that believe that starving syrian children deserve to die in a warzone because they arent positive enough

>>19048910
>>19048829
>>19048806
Wait, are you guys talking about that "consciousness affects reality" particle experiment with the two slits on a wall and wave patterns and all that shit?

File: KEY.png (303KB, 2550x3300px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 2550x3300px

>>19048525


IDK but I noticed a couple of weeks ago when I adopted a "fuck it" mindset things seemed to work more smoothly and to fall into place(for lack of a better decript). As opposed to my "normal" pessimistic/curmudgeonly approach to life. It was like a positive feedback loop but eventually fell back into my old way of thinking. Going to try to get back into that mode. Or maybe it wont work like it did when there is intent.

>>19049102
>if any one of A,B,C,D,E,F,G is false, then they ALL together as the unit of the conjunction (A^B^C^D^E^F^G) returns false
Yes. But you are taking the NEGATION of that. [(A^B^C^D^E^F^G)=~X] means: if (A^B^C^D^E^F^G) returns false, then X returns true. So, putting that together with what you just said, that means "if any one of A,B,C,D,E,F,G is false, then X is true". NOT "if all of A,B,C,D,E,F,G are false, then X is true".

File: 411zKO0BCRL._SX302_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (33KB, 304x499px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 304x499px

>>19049145
I suggest you and the people ITT to read pic related.

>>19048994
Thanks man. Sounds actually really interesting. I might try it out but I don't know if I want to delve into reading and researching it a ton. Sounds kinda bullshitty but worth a try.

>>19048910
This is just gibberish. The wave equation doesn't have an "interference parameter", measuring errors have nothing to do with whether a wavefunction collapses or not (or with the causes of quantum interference), the double slit experiment isn't the be-all and end-all of quantum mechanics (wavefunction collapse occurs INDEPENDENTLY of whether or not wavefunctions interfere with each other or themselves), not all matter "makes an interference pattern" (it depends entirely on the interactions of the particular wavefunctions involved), and there is no such concept in quantum mechanics as "aiming interference patterns".

Why do people who never studied physics in their life pretend to be experts in it?

File: tmp_28713-5-cell1482704474.gif (2MB, 252x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 252x252px

>>19049121
These are my posts:
>>19048806
>>19048910

I am talking about how consciousness affects physical reality.

Because of course it does. There is no conscious awareness you can have in physical reality *without* affecting it. If the energy entered the purview of your body, then therefor it didn't enter anywhere else that your body is capable of observing, and that's an entangled state. The only question is how well a person's consciousness is callibrated towards bringing desired outcomes into their own observation.

In terms of wave interference experiments, I suppose a person could hold a quarter wave plate and diffract a laser that way. Or they could in theory hold the air molecules which deflect off each other, and deflect onto a quarter wave plate and diffract a laser that way. But what human bodies are already naturally calibrated towards is decyphering physical reality as if it were a set of boolean operators, in the form of possible explanations for things. Those are the macro wave forms to which I was referring;

not lasers and quarter wave plates so much (although some trick shot pool experts make me wonder...) but stories, and words, and reasons for things.

I have no idea what the other anon was talking about.

>>19048525
It has served me extremely well. I suspect its a combination of woo woo and real

>woo woo

The universe doesnt bend to your will

>real

When you have a clear goal and a desire youll work towards it and your ears and eyes will be finely tuned to any relevant knowledge that leads to your goal.

Add the fact you are convinced youll get it because some cosmic universal power is gonna hand it to you, and you also become insanely confident. Thats always a boost.

>>19049155

check'd, and will check that book aswell, thx

>>19049152
All A,B,C,D,E,F,G means (A^B^C^D^E^F^G).

I understand that English can be ambiguous. That's why I prefer to use propositional logic where applicable.

>>19049179
>possible explanations for things. Those are the macro wave forms to which I was referring;
The problem is that "possible explanations of things" are not wavefunctions at all, so they can't collapse quantum-mechanically. QM says nothing about conscious certainties and everything about physical probabilities.

>>19049203
>All A,B,C,D,E,F,G means (A^B^C^D^E^F^G).
No, it doesn't. (A^B^C^D^E^F^G) means: TRUE if and only if A, B, C, D, E, F, G are true, but FALSE if and only if ANY of A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are false. The negation of "all" is "not any", not "not all". Think about this for a second, and you'll see it's obvious.

Since you're using the NEGATION of (A^B^C^D^E^F^G) as equivalent to the truth value of X, you can't just treat it like "all".

>>19048525

It has worked for me.

I simply said "I want X to happen" or "I'll do the X thing" before going to sleep and, it simply happened

>>19049169
Yeah, sorry if I sperged out a little but it kinda freaks you out when you realize that it's working. At first it was just feeling better and more in control of yourself and your emotions, then shit starts manifesting and you wonder "how far can I take it?. It's definitely interesting stuff and worth trying. Yeah it sounds kinda bullshitty but that's because there's no way I can scientifically prove to you that it works, all I can give you is my personal experience and what I know. The closest you could get scientifically to this is quantum physics with it's views on how the observer could possibly affect atoms at a quantum level but if I told you I knew shit about quantum physics I'd be lying which is why I suggest you stay away from new age bullshit books about this that try to reference quantum physics in a really vague way (considering they probably don't understand it either). In this case the older stuff I've found is usually the best. If I had to recommend you some books, read The Power of your Subconscious Mind by Joseph Murphy, anything by Neville Goddard (The Power of Awareness is a good start) and The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot.
>>19049155
Also this book is perfect if you just want a really good control over your mind and affect your future positively in the most realistic way possible, but if you want to actually change reality (and other people's realities like your loved ones for example) then dwell more on the metaphysical side of it. Another thing I forgot to mention is that I've successfully changed people too which is what freaks me out the most, of course in a positive way but I decided to do it the less I in case I accidentally fuck up.

>>19048525
The Law of Attraction is good and plausible if you just treat it like a mystical thing that gets you what you want. It's when you start pretending it's science/math without actually understanding science/math at all, like these people >>19048606 >>19048659 >>19048679 >>19048806 >>19048910 , that you go into full retard territory.

>>19049243
There's one thing that trouble me with all this, am I supposed to expect "specific results" or "generic results"?

Like let's suppose I want to have a redheaded gf with a big butt, should I visualize myself with a specific person that has those characteristics? or should I just envision a generic girl I made up with my mind? which one would be easier to manifest? Would it be easier if I just try to recall a person of my past which may have been in love with me when we used to spend time together? Or to make someone in my current daily life just suddenly get attracted to me?

Sometimes I scare myself with how if I wish a simple thing to come true it does. It's only ever small things though, like a dice roll, or a raffle ticket. It never seems to work when I wish for something a bit more challenging though. For instance, I was deeply in love with a girl for a month and the only thing that ever came out of my wishing for us to be together was being good friends.

>>19049179

what is pic, a 12-sided "hypermid"?

>>19049221
The final line denotes equivalating ALL other explanations A,B,C,D,E,F,G together as a whole explanation, H. And to do so such that iff ALL other explanations, H are false then X is true.

The flaw is in the way humans use the word all, not the transmission I have brought forth to you in English in this thread.

>>19049272
I've gotten both specific results and generic results. The specific results were shit like getting specific girls or physical changes, and the most generic results I got when I couldn't visualize it as well. Basically the better your imagination the easier it should be to get specific results, you need to experiment and see what works for you and what doesn't so you can develop a better technique. I say the last one is the easier to do (I have done it myself) but I'm just not as good at visualizing people so that might have to do with it. I'd say try all of them (both specific and generic) and see which one worked the best.

>>19049285
Wishing does jack shit if anything. This is what most people don't get about LOA, it's not wishing, you get what you can believe you already have (which is why visualizing in first person is so helpful, your brain doesn't tell the difference between real life and your imagination)

>>19048525
It's just rehashing older principles like the law of similarity and the law of contagion but in feel good terms.

File: 1463455666058.jpg (418KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1920x1200px

Do this:
>open your eyes
>look at a bunch of something; clothes, dishes, etc.

Now try to comprehend everything about everything you can currently see at once. Every stitch of fabric, every scratch, every discoloration, that dust on the floor, that slightly off-white sock that missed the hamper.

You can't do it, it's too much information & you have to focus. Your brain has to filter shit out because it is constantly being bombarded by stimuli. Ever have to turn down your music to smell or see something better? Same shit, same concept.

I don't believe that thinking about something will make something happen. I think that what you want to happen is happening in varying degrees all the time, and by thinking about it you are essentially telling your brain not to filter it out.

If you slide your hand down a railing one day & get a splinter in your hand, you are very likely to become aware of the action of sliding your hand down a railing. How many times do you recount consciously putting your hand on a railing when you go down stairs; you probably just instinctively do it like most people.

Your brain associates going down the stairs as a potentially hazardous activity & since you've been taught, either by someone or through trial & error, that bracing yourself is the safe thing to do, it's just becomes something that you do without thinking about it. You're more likely to notice when there isn't a railing if anything.

But, and this is my point, getting hurt while doing this routine thing makes it no longer routine & in an effort to not continue getting hurt, your brain is going to make you aware of grabbing that railing.

If you see this really inspiring video on youtube about some guy they went from working retail to following his dreams making movies, it wouldn't be that surprising if you become very aware of local film festivals & competitions.

TL;DR thinking about something you want removes it & related things from your brain's bullshit filter.

>>19049309
>>19049335
Thanks, that will help me a lot, I appreciate the input.

Sorry for the extra request, but do you think the time invested into this should be brief? like I keep hearing 5 minutes before going to sleep. But does spending more time, or working on this visualizations during the day for brief periods or hours could harm the effect of this waves from actually doing what I'm intending them to do?

>>19049308
OK, since English is failing, I'll use propositional logic to prove what I'm saying.

[(A^B^C^D^E^F^G)=~X]
Therefore, since both sides are equivalent,
[~(A^B^C^D^E^F^G)=X]
Therefore, by De Morgan's Theorem,
[~A v ~B v ~C v ~D v ~E v ~F v ~G=X]

But this means that "if any one of A,B,C,D,E,F,G is false, then X is true"! NOT "if all of A,B,C,D,E,F,G are false, then X is true".

>>19048525
This is confirmation bias. Not necessarily complete bullshit, but it doesn't actually happen. In fact, if you go into a task with positive feelings about it you will likely be underwhelmed by the result, and vice versa.

There is no way to alter the events of your life just by thinking about it. I've never encountered any articles in any legitimate scientific journals that suggest that this might be possible, because there is no correlation.

File: tmp_7207-14942947025231482704474.jpg (110KB, 759x847px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 759x847px

>>19049286
5th dimensional analogy to a tetrahedron. 5 points. My allegorical message is that the 5th dimension is probability.

>>19049206
Well, if you ever figure out how to connect conscious reality to physical reality, you will have solved that problem for your self. Until then, I will allow you to choose if you want to believe such a thing is possible or not.

>>19049272
Both. You should imagine 7 different specific versions of different girls with those qualities, then understand the general uniting factor all 7 of those have as a whole. This will generate 1 of those 7 as a macro wave form, stored as memory. The uncertainty of which of those specific 7 it is gathers the energy, but being okay with only 1 of the 7 unleashes it.

Make sure to forget that you manifested it, so that the universe can remind you of it later, sometimes as the physical reminder of "oh, there she is in the flesh!"

File: 24-cell.gif (1MB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 256x256px

>>19049420

>5th dimensional analogy to a tetrahedron. 5 points. My allegorical message is that the 5th dimension is probability.

that's what I fig'd. I thought that those "hyper shapes" were 4th dimensional. Shows how much I know I'm prob about to waste the rest of my night reading about them.

>>19049455
>I thought that those "hyper shapes" were 4th dimensional.
You are correct, they are. Other dude is wrong. A 3D tetrahedron has 4 points, so a 4D one has 5 points.

>>19049375
(A^B^C^D^E^F^G)=H
H=~X

If all other possible explanations, H are false, then X is true.
If all other possible explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G, are false, then X is true.

In the context of the text you are quoting, "All other possible explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G" refers to the operand (A^B^C^D^E^F^G). For posterity, here is the original quote:

>>19048883
>Disjunction is the correct operator to describe correlation. The final line denotes that the *only* way X can be true, is if ALL other explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G are false.

Since the final line is [A^B^C^D^E^F^G=~X], in the context of that quote, all other possible explanations A,B,C,D,E,F,G means H.

>>19049486
>If all other possible explanations, H are false, then X is true.
>If all other possible explanations, A,B,C,D,E,F,G, are false, then X is true.
You are getting confused by English and not thinking about the logic of the truth values. "H is false" does not mean "A,B,C,D,E,F,G, are all false". Learn about De Morgan's Law, it directly says this. "H is false" means "~H" means "~(A^B^...)" which means "~A v ~B v..." which means ONE of A,B,C,D,E,F,G is false.

I don't know how else I can make this clear. I already proved it mathematically. I can not stress this enough: learn about De Morgan's Laws and what they mean. Until you do, you are just arguing from a flawed understanding of what it means to negate "all".

>>19049455
Well.

Maybe I made a mistake with my language. It has four spatial dimensions, and one temporal dimension. I count that as five.

I thought you were referring to the animation of the shape, considering that each possible frame counts a different spatial shape. If each possible frame is held in one's mind, then from that perspective the shape becomes timeless, and possibility (equal probability) takes the place of time.

That is how manifestation occurs; from the point of paradox where possibility takes the place of time, and the beholder's worldline is observed as a set of possible 4d gifs. Which gif you look into from that perspective is then nobody else's choice but yours.

>>19049486
>>19049521
Or think about it this way. Let A mean "I am a human." Let B mean "I am alive." Now (A^B) is true if and only if I am a living human. That means ~(A^B) is the negation of that, so it's FALSE if and only if I am a living human. But that means it is still true if I am a dead human, or a living dog!

File: antibo.jpg (22KB, 794x692px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 794x692px

>>19049485

Ya ok. I remember hearing that a 4D cube has something like 8 "sides" on each "wall" or something like that. Very interesting yet very confusing for a sub-genius faggot such as myself. You know any good books on the subject (short of complex geo/trig/phy txts)

>>19049540

I totally forgot what I meant to type whilst typing it. That looks retarded. Just want ref to some books on zee gestalten

>>19049526

Which would sound like trying to envision one of those shapes in 4D. We really cannot picture them aside from those animations because we cannot think in four dimensions.

>>19049521
No. I am not getting confused by English. I see simutaneously each and every individual possible explanation for what I write as I write it.

I intentionally used ambiguous English, to convey a point. There is a contextual difference between each individual other possible explanation, and all other possible explanations. And though I have agreed with you many times in this thread already that English is an ambiguous language, not suitable for technical logical arguments, nonetheless, I insist;

observing all other possible explanations implies the generation of an operand, H, which together collectively is referred to as all possible explanations A,B,C,D,E,F,G.

It is the *calling* of this operand which produces necessary architecture in the physical manifestation of a person's physical reality in order to generate the desired effect. Do you understand? I am talking about calling all other possible explanations a unified operand, like how object oriented programs call functions, or elemental sets. When the human brain CALLS all other possible explanations, AS IF it were a unified operand, it generates a unique frequency signature specific to the elemental sets being called this way.

This can be the most difficult thing for logical people to understand, because it is in the doing, rather than the thinking.

>>19049621
Well. Perhaps each of (You) individually cannot. But maybe all of (You) can.

>>19048525
The only thing I believe in is gravity.

>>19049485
Only when they are stationary objects are they 4D, as you mean it. For posterity, this is my post:

>>19049179
The image here is in motion, thus it is not stationary. Ergo, I am not wrong.

But perhaps you and I perceive time differently. To clarify things, I observe time as if it were a dimension.

>>19049353
Good post anon. Do you think this is why people tend to change their lives only after hitting rock bottom? i.e. they become more aware of their decisions. If so, do you think the initial suffering is necessary? Like in your handrail example, what's the difference between being cautious prior to getting the splinter, and being cautious after?

ITT: Pseudointellectuals pretending to be knowledgeable about physics and logic after reading some shitty book one day, which was also in turn written by pseudointellectuals who didn't know what they were talking about.

>>19049850
welcome to /x/
now leave

>Law of Attraction
It's simple, really.

The more:
>thought
>effort
>time
>energy
>money/materials/resources
>manpower
Etc. you throw at something, the more likely you are to obtain that something. Think of it as a force-multiplier, they use this term in the military.

The more people, guns, bullets, tanks, bombs, helicopters, resources, etc. you throw into a battle - the more likely you are to win.

>>19048525
To find a good wife to share life with; I hope she likes walks to the beach, and just spending comfy time at home.

We'll go drive around town to pass time, looking for interesting places and stores, or just enjoy the ride.

Every now and then we'd visit relatives, and go to the local park; gosh I hope she likes getting comfy when it rains.

>>19048883
i have studied discrete mathematics, and its pretty fucking clear to me you are talking out of your ass

especially since you are describing xor but use the symbol for or (AvX==1 means either or both can be true)

but you can just google some bullshit and throw out some jargon salad and only people who have studied this stuff will be able to tell you are full of it.

>>19049920
but its not that simple, law of attraction is based on thought alone.

also, thinking about a bad thing to help you avoid it seems to go against law of attraction.

>>19048525
yes and no.

Long story short is that we know if you put more time into improving your odds in any given gamble, and make that gamble frequently, eventually you'll get it.

Maybe not odds like the lottery, but shit like getting a certain job or attracting a girl you like. If you act like it's already happened and keep going at it almost everyone will eventually cave to your optimism.

Also there's the bum effect, where bums are pissed off at the world, because they're bums you know, and they come around asking for free shit and smelling like a bathroom, so most people tell 'em to fuck off, so they get meaner and pissier and eventually they get arrested for blowing their top on somebody and so on and so forth. Nobody wants to make things work with a hostile dude.

I hope its true otherwise.my living doll/possessed doll project is going to fall flat on its face

>>19050340
tell me more about that, you going to use "emet"?

Whenever I play the lottery, I think about making the big win, until the numbers are drawn. Guess what?

>>19048525
Tell me if this is fucked!?

I guess I should say Ive meditated for 17 years and have a strong consciousness so see weird law of attraction shit happens. The most fucked up is this recent one.

Have small business and thought up another one that would actually pay great! It involved a $5,000 piece of equipment and buy a truck. Dad offered me $5,000 for the start up. Was looking into the 3500's for the first time in my life. My lazy ass didnt start the business. 2 weeks later get hit by some foreigner in a fucking 3500 which didnt do much damage but it cost $5,000 to fix and my dad had to give me $5,000 for that instead.

>>19049833

The initial suffering is very important because, at least speaking for myself, you don't really understand something fully until you have suffered the consequences.

For example, I've used 3D software for a while but I remember when I first started learning it. My instructor was relentless about incrementally saving your work because one corrupt file could ruin hours of work if that was your only copy.

I understood the concept of a corrupted file, I understood the concept of having multiple versions of a project; but I had never HAD a file get corrupted (at that point) & lose hours of work because of it.

And because of that I wasn't too diligent & eventually I did get a corrupt save that... you guessed it, cost me hours of time.

I understood everything, but the importance didn't sink in until I was directly effected by it.

Years later to this day, whenever I work on something I can feel my brain whispering every so often that I should hit that "+" button that saves & adds another number to my file.

I think we have this "it can't happen to me mentality", and it takes something tragic to actually motivate us to take action.

Maybe hitting rock bottom is a point that they never thought they would reach, and once they realize how far they've really fallen, that become that much more aware of their past and future decisions.

>>19052852
You just have 2nd class intelligence. There are three types of intelligence.

1st class if you can understand simply by hearing.
2nd class is you will hear, but you must have direct experience before understanding.
3rd class is even with direct experience, you will never understand.

The world is yourself pushed out. That's all you need to know. What you think is what you get.