Talk:Law of attraction

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon new age.svg

This New Age related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Is the law of attraction real?[edit]

It makes a testable claim does it not? Thoughts are able to "manifest" reality. There are multiple problems with this. One is that it violates all known principles of science and how we understand the way the human mind and the universe works. The other issue is that it makes a testable claim, thinking of "x" should make "x" happen. Could we not simply construct and experiment to test the LOA and be done with it? tmtoulouse heckle 02:17, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I wanted a pony and I got one. QED. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
These people are even more brutal than that. They actually have the nerve to apply it to disease, particularly terminal disease. They say that the way you beat cancer is by "not wanting cancer" and if you die...well I guess you just wanted cancer more than you wanted to live. Better luck on your next reincarnation. tmtoulouse heckle 02:29, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Hey, I said "QED" first, so I win! I guess I hadn't run across that version, it was more like the woman I knew who taped a picture of a guitar to her fridge to help her "get one". Meanwhile, on my lib talk radio, I get inundated with ads for cancer cure places that embarrass me. I hate the "politicization" of the site because it ignores that so many woomeisters and their chillunz are pretty darn "liberal". Just as clueless, though, as YECs. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
If you tried running tests then the woomeisters would always have the 'out' that those who didn't get what they wished for weren't trying hard enough. You're up against the old 'skeptics disturb the psychic forces' argument as well. Anyway, as MJ famously said, you cant always get what you want but if you try you might just find you get what you need. Silver Sloth 02:58, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
True, but what kind of argument is that? If I say "wow, that sunset is beautiful, eh?" and you say "no, not really", I would tend to then talk about something else, not accuse you of being distracted, bored, frustrated, etc. I might ask you why you weren't able to enjoy it, and we'd probably have a good conversation. But if I said "YOU WERE BLOCKING IT YOU ARE WRONG", I'd be teh luzer, eh? Oh, and see double blind and audiophile (which needs to be renamed audio woo and rewritten now I am off my "no-compete" agreement!) LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, hehe. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
PS "double blind" is a red link? On this site? WTF... search time... ah, I see, it's fucking hyphenated! Bad idea... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:39, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like[edit]

Sounds like Name it and claim it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing, except this is the New Ager version. Punky Your mental puke relief 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
My "having threeways with Nathalie Portman and Tina Fey" isn't going so well right now. Can this help me, Goonie? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
According to my local homeopathetic healer, yes. Just appreciate having a threeway with Nathalie Portman and Tina Fey, and it will happen. Otherwise, you probably just don't appreciate having a threeway with them enough. Punky Your mental puke relief 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You have NO IDEA how much I appreciate it. In fact, I may just go off and *appreciate it* right now...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You only have to read the stuff eg: "... but it has affect." to realise that they're incompetent. 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

Does the law of attraction allow a person to do harm?[edit]

So I imagine that there is something within all this mumbo jumbo that says the universe only picks up on good vibrations and not bad/harmful ones because honestly most new ager hippie types aren't going to follow something that says you can kill someone if you want it bad enough and the idea might get some bad press too. What about things though where good comes from bad like in the case of organ donation. I'm just curious after watching an episode of ER where a young girl waiting for a liver transplant says she feels guilty waiting for something bad to happen to someone to which the doctor tells her that she isn't the one making the bad thing happen. However if this "law" is true then every single person who desperately wants an organ transplant are indirectly killing people. To me this makes the whole thing even more insidious than I already thought it was (before it was just the implication that those who are suffering just aren't trying hard enough). --Sammygirl (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in some forms, the idea really is that noxious, in both directions. Every time a natural disaster or terrorist attack, etc, occurs, it must be because the people were spending their time thinking about such disasters. 173.163.25.70 (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Every effect has a cause. One can be affected by other's thoughts but only if one chooses to, and the sub-conscious mind will only choose so if a cause has been created. Unless they have sub-conscious guilt, and they choose to learn their lesson at that particular time, in that particular way, they will never be affected by negative thoughts.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs

Not every effect has a cause. Radioactive decay is spontaneous. Wackyvorlon (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Radioactive decay is caused by the formation of an unstable atom.
Every effect has a cause. That is the cause of 'effect' (which also means a result or outcome of a cause) being used for all scientific phenomena.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs

Inadequate criticism[edit]

"it is unclear what the universe is supposed to to when two or more people want contradictory things"

This is actually fairly obvious. When such a situation happens, two parallel universes are created. In each one, the wishing person gets what she wants, while the other one doesn't, so from the observer's point of view it looks like you get what you want regardless of the wishes of other people. This could actually be justified by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. See wp:Quantum suicide and immortality.

The bigger problem is that thinking is unrelated to a quantum measurement, so it's unclear why any quantum effects should occur. --Tweenk (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this video on spaceology will change your mind: http://youtu.be/sarJtKM-Ku4 Wackyvorlon (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
How is it not related? I believe it deals with phenomena at microscopic scales, and i believe thinking is related to microscopic phenomena.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs
In quantum mechanics, "measurement" has a very specific (and very real) definition. The idea of thought does not satisfy the conditions necessary to meet said definition. - GrantC (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You thought something before writing this. Something happened in your brain in relation to that. That phenomenon has quantum effects.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs
Sure, and if you want to get technical about it, everything has quantum effects. Again, I'm a physicist, and my area of research is in quantum mechanics. Explain to me why thought is in any way more "quantum" than anything else out there. - GrantC (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Could you please indent your posts with ":" as you can see me doing in the edit page? Note that each additional ":" adds an extra indentation. Also, please sign your posts by using the signature button up on the editing bar. - GrantC (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that thought is more 'quantum' than anything else. Everything is the same. As they say, God is everywhere. According to quantum entanglement, supposing we come from one energy, everything is connected. So, our thoughts can affect certain events. Serectrus (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Except that's not how entanglement works at all, and the idea that everything is "connected" is not at all supported by quantum entanglement. - GrantC (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The particles immediately respond to one another. They must be connected. And if everything forms from 1 energy, everything must be connected.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs

See above. That's not how entanglement works. - GrantC (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We have the free will and free agency to create in all our existences. If a person wants another to do as they want, they have to learn to honour their free will.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs

... What does that even mean? - GrantC (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that even English? Wackyvorlon (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I apologise. It was an error i made by mistake, as we can edit other people stuff too.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs

If you were talking of what i said, i meant that nobody can make us do anything against our free will even in parrelel universes. We can get what we want by thought, but only what is fair.

We can often get what we want by a combination of thought (determination) and action, but there is no force in the universe that causes wonderful things to happen based on thought alone. - GrantC (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe there is such a force. But in this world of physical matter, physical action is also necessary.
Thought is also action. And every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But here, physical action is also necessary.— Unsigned, by: Serectrus / talk / contribs
That statement is total gibberish. Look, you want to know how QM works? Go read Chad Orzel's How To Teach Physics To Your Dog, then go read the quantum woo article. You don't have to be a PhD quantum mechanic to know that what you're saying is not even wrong. EVDebs (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

LawOfAttraction subreddit doesn't like it[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/lawofattraction/comments/5xs0aw/the_law_of_attraction_rationalwiki/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)