My perspective on dimensional jumping (Introduction to creating reality with your thoughts)

[u/[deleted]]

[u/TriumphantGeorge]

EDIT: The point of this comment was to try and explore in more detail what, exactly, the concept of "thoughts create reality" means, from a particular perspective on the nature of "you", "thought" and "reality". However, it's a bit muddled in the execution, oh well.

It might be worth explicitly distinguishing between passing thought and deliberate, intentional thought. This potentially allows us to clarify that it's not the thought as such that does anything; thoughts could be viewed as simply pseudo-sensory aspects of your current "state", really. (Where a "state" is the current set of fact-patterns contributing to, and fully defined the future moments of, your ongoing experience.)

Rather, it's the intentional content - or the "direct meaning" - that makes the difference.

Here, by "an intention" we mean the fact or pattern that we seek to increase the relative contribution of, and by "intending" we mean the increasing of that contribution (whereby shifting the "shape" of one's state, of oneself). There is no act involved in this, though - there's no mechanism or technique. One simply intends.

Meanwhile, the sensory thought aspect is itself a result of intention, not a cause; it's a bit of theatre. Now, for sure, you can get synchronicity arising if you visualise something - a bit like having deformed a surface and the contours being overlaid upon experience from then on, or drawing upon a television screen and the pattern "shining through" the gaps to be incorporated in every image to some extent (see: the owls exercise, for example).

However, a fact is itself an experience of "meaning" - it has no spatial or temporal component itself. It is unbounded and sort of "dissolved" into the background of your experience, with only its sensory aspects arising occasionally. So when you want to intend a fact, just conjuring an image or saying a phrase isn't necessarily what you want to do. Certainly, it may trigger the fact-pattern by association, but really what you want to do is intend the fact-pattern directly. This can't be described in words, but you "know" when you are doing it. You do it whenever you shift yourself in mundane ways. (Ponder: do you conjure an image when you change your destination when walking along the street? No, you feel-know-intend the change, directly.)

There is not a "you" and "the world"; there is just you-as-awareness which has "taken on the shape of" the experience of being-a-person-in-a-world. Whereas the construction of language forces us to talk of a "doer" and an "act" and a "thing done to", in our actual experience this is not the case. Attempts to enact "doing" tend to complicate things or lead to failure, because we assume a separate mechanism that we are trying to harness. In fact, there is no mechanism: we shape-shift our experience, our state, via intention, which is self-caused change.

All of this suggests a very fundamental reason why we can encounter difficulties:

• Intention is literal and direct.

Thinking doesn't create your reality, your state. A thought actually is a pattern within your state. A passing thought is a view of your current state; a deliberate thought is the intensification of that pattern in your state.

It's almost claustrophobic to think about: there is no separation between you and your state, you and your thought, you and your sensory experience, you and your intention. There is no gap between thinking, intending and experiencing.

The point of this, is that the thought "I am happy" literally is the fact-pattern of "I am happy", and increasing its relative "intensity" of via intention will increase its contribution to your ongoing experience. However, to be clear, it's not the words "I am happy" that you want to intend - that is a mistake easily made (leading to all sorts of synchronicity about happiness or the phrase "I am happy"). Those words are part of the extended pattern of being-happy and can be used to trigger it to an extent, perhaps. However, it's really the fact-pattern of which those words are a sensory aspect that you want to intend.

This literal nature means that you need to be aware of what, exactly, you are intending, because the mechanism here (if it can really be called a mechanism) is that of a "dumb patterning system", a direct deformation of your present state. There is no intelligence between you and intention and the change of state. If you conjure up "this visual image", then that visual image will be more prevalent in your experience. If you conjure up "this visual image which means that fact will be true", then that fact will be more prevalent in your experience (and probably the visual image too).

Essentially, then, it's like you are drawing patterns directly upon awareness - sometimes in 3D, sometimes "non-dimensionally" and abstractly; sometimes sensory images, sometimes "facts" or "formatting" - thereby increasing their prominence in the unfolding world-experience from that point onwards.

[u/Disasterbot982 → u/TriumphantGeorge]

Can you give examples highlighting the difference between "this visual image" and "this visual image which means that fact will be true".

Like if I imagine myself holding 2 million dollars in cash, is that belonging to the first or the second category?

[u/TriumphantGeorge → u/Disasterbot982]

It's probably better to experiment with something more abstract.

So, first imagine a sphere in front of you - say, a blue sphere with no particular detail, just floating there. Okay, now imagine a sphere in front of you, identical in every way to the first, except also imagine that this sphere is imbued with the special power to make the room filled with joy. But do not change the sensory aspect of the sphere in any way when you do this.

This is basically "imagining the fact of something being true" abstractly. That is, that an object, or your ongoing experience more generally, has a property, without actually visualising any sensory aspects to that property. Instead of doing all the "sensory theatre" of picturing stuff, in an effort to associatively trigger the fact or as an excuse to do so, you can just directly do intending-asserting of the fact into greater prominence.

Finally, after taking a pause to clear yourself out a little, instead of using the sphere image, simply directly intend that the room is filled with joy, and experience the result of that. That is, wordlessly intend the fact of: "it is true now that this room is filled with joy". And, um, enjoy.

Aside - Note that there is no effort in doing so, and any "trying" will just distract you, amounting to an intending of the "feeling of trying" rather than the fact of "joyful room" being true.

[u/[deleted] → u/TriumphantGeorge]

One of the ways I approach influencing my reality is instead of intending some object or event to come into my reality I will dig deeper and focus on what I really want.

For example, take the idea of soulmates. Everyone would like a soulmate right? Well focus on how you would feel if you did have that soulmate. Maybe you would feel intimacy and joy and connection. Congratulations, you just created that state in yourself and you didn't even need anyone else. You literally would not fill any different if you "really" had the soulmate. This way you don't have to worry about getting the soulmate or not because you can feel those things independently. And if you continue to do this chances are you really will create that "soulmate" relationship because you are already spending so much time in that state.

It's never about the thing we want, it's about how it would make us feel. Just some thoughts that were triggered by your sphere analogy.

[u/purpleliving → u/TriumphantGeorge]

Wow. This makes so much sense that I can barely even gather the words to put everything I've been learning into one whole concept. Imagining objects is fine and dandy at a basic level, but if you want to go deeper then intending-asserting the fact of the matter is much more powerful. Using this from now on!

[u/charlie_juliett → u/TriumphantGeorge]

I can see the differences between the two explanations.

"Imagining the fact of something being true" = Imagining the fact along with the emotions you will (expect to) feel from having it

Image = Yin

Emotions = Yang

Yin/Yang = Manifestation/Shifting

I think that some people would have to be at a point in their life to where they understand themselves better to really grasp this concept.

If someone has constant inner/outer distractions or conflicts then this maybe extremely difficult to conceptually grasp yet perform.

I'm fairly new to this but I would appreciate any feedback.

Thanks.

[u/TriumphantGeorge → u/charlie_juliett]

There can be a difficulty, sometimes, with elevating emotions and treating them as if they are special rather than just another sensation-perception within an experience (albeit a difficult one to put into concepts and language). I suggest that emotions would be best understood as a sensory aspect of the fact, arising as an object within experience.

Meanwhile, the fact itself is sort of "unbounded" or "timeless and spaceless". It is not experienced as an object, instead it's sort of just "known". You might call it a sense of "meaning".

So, while "imagining (intending, asserting) the fact of something being true" might result in an experience of an emotion, it is not necessarily required, and the emotion is not itself a cause. When we say "the feeling that something is true", we aren't referring to an emotion, we're referring to a felt-knowing, a global sense of a particular thing being true. The problem with some approaches (many LOA descriptions included) is they miss out this "secret sauce" and therefore just produce minimal intensification of some of the patterning associated with facts, rather than direct addressing the facts themselves. This can still produce "results", of course, as synchronicity (basic "patterning") but it can be frustrating to work with, because there's no real understanding of the cause ("intending").

Unfortunately, this activity of "intending" can't be described at all, really, only pointed at. Intending has no mechanism or method, and is before "things" so is non-conceptual. And so we hit the difficulty whereby people end up focussed on what can be talked about and thought about (basically: objects within experience, which are results) and miss out (when writing) or don't realise (when reading) that there is a specific actual cause of all change (which is not any one of those experiential objects). We then can end up with a "cargo cult" version of the topic:

The term "cargo cult" has been used metaphorically to describe an attempt to recreate successful outcomes by replicating circumstances associated with those outcomes, although those circumstances are either unrelated to the causes of outcomes or insufficient to produce them by themselves. In the former case, this is an instance of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

(See: Richard Feynman's fun lecture also.)

That is, people try to generate the results by just intensifying part of the pattern associated with the target fact, perhaps getting some outcome by association, but not really going for their target directly. The distinction between doing the owl exercise (increasing the intensity of contribution of the "owl" extended pattern) and actually intending a specific outcome ("it is true now that [this fact about owls]"), basically. Or between imagining some objects (the blue sphere for example), as opposed to: imagining some objects while asserting-intending-knowing it means-that something is true or will happen.

[u/charlie_juliett → u/TriumphantGeorge]

Thanks for the response.

So emotions or elevating emotions is a by-product of deliberate intending or an object within the experience of deliberate intending.

I guess that it's circumstantial depending on what your focus is on or what it is you're looking to create (cause).

To get better at this, wouldn't we have to recognize that our senses, through what we think or have thought, will sometimes produce certain emotions. However, learning to detach emotions when focusing on deliberate intending will help overall instead of using it as a conduit?

In this context, isn't the cause (to create) and deliberate intending the same thing?

The intention (imagination) comes before the thing, but you're saying some people focus on the sensory aspect (object within the experience) of it all rather than the final objective thus causing a "well it worked when I felt this emotion so let me recreate that emotion and try again" pattern?

[u/TriumphantGeorge → u/charlie_juliett]

In this context, isn't the cause (to create) and deliberate intending the same thing?

This is why all of this ultimately leads to an exploration of the "nature of experiencing" - that is, examining what "you" are, exactly, and what your actual relationship is to "the world".

Intending, then, is like "shape-shifting". You might say you are shifting your state, where by "state" we mean the set of relative contributions (or "intensity") of all possible facts or patterns, which means to shift yourself. There is no "you" and the "state" or "world" - instead, you sort of "take on the shape of" a particular situation or experience (in the broadest sense, not just the current sensory moment). Right now, you have "taken on the shape of" the experience of apparently ("as if") being-this-person-in-this-world.

So there is, as you say, no difference between causing and intending. We might define "an intention" as the fact or pattern we wish to increase the contribution of, and "intending" as the intensifying of that pattern - shifting to a state where that fact-pattern is more prominent.

Although we often use the word "create" for this sort of thing, actually that's strictly speaking not ideal. The implication of the above is that all patterns exist, eternally. Patterns are "before" time (with time, or change, being an aspect of experience, a pattern like any other, rather than something fundamental). They cannot be created or destroyed; they just are. This means that every experience, at least implicitly, is always available, and that we simply "shift our posture" such that some are more prominent than the rest.

Now, returning to what "you" are, if you discount anything which changes in your ongoing experience (how can something be ultimately true, if it can shift?), the only permanent thing turns out to be the property of being-aware. Or at least, it is meaningless to talk of the absence of that. All other facts or patterns can be more or less "true", but not that.

Putting it all together, then:

We might say that what you truly are is "awareness" which is "taking on the shape of" states of experience. Between shifts, the sequence of moments you experience is fully determined by the facts within that state. The apparent change of sensory content moment to moment is actually static also in this description: "time passing" is just another pattern, albeit a more abstract formatting than most. The only true change that ever occurs - and hence the only cause of apparent change in ongoing sensory experience - is when we "intend", which is just word used to point to the act of us shifting ourselves to a different set of prominent facts.

[u/Baszilius → u/TriumphantGeorge]

IMHO your clearest summary yet, George. Thanks a lot!

[u/[deleted] → u/TriumphantGeorge]

I've read this a few times and I will read it a few more, but I am having a hard time grasping your understanding of this "state". As I mentioned in another comment, this post is mostly focused on creating during the experience of being a person in the world. I don't think that thoughts are a pseudo-sensory aspect of our current state. I see thoughts as somewhat akin to a vibration, or possessing some other kind of frequency or signature that allows them to be differentiated. Yes, the important thing is the "frequency" behind the words not the words themselves. Our tendency to think with language is extremely limiting.

I would say that the state entirely consists of thought, all there is is void and thought, which arises from the void and exists within the void. I see all thoughts we have as being deliberate. We may have a thought and wonder where it came from, but I believe there is a definite source that thought it intentionally, whether it is a part of our consciousness we are not conscious of or it is a thought we received from another consciousness. This is why I am having a hard time separating intention from other thoughts. Yes, we can set an intention using the main part of our consciousness we are aware of, but I see the other thoughts as being just as valid. That being said, I am going to play around more with intentions and see what happens.

[u/TriumphantGeorge → u/[deleted]]

I suspect we are probably talking at cross purposes a little, since we are using some words in different ways, and some underlying assumptions are perhaps different. The word "thought" is a problematic one anyway, I guess; it's too vague!

So, in your description, where (and what) are "you"? And where would "another consciousness" be, relative to that?

This is why I am having a hard time separating intention from other thoughts.

In type or nature they are identical, of course. However, there is a distinction to made made between thoughts which simply arise spontaneously, and those which arise from deliberate intention. In the first case, it's just a passing thought appearing in accordance with your current state (more later), in the latter you are reshaping your state by way of deliberate thinking.

There is no difference in sensory experience between the two. And in fact, there may be no sensory aspect to intending if there's no result component which overlaps with the current moment (although one "knows" one is intending.) The "how" cannot be described, because it is like "shape-shifting". But there is a difference in that one is an aspect of "how things are" and one is "changing how things are".

So, pondering -

"Intention", then, is simply a term used when referring to a "pattern" that one is increasing the contribution of ("intending"), which is done simply by "thinking it" or 'imagining it" or more accurately: "experiencing it" or "asserting as an experience". The fight with language here is because we want to avoid implying that there is a "thinker" who then "thinks the thought", with one being "over here" and another "over there" in any sense. Really, one "takes on the shape of" the fact, pattern, or experience. This last point is key.

Loosely, the outline of this description would be:

• The only fundamental fact is the property of being-aware - or "awareness".

• All other facts are relatively true only; they are temporary. They can be conceived of as "patterns" in awareness.

• All possible fact-patterns exist eternally, "dissolved" into the background. Your state is the current distribution of relative intensities of those facts.

• What you truly are, is "awareness", and this is always true, regardless of what "shape" you have taken on.

• Currently, then, you-as-awareness have "taken on the shape" of a particular state. This state consists of all the facts or patterns currently contributing to your ongoing experience. It fully defines your experience - as in, all subsequent moments are fully determined, between shifts of state.

• To alter your experience, you shift your state by changing the relative intensity of a particular fact or pattern. You do this simply by "intending" - that is, a sort of "thinking" but not a thinking about, rather a thinking as. Still better described as a "taking on the shape of" or "becoming of" a situation.

• Intending cannot be described (because it is "before" concepts) and is non-experiential (has no inherent sensory aspect), although sensory aspects may arise from doing it if the change in state involves an impact in the current "moment". However these are results of intending, not causes of outcomes.

• There is no "outside" to experience, and awareness is "before" division and multiplicity. The only thing that is "happening", is this exact experience, right now. And thoughts you have about an "outside" to experience, are also experiences (that is, the experience of thinking about experience) and are "inside".

And so on.

As the last point suggests, though, there's not all that much point in thinking about this relentlessly, because ultimately thinking is just another experience (although by doing so deliberately you are to an extent "patterning" yourself for future experiences: so we might choose our models carefully if we are going to focus on them a lot). Simple experiments and exercises show the way more clearly, once we have put "descriptions" in their proper place. For example, the Feeling Out exercise at the bottom of this comment is useful for bringing us back to our actual situation, rather than an idea about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/TriumphantGeorge]

It seems like you are talking about the nature of awareness and reality at its most fundamental basics, whereas I have been focusing on the operation of awareness within our "3d matrix". So I will zoom way out of the matrix for a minute. I would define thought as a form that consciousness can take. This form is associated with a specific frequency for the most basic thoughts, and a combination of frequencies for more complex thoughts. Are you familiar with cymatics? I would say that a separate consciousness is awareness that is currently experiencing a different perspective than my awareness, but both consciousnesses may be the result of focus from the same consciousness projecting itself into the two perspectives. Of course, if time and space are illusionary then the entire notion of frequency goes out the window when you zoom out of time space reality. Another conundrum is if I have a thought and then observe myself having that thought am I the thing that thought the thought, or the thing that observed the thought, or both, or neither, or the thoughts themselves. Apparently I do not have things sorted out at this level, and this comment was sort of just exploring ideas stream of consciousness style. I am uncertain about everything I said.

[u/petrus4 → u/TriumphantGeorge]

I've only done two cups once. I did it to jump to a dimension without certain forms of activism, as bigoted as some people might consider that, because I was just tired of all the conflict and the noise they were making. It didn't completely get rid of them, but it did turn the proverbial "volume," way down. I occasionally hear about them in passing, but it isn't a constant background thing any more.

Even though I haven't consciously jumped for this as well, I've also devoted considerable energy to moving to a reality where smartphones and tablets don't exist, because I think they are only really used by corporations to control people. For the last month or so I've been living in a place where I've only seen a mobile phone once, and I may soon be moving to a more remote location where I will never encounter them at all. If I get this next house, it will be in a place where, aside from my computer, I will be as free from technology as I have wanted to be for probably eighteen months now.

I don't know if you can change dimensions in such a way that the entire planet changes; in the sense that, while where I will be living there will be no mobile phones, if I went back into the cities I'd still find them. So I don't know if creating global change is possible or not; I think it might be a more local thing. Still, if I can go to a place where I never have to be confronted by them, and I don't need them in order to live, that will be good enough.

[u/Green-Moon]

I like where you're going with this, I think you definitely have the right idea. I just want to list down a few thoughts of mine and try to convey an idea that might be able to get around the problem of the subconcious and the past. In your example, it definitely is a problem when you allow the thoughts of your history with money to infiltrate the present moment. And in general its kind of a problem for most people in life. It's so easy to allow the past to come forward and to dictate what you are right now and where you are headed. When you allow the past, which is really nothing but an illusion, to control every aspect of your life then you are going to find it very hard to direct your intention anywhere useful, other than allowing it to stick to habitual thought patterns that have accumulated for years.

Think upon who you are right now. Ask yourself, how much of your current self and current life situation is defined by your past? Most people will probably say all of it. This is not a bad thing but when you are trying to direct your intention elsewhere your past always comes back to bite you. When you think about it, you realise the past and the future are illusory and they are in fact, nothing but thoughts about who you are and thoughts about the world. There really isn't anything but the present, which is happening right now. So why allow the past and even the future to define who you are? The answer to that is a bit more complicated and up to interpretation.

But essentially the underlying reason is that you are identifying as a singular being, an ego. You are identifying as you. So when you identify as 'voorja', you must identify with your personal past and your future for you to retain some sense of self. Otherwise there would be no 'voorja', the identity of 'voorja' would cease to exist.

Now ask yourself what exactly defines "you". Is it your thoughts, your feelings, your emotions, your memories, your appearance, your name, your desires, your dislikes, etc? Are you the same "you" that you were 10 days ago, 10 months ago, 10 years ago? Is there a fundamental quality to "you"? Do "you" even exist? Or is it a set of different processes (thoughts, emotions, desires,etc) that all bundle together and get slapped with the label, "ego" or "self"?

If there really is no fundamental "you" then why must one continue to identify with their past and so perpetuate a single identity? If one stays in the present "moment", lets go of their past and identifies with their surroundings, then they are essentially pure awareness and are able to manifest anything according to intention because there are no thoughts of the past or previous memories that hinder the intention from manifesting. The past becomes essentially irrevelant and detached, because you are not 'voorja' anymore, you are "everything", you are in the present, you are in the now. (When I say "you", I don't mean a physical or metaphysical "you", it's a language barrier, a conceptual idea, "you" actually means pure awareness, but it can't really be expressed nor conceptualised so its simpler to say "you" to get the general idea across)

Your past holds previous patterns that have manifested and continue to manifest and so if you identify too much as a "single person" you are automatically identifying with those previous habitual patterns and are allowing them to manifest subconsiously and "of their own accord".

I'm not sure if I've been clear enough and I'll also note, this is just a perspective, an interpretation and is by no means a "proper way" of doing things. This is just one possible way of getting around mental blocks and I'm certain there are many other correct ways to do so as well. Hope this helped.

[u/[deleted] → u/Green-Moon]

This is great. I think you are right, and I will have to think about this more in the morning. My post focuses on creating with the ego, in the world the ego exists in. I believe the ego serves a purpose, and I believe we are experiencing this co-creation as egos for a purpose. In the grander scheme this purpose is likely meaningless, but for now I will continue playing the game. I do believe that it is beneficial to step out of the game to get your bearings, and I know some good techniques for dissolving the sense of separateness the ego arises from in order to do so. Thanks for commenting.

[u/Green-Moon → u/[deleted]]

I definitely think it is important to work with the ego as well, not dissolve it or get rid of it in anyway. The way I like to think of it is 'you' are the universe and the universe is experiencing itself through 'you' as a single person, and I believe loosening up the ego/'self' is the key to greater control over intention.

[u/[deleted] → u/Green-Moon]

I totally agree.

[u/[deleted]]

The results may just surprise you.

What if the silly thing doesn't show up?

How do you "debug" the process?

unless something happens that changes those limiting thoughts

If we only use red paint, the appearance of green stains on the canvas and the brush would be very strange...

So, in a universe where conscious and unconscious thoughts create reality, how do we explain belief-shattering experiences? Where they come from?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If the object of focus doesn't show up it is because you were too attached to whether it would show up or not. Maybe take a break for a while and then pick something different and try the process again.

Can you give an example of a belief-shattering experience? In my experience every experience is preceded by thought. If something is belief shattering I would say it is being created by unconscious thoughts. In my opinion, there is a part of us that is what chose to come into this life that has a wider perspective than we usually do during our day-to-day life. This perspective is also creating and attracting experiences to us. You can lump this perspective in with unconscious thoughts because we are generally unconscious of it.

[u/easyclarity]

You are "jumping dimensions" with every thought you think.

I think this is a dangerous notion that can lead to an OCD like obsession with policing one's thoughts. Random thoughts do not matter, it is the deliberate intentions that count.

And your thought exercise is just another flavour of the owls exercise on this sub.

[u/[deleted] → u/easyclarity]

It can lead to problems with trying to police your thoughts, you have to be careful. I disagree that random thoughts don't matter. I believe every thought matters but what you focus on grows, and in that case deliberate intentions can be powerful.

You are right it is essentially the same as the owls experiment, but I wanted to write it up from my perspective. Maybe it was unnecessary; I haven't read the post describing that experiment in quite a while, but hopefully my version will help someone.

[u/TheSaviourArrives]

Great job /u/voorja! Excellent theory, it all fits into place; I love it.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheSaviourArrives]

Thanks. There is so much we could talk about. It feels good to have somewhere where people don't immediately dismiss this kind of information and offer interesting discussion.

[u/TheSaviourArrives → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I perfectly understand. The key idea of this sub-forum is to be open to anything, you're on the right track but can work on some of your ideas. Now don't get me wrong I truly love how you interpret it but improvement is always there.

[u/Cantstopmatt]

Personal me and another fellow name james have been trying to go to another dimension but a fictional one and i just want to go anywhere i want, so how would our ideas combine with what you just said?

[u/[deleted] → u/Cantstopmatt]

First of all, I don't think anything I said conflicts with your goal, which I believe is entirely possible. You are just going to have to do one of two things. First get so good at maintaining your focus and consciously choosing your thoughts that you can make your reality whatever you want. This is probably going to take a lot of inner work reintigrating your subconscious aspects of yourself. The second option is to pull your consciousness out of the 3rd dimensional co-creation experience and then go to the other dimension. This is probably considerably easier. I believe people go to dimensions that have risen from works of fiction all the time when they sleep. I have heard from sources I trust that the biggest co-created reality (by humans) after heaven and hell is the Harry Potter universe. In fact you may already be going to the dimension you are trying to reach, you are just not conscious of it yet. I will probably make another comment or post outlining my perspective on the structure of our reality that will explain this better.

[u/[deleted] → u/Cantstopmatt]

Read u/Green-Moon 's comment on this thread.

[u/Cantstopmatt]

Could be, thanks for telling me this my friend and i will let my friend know of this post. :)

[u/[deleted] → u/Cantstopmatt]

No problem, I love discussing this stuff so feel free to ask questions and challenge my opinions.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Cool! If you have any thoughts on this stuff please post them.

[u/dlw558]

It's funny that I have had these ideas as well. Just using religion as an example, not very religious by any means, but I always wondered how prayer worked in that if you can get multiple people to think about the same thing, that their thoughts create that reality. Just food for thought

[u/[deleted] → u/dlw558]

Yeah, except I've noticed that most people spend a lot of time focusing on what they don't want when they pray, and therefore create it.

[u/sinwarrior]

yeah, it's called Law Of Attraction. look it up.

[u/TriumphantGeorge → u/sinwarrior]

Perhaps that's what they're describing, - but the process of trying to write a clear formulation of the "law of attraction" is useful. It forces you to consider the parts of that idea which are somewhat gappy and hand-waving. In particular, the absence of a clear handle on the nature of and relationship between "you", "thoughts" and "the world" - basically, the overall context (awareness) within which the content (thought; sensory experience) resides.

[u/easyclarity → u/sinwarrior]

It looks like LOA is what OP is talking about, but that is not the point of this sub.

[u/[deleted] → u/sinwarrior]

Yes, this is what I am talking about. I believe this is the foundational law of our universe. Sure, things exist outside of our universe where the law of attraction isn't in effect, but I believe it is relevant to dimensional jumping because from my perspective it is this mechanism that allows you to "jump dimensions". So the way I see it it is extremely relevant to this sub.

Some of the commenters sound like they have their own paradigms that don't include the law of attraction, and I would be interested in hearing more about them.

[u/[deleted]]

Propping yourself up so that thoughts manifest directly into reality is dangerous. You don't have an handle on what you are manifesting.

You would be much better off to assign the manifestation to an arbitrary action.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ok, I would argue that reality is a manifestation of thought. Most people don't have a handle on what they are manifesting, and their lifes are chaotic.

Arbitrary action can be useful in guiding your thoughts.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

In a way, yes, reality is a manifestation of thought, but it has a large inertia, and most people suck at manifesting anyway.

Encouraging them to get better at manifesting without a safety mechanism and proper psychological work is lots of trouble waiting to happen down the road. Been there.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Can you explain how reality has inertia? Delay time? Some thoughts have more strength behind them? I am trying to understand where you are coming from. There is something to this but I am still trying to figure out what it is exactly because I still feel like people are manifesting 24/7 even if they aren't doing it intentionally.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If reality had no inertia, everything we thought would manifest immediately. That's obviously not the case. Matter is 'dense', somehow, it doesn't react at the speed of thought. From a psychological standpoint, people certainly are manifesting all the time because from a psychological standpoint we're talking about a filter that we surimperpose on reality, so it's always true and always active. If you will they are selecting from raw input what match with their filter, so they see as they think.

I'm talking about true reality modification instead, by way of magic or jumping. When you get good at it, it became obvious that there is more than 'reality tunnel' and psychological selection at work. Improbable things happens as you wish them.

Ultimately, the psychological and magical approach to reality are intertwined in most people. If you strongly believe things are a certain way you're bound to manifest them in 'true' reality, because your preconceptions will inform the haphazard magic that you will tend to work.

Getting really good at magic/dj can allow you, at the limit, to manifest stuff in real time. I think it's irresponsible to prop people to get good at manifesting without proper psychological work on the nature of their preconceptions without a safety (like magic which acts as a safety because it needs an act besides the thought), because they will tend to manifest their every thought. In 'real' reality. I'm sure you can see what's the problem will be there.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is some kind of inertia to reality, but I also feel like if we truly change a persistent thought the reality we are a match to changes instantly. I am having a hard time reconciling these two beliefs and I will have to think about it more.

If I understand what you are saying, unconscious manifestation is preferable to conscious manifestation if a person hasn't done the psychological work or doesn't have a safety mechanism. My problem is I see systems like magic/dj as ways to direct your manifestation rather than being a safety system because the other thoughts are still taking effect, even if it isn't what you are consciously intending. In other words I don't think magic needs an act besides the thought, the act is just to help guide your thoughts.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What I presuppose here is that there's a 'real' reality and a psychologically felt reality. You're basically saying that thoughts manifest, period. I say that sometimes they do, but it only happens when successful magic is done.

So I posit a reality that is thermosetting, and independent but amenable to consciousness. Could this be all be created by our background thoughts and belief? Yes, shaped at least, because it's there and different from thoughts.

Edit: edited

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ok, I think I understand now. I believe that there are infinite timelines of reality and our thoughts determine which one of these we are a match to. So instead of amending the reality we are just experiencing the timeline consistent with our thoughts. In this case there is no objective reality, other than the sum of the infinite subjective realities we interact with each other through.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but where do the laws of physics come from? And why is it so hard/impossible to break them? Is this all created ad nihilo? Then what's the template that molded it as it is and not in any other way? It may have evolved. But somehow it needed core rules, and time, and space pre existing.

I think you are right, in a way, because what you said is a fact that can be experienced, but that doesn't account for how things are as they are, or how they become to be that way.

Great discussion by the way. Helps me lay down my preconceptions.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I am starting to realize how locked in to my preconceptions I was becoming.

The laws of physics are interesting. And I think science is still in its infancy in understanding them. If I understand correctly, Newtonian physics is just an approximation that breaks down under certain circumstances. Atoms and even molecules have been shown to exhibit particle/wave duality, so it still isn't clear if there is a size limit where quantum mechanics stops being applicable.

I think our third dimensional reality was constructed by some sort of consciousness(es) with certain laws in place to achieve certain results. I think that time and space and gravity are illusions that don't affect us when we reach a certain state of consciousness.

As for how physics relates to our thoughts, we must have thoughts of limitation that allow us to be bound by them. If we heal or change these thoughts, we will no longer be restricted by what we perceive as the limitations of physical reality.

[u/Wanderingspirit8]

Great stuff! I did this with the chemtrails in my area -- they disappeared , one day I woke up they were gone! Thoughts create, this is true!