Best self-help books?

Kyle Lee7 said:- I didn't actually mention quantum physics anywhere
-unconscious belief patterns are incredibly powerful, though that doesn't mean conscious thought lacks influence—it’s really just a matter of which areas of your life have blocks and which don't. Where there's no resistance, you can easily "allow" things to happen
-it all comes down to flow versus resistance. There is a powerful life force at play, and then there is resistance (the more resistance you create, the more problems you attract—and that resistance comes from both conscious and unconscious beliefs or feelings, like thinking "nobody loves me," for instance)
-following that logic, any positive thought, feeling, or belief—whether conscious or subconscious—will always carry more weight than a negative one
-positive thinking works, provided you aren't fighting against it by doubting its very power (which creates resistance)
-trying to force positive thinking on someone when their "vibration" is miles away from that state is just unproductive. You're absolutely right there, but that's why you have to take it one step at a time, like climbing a ladder (for example, if you feel sad, the first move might be shifting toward anger, then to frustration, then maybe impatience, then toward a sense of positive expectation, then optimism, then excitement, and finally relaxation... you can't just skip ten steps from sadness straight to pure happiness)
-as for the people who constantly think and act poorly: just because you don't see immediate consequences doesn't mean they aren't happening. They might feel miserable internally, suffer from health issues, live in a constant state of rage, or eventually face justice, much like how Radovan Karr did

In my experience, I don't know a single person who constantly thinks and acts poorly while remaining genuinely happy. That alone is a massive contradiction!

I’d bet this guy wasn't even thinking or acting out of malice by his own twisted standards; he was probably just lost in some blissful state of self-absorption,
which is really the only metric that matters, isn't it?

So how did it all go sideways for him, or what could have actually pulled him out of the gutter?
Whatever you think—whether it's his thoughts, his belief systems, or his level of consciousness—I'm curious to hear it.

Sandra Parker3 said:I’d bet this guy wasn't even thinking or acting out of malice by his own twisted standards; he was probably just lost in some blissful state of self-absorption,
which is really the only metric that matters, isn't it?

So how did it all go sideways for him, or what could have actually pulled him out of the gutter?
Whatever you think—whether it's his thoughts, his belief systems, or his level of consciousness—I'm curious to hear it.

The latter individual was essentially a sociopath or psychotic (a top-tier psychiatrist told The Morning that we're looking at narcissistic personality disorder here)... that's getting a bit too deep for my expertise, so I won't try to play doctor.

Regardless, anyone who is truly aligned with themselves and their inner Source simply wouldn't have the capacity to inflict harm on another person.

Jonathan Kelly33 said:If you want to heal your spirit and body, check out Louise Hay—that's basically a manual, you really have to put in the work with that book.
Then there's *The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People* by Covey—also a total manual. Great for control freaks or entrepreneurs; he was basically an expert at fixing interpersonal dynamics within American corporations.
And *The Power of Now* by Eckhart Tolle—absolutely stellar read.
My psychiatrist actually recommended the book on toxic parents. It's specifically for people coming from dysfunctional families who need to process deep trauma—for anyone else, it's probably way too heavy and honestly unnecessary.
I absolutely love de Mella—he's so easy to talk to and stays positive, even though he’s brutally honest. Besides being a priest, he was also a psychotherapist.

And what would a functional family even look like? If you can find someone whose parents haven't done at least one thing mentioned in Toxic Parents, I'll buy you a beer—at the very least.😉 😁
Louise Hay? No, that's too much for me. Personally, when things start drifting toward angels and that kind of stuff, I know the author—or in this case, the author—has completely lost touch with reality...
The Power of Now works for me, too. De Mello feels a bit too much like a sermon, and I haven't found much constructive value to pull from his work. It’s all very beautiful, blunt, and honest, but it's also unrealistic. It's nice to read, but difficult to actually apply to life.

feraltrucker5 said:😂

No, it’s more like "occasionally" because I honestly read everything... I mean, I'll jump from self-help manuals straight into trashy crime novels, then pivot to biographies of Soviet dictators, and somehow end up with a chick lit paperback by mistake 😁 And besides, the local library won't let you check out more than three books at once anyway 😢

But hey, you actually gave me a pretty interesting topic to chew on.

What topic? My curiosity is piqued, first and foremost.😁

Unknown literature? Good grief, even if we are discussing Psychology, there have to be some limits... I mean, it is perfectly fine to admit you are hitting a wall, or feeling suicidal, or that life is just total garbage, but reading unknown literature... I think you took me a bit too literally.🤣🤣😛

Kyle Lee7 said:The latter individual was essentially a sociopath or psychotic (a top-tier psychiatrist told The Morning that we're looking at narcissistic personality disorder here)... that's getting a bit too deep for my expertise, so I won't try to play doctor.

Regardless, anyone who is truly aligned with themselves and their inner Source simply wouldn't have the capacity to inflict harm on another person.

Let’s dive into that for a moment. I had actually been considering bringing this topic up, but I couldn't quite pull the trigger, and now that you've already opened the door, 🥳 It honestly sickens me. My semi-layman intuition tells me that labeling unknown's condition as merely Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a massive understatement, because we are talking about full-blown psychopathy, sociopathy, and much worse.
And now we have to ask ourselves: what kind of systemic failures allow such individuals to not only operate with total impunity within the psychiatric establishment, but to actually practice medicine on people? 😲😲😲 I was in shock for three days when I heard on TV that he was a psychiatrist; I had no idea before that... What does supervision even mean in this country? Does it just boil down to students grabbing drinks with professors, or is there actual oversight, or can just anyone claim to be a psychotherapist without anyone checking their work along the way? 🙄

unknown

Kyle Lee7 said:- I didn't actually mention quantum physics anywhere
-unconscious belief patterns are incredibly powerful, though that doesn't mean conscious thought lacks influence—it’s really just a matter of which areas of your life have blocks and which don't. Where there's no resistance, you can easily "allow" things to happen
-it all comes down to flow versus resistance. There is a powerful life force at play, and then there is resistance (the more resistance you create, the more problems you attract—and that resistance comes from both conscious and unconscious beliefs or feelings, like thinking "nobody loves me," for instance)
-following that logic, any positive thought, feeling, or belief—whether conscious or subconscious—will always carry more weight than a negative one
-positive thinking works, provided you aren't fighting against it by doubting its very power (which creates resistance)
-trying to force positive thinking on someone when their "vibration" is miles away from that state is just unproductive. You're absolutely right there, but that's why you have to take it one step at a time, like climbing a ladder (for example, if you feel sad, the first move might be shifting toward anger, then to frustration, then maybe impatience, then toward a sense of positive expectation, then optimism, then excitement, and finally relaxation... you can't just skip ten steps from sadness straight to pure happiness)
-as for the people who constantly think and act poorly: just because you don't see immediate consequences doesn't mean they aren't happening. They might feel miserable internally, suffer from health issues, live in a constant state of rage, or eventually face justice, much like how Radovan Karr did

In my experience, I don't know a single person who constantly thinks and acts poorly while remaining genuinely happy. That alone is a massive contradiction!

😉

Look, if we’re following psychoanalytic theory, there is actually a significant benefit to "thinking dark thoughts" every once in a while. Real breakthroughs rarely happen when you're just suppressing everything. In fact, some of the most difficult psychological hurdles occur when someone tries to completely deny their life instincts or suppress their aggression. You can't just wish that away. To maintain a sense of self—to truly exist as an individual—you need a certain level of internal aggression. When people push this agenda of constant "positive thinking," they are entirely missing the point. It feels like they are confusing conscious thoughts with deep-seated subconscious patterns. If your argument is strictly about surface-level thoughts, then the whole premise falls apart. It's just fundamentally flawed.
The logic that those who cause harm will inevitably face punishment simply doesn't hold water. It’s a flawed premise. Honestly, it doesn't even work on the level of quantum physics. 😉 The reason that individual was held accountable wasn't due to some divine intervention or some cosmic law of karma. It’s much simpler than that. He was caught because he orchestrated crimes on such a massive, systemic scale that it became impossible to look the other way forever. What finally caught up to him wasn't a mystical force or fate; it was simply international criminal law doing exactly what it was designed to do. 😉 😁
Look, let’s be clear—I think we’re essentially talking about the same core issues, just through different lenses. What really grates on me is this relentless preaching of "just stay positive" and "don't cause trouble." It’s being shoved down the throats of people who are already drowning because they *didn't* cause trouble. They followed the rules, stayed "positive," and effectively became submissive when they should have stood their ground or walked away to protect themselves. That’s why all this flowery, "good vibes only" philosophy feels so hollow and useless to me. It doesn't work.
It could lead to a situation where even an already diminished sense of individuality is stripped away entirely. I am not sure if you truly grasp the depth of what I am trying to convey here...

Kyle Lee7 said:The latter individual was essentially a sociopath or psychotic (a top-tier psychiatrist told The Morning that we're looking at narcissistic personality disorder here)... that's getting a bit too deep for my expertise, so I won't try to play doctor.

Regardless, anyone who is truly aligned with themselves and their inner Source simply wouldn't have the capacity to inflict harm on another person.

To be honest, I couldn't care less about his diagnosis; throwing someone into a clinical category doesn't mean a thing to me personally. You brought him up as an example of someone who screws around and eventually pays the price, but I actually think he lived a much fuller, more intense life—from his own perspective, anyway—than those people who spend their lives playing it safe, trying not to hurt anyone, or obsessing over "positive thinking." He felt good about himself, and frankly, I doubt he ever stopped. I don't see where the "punishment" is supposed to be.

Kyle Lee7 said:The latter individual was essentially a sociopath or psychotic (a top-tier psychiatrist told The Morning that we're looking at narcissistic personality disorder here)... that's getting a bit too deep for my expertise, so I won't try to play doctor.

Regardless, anyone who is truly aligned with themselves and their inner Source simply wouldn't have the capacity to inflict harm on another person.

But what does it actually mean to be "aligned with your Source"? Take the guy we were just talking about... if he had bothered to align himself with the world around him instead of just sticking to his own "values," his life probably wouldn't have felt nearly as fulfilling or productive by his own subjective standards. Whether you like it or not, the man was happy and satisfied; he was perfectly in tune with himself, living life to the absolute fullest, doing exactly what he wanted, and loving himself... even if he caused a trail of misery for everyone else in his wake.

placidranger said:http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
I'm no physicist—thankfully, I have Google to do the heavy lifting. 😁

The bottom line? There’s zero evidence that consciousness or mere thoughts have any actual impact on physical reality.

placidranger, you aren't just off base—you are completely lost. 🙂 Honestly, your rigid skeptical stance prevents you from processing any information that doesn't fit your narrow view. It makes me think no amount of explanation will ever change your mind. To claim there is no proof that consciousness influences reality is laughably absurd. Don't get mad, but I half expected a cartoon character to pop up next to this comment because it's so unbelievable. After all the studies, theses, experiments, books, scientists, doctors, physicists, psychiatrists, mathematicians... why even bother debating this? You are surrounded by mountains of literature, data, and records on the subject. It's everywhere. But I suppose skeptics find it easier to look inward for confirmation. Are you a puppet, or are you using your own consciousness to create your reality—and everyone else's too? Even within yourself?

amberbadger8 said:placidranger, you aren't just off base—you are completely lost. 🙂 Honestly, your rigid skeptical stance prevents you from processing any information that doesn't fit your narrow view. It makes me think no amount of explanation will ever change your mind. To claim there is no proof that consciousness influences reality is laughably absurd. Don't get mad, but I half expected a cartoon character to pop up next to this comment because it's so unbelievable. After all the studies, theses, experiments, books, scientists, doctors, physicists, psychiatrists, mathematicians... why even bother debating this? You are surrounded by mountains of literature, data, and records on the subject. It's everywhere. But I suppose skeptics find it easier to look inward for confirmation. Are you a puppet, or are you using your own consciousness to create your reality—and everyone else's too? Even within yourself?

Of course I can change my mind, provided there's actual evidence. 🤷
unknown:

The idea that there’s zero proof that consciousness or thought influences reality is almost laughable. Don't take this personally, but I could easily imagine some wild emoji sitting at the end of that comment—I wouldn't be surprised. After all the studies, theses, experiments, books, scientists, PhDs, physicists, psychiatrists, mathematicians... you know the drill... is there even any point in discussing this further?

To be blunt, I haven't seen a single convincing shred of proof that this is true.
unknown:

There are endless books, materials, and records out there about this... it's everywhere. But skeptics always find it easiest to look for validation within themselves. Are you a puppet, or are you using your thoughts and consciousness to shape your own reality—and the reality of those around you? Even within yourself?

At one point, I actually tried looking for evidence to back up what those books claim. It isn't there. Just because you want something desperately doesn't mean it's going to manifest.

And honestly—from where I'm sitting—it seems like you've gone off the deep end. Your convictions are so set in stone that you're ignoring reality; your perception is incredibly selective. But then again—we all have that mechanism.

placidranger said:Of course I can change my mind, provided there's actual evidence. 🤷
unknown:

The idea that there’s zero proof that consciousness or thought influences reality is almost laughable. Don't take this personally, but I could easily imagine some wild emoji sitting at the end of that comment—I wouldn't be surprised. After all the studies, theses, experiments, books, scientists, PhDs, physicists, psychiatrists, mathematicians... you know the drill... is there even any point in discussing this further?

To be blunt, I haven't seen a single convincing shred of proof that this is true.
unknown:

There are endless books, materials, and records out there about this... it's everywhere. But skeptics always find it easiest to look for validation within themselves. Are you a puppet, or are you using your thoughts and consciousness to shape your own reality—and the reality of those around you? Even within yourself?

At one point, I actually tried looking for evidence to back up what those books claim. It isn't there. Just because you want something desperately doesn't mean it's going to manifest.

And honestly—from where I'm sitting—it seems like you've gone off the deep end. Your convictions are so set in stone that you're ignoring reality; your perception is incredibly selective. But then again—we all have that mechanism.

Look, I already mentioned the evidence, but you just refuse to accept it. 🤣But whatever, you'll figure it out eventually 😉. Using "books" as a general term doesn't support your argument, nor does my failure to find specific proof support mine. You have to be resourceful; you have to know your field and where you're headed. Reality is far more complex than what we perceive, both in the material and spiritual realms. For instance, just because you or I can't see electromagnetic waves, radiation, or cell signals bouncing around while we walk through downtown Chicago doesn't mean a massive swarm of frequencies isn't jumping all over us.
The easiest proof that consciousness influences matter and reality is your own body, and frankly, it's strange that you aren't aware of that.
Anyway, I'm not just repeating things I've read or parroting someone else's words. I'm speaking from experience.
But fine, I'm not trying to lecture you. Just ask something specific if you're actually interested, rather than just bickering. 👍

amberbadger8 said:Look, I already mentioned the evidence, but you just refuse to accept it. 🤣But whatever, you'll figure it out eventually 😉. Using "books" as a general term doesn't support your argument, nor does my failure to find specific proof support mine. You have to be resourceful; you have to know your field and where you're headed. Reality is far more complex than what we perceive, both in the material and spiritual realms. For instance, just because you or I can't see electromagnetic waves, radiation, or cell signals bouncing around while we walk through downtown Chicago doesn't mean a massive swarm of frequencies isn't jumping all over us.
The easiest proof that consciousness influences matter and reality is your own body, and frankly, it's strange that you aren't aware of that.
Anyway, I'm not just repeating things I've read or parroting someone else's words. I'm speaking from experience.
But fine, I'm not trying to lecture you. Just ask something specific if you're actually interested, rather than just bickering. 👍

I assume you were attempting a joke there. Sorry, but I honestly see zero evidence that thoughts can manipulate reality in the way those self-help gurus claim.
unknown:

Generalizing about "books" doesn't support your thesis any more than it supports mine—it just means you failed to find actual proof. You have to be resourceful; you need to know the field you're playing in and where you're headed. Reality is far more complex than what we perceive—both in the material and spiritual realms. For instance: just because you or I don't see electromagnetic waves, various radiations, or cell signals while walking through downtown Chicago, it doesn't mean a massive swarm of frequencies isn't jumping all around us.

Fine. Show me how one measures a thought, or these supposed "vibrations" that thoughts supposedly emit. Nobody sees them, hears them, or feels them...
unknown:

The easiest proof that consciousness influences matter and reality is your own body—it’s strange to me that you aren't aware of that.

So, when I think about moving my hand, it moves?
Look, I control my body via neural pathways, but those electrical impulses follow specific routes outside of the nerves—there's no "thought" driving it. I can't control anything else.

placidranger, I’m not suggesting you can bend reality through some kind of magical ritual—that kind of thinking is pretty much characteristic of primitive superstitions and, from a psychological standpoint, borders on psychosis. My actual question is deeper than that: is it possible that your interpretation of reality is what actually constructs it? Does objective reality even exist at all? Look at quantum physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector. This line of thinking can be developed into Objective collapse theories. In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs.

Practices like those found in Zen Buddhism involve trying to become conscious of one's own thoughts—essentially analyzing the space between raw reality and our perception of it. To me, this is where quantum physics and various self-help disciplines intersect.

And if your interpretation of reality is indeed what creates it, then thoughts do, in a sense, influence reality. That is a significant point for further consideration.

All in all, I find this subject incredibly fascinating...

placidranger said:I assume you were attempting a joke there. Sorry, but I honestly see zero evidence that thoughts can manipulate reality in the way those self-help gurus claim.
unknown:

Generalizing about "books" doesn't support your thesis any more than it supports mine—it just means you failed to find actual proof. You have to be resourceful; you need to know the field you're playing in and where you're headed. Reality is far more complex than what we perceive—both in the material and spiritual realms. For instance: just because you or I don't see electromagnetic waves, various radiations, or cell signals while walking through downtown Chicago, it doesn't mean a massive swarm of frequencies isn't jumping all around us.

Fine. Show me how one measures a thought, or these supposed "vibrations" that thoughts supposedly emit. Nobody sees them, hears them, or feels them...
unknown:

The easiest proof that consciousness influences matter and reality is your own body—it’s strange to me that you aren't aware of that.

So, when I think about moving my hand, it moves?
Look, I control my body via neural pathways, but those electrical impulses follow specific routes outside of the nerves—there's no "thought" driving it. I can't control anything else.

I already gave you my take on self-help literature, so I’m not sure which part of the "thoughts influencing reality" bit you want me to address from those books??

It isn't about measuring thoughts and vibrations. Are you seriously unaware of how primitive our civilization actually is? Scientists still argue over whether Vitamin C is as revolutionary as they claim, let alone anything deeper. It’s like denying bacteria exist just because you don't have a microscope to zoom in on them.
There are people who can see the human aura (that energy field) and the flow of energy within the body with their naked eyes. They are incredibly rare, but they exist. Some individuals are simply at a higher evolutionary stage than the average person. I know someone who has seen auras since childhood; he sleeps maybe an hour or two a day, is never tired, works constantly, never gets sick, and manages fifty quasi-bioenergy Reiki sessions a year to help people. Plus, he has a photographic memory—not to name a few. Certain people are just more conscious of the reality surrounding them. Throughout history, we've had people like Jesus, Buddha, (and some great scientists too, though I'll leave them out of the parentheses so nobody takes offense), but it's always the wrong crowd that twists things and turns them into something evil.
Some things are simply currently inexplicable (to explain something conventionally, you have to be smart enough to build the right instrument) and unacceptable (due to ego, massive lobbies, power, and profit—all of which prevent medicine, physics, and science from advancing as fast as they actually could).
Regardless, I'm telling you that you are your own best proof that thoughts influence reality (if that's how you want to frame it).
Thoughts and emotions have a direct impact on the human body (matter, if you prefer the term 😉). This is proven by numerous studies regarding psychosomatic illnesses, not to mention how stress, anxiety, restlessness, sadness, and worry exacerbate any other ailment.
The subconscious (our non-material form of existence) also plays a massive role in
shaping the reality around us, but I'll save that for another time if you're interested.👍

electrictiger70 said:placidranger, I’m not suggesting you can bend reality through some kind of magical ritual—that kind of thinking is pretty much characteristic of primitive superstitions and, from a psychological standpoint, borders on psychosis. My actual question is deeper than that: is it possible that your interpretation of reality is what actually constructs it? Does objective reality even exist at all? Look at quantum physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector. This line of thinking can be developed into Objective collapse theories. In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs.

Practices like those found in Zen Buddhism involve trying to become conscious of one's own thoughts—essentially analyzing the space between raw reality and our perception of it. To me, this is where quantum physics and various self-help disciplines intersect.

And if your interpretation of reality is indeed what creates it, then thoughts do, in a sense, influence reality. That is a significant point for further consideration.

All in all, I find this subject incredibly fascinating...

My interpretation of realityis my own version of reality—which, to some extent, reflects an objective reality (an entity that exists regardless of my whims, desires, or mental state)
.
unknown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector. This line of thinking can be developed into Objective collapse theories. In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs.

I don't know much about quantum physics, but the objective state of the world definitely doesn't depend on the consciousness of the observer. That idea is peddled in self-help books because it sounds profound. It sounds scientific. There was a Dawkins documentary where Deepak Chopra ("Quantum Healing") appears; it’s blindingly obvious the guy hasn't a clue about quantum physics—he even admits he uses the term as a metaphor, despite not knowing what it actually means.
Take Schrödinger's cat, for instance—it's a "thought experiment" meant to highlight flaws in the Copenhagen interpretation. It isn't proof that the cat exists or doesn't exist; it's pointing out a fundamental problem within a theory that implies such a possibility.

unknown:

Look, I’m telling you—you’re living proof that thoughts shape reality (if you want to call it that). Thoughts and emotions have a direct impact on the human body—on matter, if you prefer 😉—and there's plenty of research to back that up. We're talking psychosomatic illnesses, not to mention how stress, anxiety, or even simple grief can exacerbate any underlying condition. The subconscious—our non-material side, anyway—plays a massive role in shaping the world around us. But we can dive into that another time, if you're actually interested. 👍

I've been interested in this stuff for a long time 😁 but honestly, the subconscious isn't some "non-material" entity; it's just a concept for all the information we aren't consciously aware of.

Sure, thoughts and emotions affect the body—we still have a lot of work to do to figure out the exact mechanics of how or why—but there's a limit to what thought can do. It hits a wall at the nervous system.

unknown

placidranger As stated by: I don't claim to be an expert on quantum physics, but I am certain about one thing: the objective state of our world does not depend on... Consciousness. observer.

What is the actual, objective state of the world? Or are we simply living within a socially constructed version of "objective" reality? 😉 Is what you call "objective reality" actually yours, or is it just a perspective imposed on you by someone else—perhaps even just a consensus dictated by society at large? To be perfectly honest, this supposed objective reality of yours feels incredibly ill-defined. 😉

unknown

They try to peddle this stuff through the self-help industry simply because it sounds sophisticated. It carries a veneer of scientific legitimacy. I remember watching a documentary by Dawkins where Deepak Chopra appears—he brings up "Quantum Healing"—and it’s painfully obvious the man hasn't the slightest clue how quantum physics actually works. He even admits he’s just using the term as a metaphor, despite clearly having no grasp of its actual meaning. Take Schrödinger's cat, for instance. It isn't some definitive proof regarding whether a cat actually exists or doesn't exist in a given state. Rather, it serves as a thought experiment designed to expose the fundamental flaws within the Copenhagen interpretation. It is an indictment of the theory itself, pointing directly toward the logical inconsistencies inherent in its implications.

No, this isn't some minor issue of interpretation. That misses the entire point of the thought experiment. The core question is whether the cat is actually dead or alive before we even open the box—or if its state only settles at the exact moment we look. It forces us to confront a deeper, more unsettling possibility: does the cat even exist at all if there is no observer present to witness it? 😉

I wouldn't go so far as to say that objective reality is impossible to prove 😁

electrictiger70 said:unknown

placidranger As stated by: I don't claim to be an expert on quantum physics, but I am certain about one thing: the objective state of our world does not depend on... Consciousness. observer.

What is the actual, objective state of the world? Or are we simply living within a socially constructed version of "objective" reality? 😉 Is what you call "objective reality" actually yours, or is it just a perspective imposed on you by someone else—perhaps even just a consensus dictated by society at large? To be perfectly honest, this supposed objective reality of yours feels incredibly ill-defined. 😉

unknown

They try to peddle this stuff through the self-help industry simply because it sounds sophisticated. It carries a veneer of scientific legitimacy. I remember watching a documentary by Dawkins where Deepak Chopra appears—he brings up "Quantum Healing"—and it’s painfully obvious the man hasn't the slightest clue how quantum physics actually works. He even admits he’s just using the term as a metaphor, despite clearly having no grasp of its actual meaning. Take Schrödinger's cat, for instance. It isn't some definitive proof regarding whether a cat actually exists or doesn't exist in a given state. Rather, it serves as a thought experiment designed to expose the fundamental flaws within the Copenhagen interpretation. It is an indictment of the theory itself, pointing directly toward the logical inconsistencies inherent in its implications.

No, this isn't some minor issue of interpretation. That misses the entire point of the thought experiment. The core question is whether the cat is actually dead or alive before we even open the box—or if its state only settles at the exact moment we look. It forces us to confront a deeper, more unsettling possibility: does the cat even exist at all if there is no observer present to witness it? 😉

Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂
unknown:

No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉

The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics.
Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.

To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it.
What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁

placidranger said:Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂
unknown:

No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉

The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics.
Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.

To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it.
What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁

Various New Age pseudo-scientists either miss this point entirely or conveniently ignore it. Since quantum particles are tiny ("that's right, Mr. Obvious!" 🙂), we track them by firing other particles at them and watching the bounce. That collision inherently changes the direction of the particle being studied. Of course, New Age enthusiasts and spiritualists have somehow spun this to mean that the mere presence of an observer—their thoughts, their consciousness, or whatever else might be floating around in some supposed quantum field of mind—is what influences the particles.

placidranger said:Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂
unknown:

No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉

The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics.
Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.

To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it.
What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁

Don't be fooled; New Age gurus always have an answer ready for stuff like that. They'd probably claim the resonant frequency of the concrete particles failed to harmonize with the thought particles due to some sudden interference from cosmic radiation... You know how it is, cosmic radiation always shows up at the worst possible moment.

placidranger said:Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂
unknown:

No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉

The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics.
Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.

To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it.
What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁

If you actually want to understand how thoughts might influence reality, you need to step outside your own narrow perspective. By engaging in shallow reasoning and tossing all self-help literature into the same bin as stage magic and cheap parlor tricks, you’re only distancing yourself from the truth.
The reality is far more subtle, yet somehow incredibly simple in certain aspects. You’ll find it easier to experience or grasp intuitively than to explain via math or physics. But again, I'm telling you to be more precise. I don't know what's bothering you—whether it's telekinesis, levitation, meditation, positive thinking, autosuggestion, or the power of the subconscious...
Claiming the subconscious isn't a form of existence is essentially the same as denying the existence of the soul.
It's a denial of our essential being.