OU - Reproducability why is it so hard? A New Perspective!

[goddylla]

Hence the more who believe in something the more likely it will be induced into becoming 'Reality'...
Acerzw

Yes, conscious co-creation has a greater impact on the material level of "reality" (in this case as it applies to a working and distributable OU machine) but it is the singular consciousness which attains balance in all manifestations of existence that manages to *to quote Huxley* open doors of perception that lead to some kind of new order of thought.

There is quite a bit of discussion lately about the compartmentalization of science and it's undeniable failings. There are too many specialists who are unable to see the forest for the trees and since the view is limited, so are the avenues of productive and clear communication between the different sects. This is readily apparent in religion throughout the world, but it is more apt to be humanity's downfall within the realm of science.....although I feel as though I'm beginning to witness a rather large shift in consciousness (specifically on this site in terms of a leap of faith of those that have been indoctrinated into the languages of the specific sciences involved) that threatens to remove much of the steam that the fatalists are using to drive their fear based complacency

In essence, now that enough of can understand the material world down to the quantum level it is time to put it back together again, because the sum is always > it's parts.

[acerzw]

[In essence, now that enough of can understand the material world down to the quantum level it is time to put it back together again, because the sum is always > it's parts.

Creative Reconstruction of humanities 'Reality' does indeed appear to be underway and not before time...

it is the singular consciousness which attains balance in all manifestations of existence that manages to *to quote Huxley* open doors of perception that lead to some kind of new order of thought.

That is what is happening now to many individuals, when it reaches critical mass which it surely must do, then the switch will have been flipped, and a 'New Age' will truly be upon us... our 'Reality' will have literally changed...

As an aside this is exactly what takes place in Shamanism, though the catalyst is a drug rather than self belief, it is interesting to note how the Egyptians used a blue flower that grew on the Nile to induce trances, and that the survival of many forest dwelling tribes also relied on the inventive insights obtained while in a shamanic trance... Indeed Terence McKenna whose work I reference (his paper which was used in my favourite song, the Shamen's 'Re-Evolution') was mainly based in this area.

Acerzw, connecting all the dots is so important...

[Tracker]

Great post.
One thing that bothers me: if our "reality" is so easy to alter, how is that possible that "mainstream", proven inventions are still working? Why my car's engine is not sopping suddenly if I will disbelief in its concept?
With all new "social networks" this approach should be easy to prove

[acerzw]

Tracker,

The answer is simple, nearly everyone believes in the physics involved in the internal combustion engine, it is built on the back of so many ideas that have a 'proven' 'reality' dating back generations that we all believe in...  In this case the majority rules wins... though if you doubt the reliability of your engine your are likely to find it develops faults that cannot necessarily be found when you take it to a garage... this is the origin of the notorious 'Ghost in the Machine' phenomenon, some machines work better for some individuals than others...

It is the reverse with OU devices, the principles are not well understood, some of the key physics of this obscure part of electronics is still doubted, so the collective assessment holds sway, it 'perpetual
motion', 'it breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics' etc. All these statements reinforce and make the current 'reality' one in which working OU devices are rare, and rarely reproducible. Once more of the concepts involved are 'proven', and more people believe OU devices can work, they will start to work more commonly... until the majority attitude is that they always work, and then it will become the current 'Reality' for everyone...

Shocking as the idea may appear, but if a group meditated with the strong belief that a particular device on a particular bench were to work and there were no skeptics in the lab at the time... It might just produce OU!

Some parts of 'Reality' are more established and deeply enmeshed in our collectively generated reality...

The 'syncronicity of invention' where several people 'invent' something at very nearly the same time, suggests this to be true, humanities global understanding of certain concepts grows, and 'pop' suddenly out of nowhere several people get this great Yureka! idea...

There may be personal or even group annexes in reality, for instance does the Yeti exist, well maybe literally for some it does and for others it doesn't. Perhaps its seemingly ethereal nature is just a reflection of a global and changing belief in its existence. But I am damn sure if we all believed in it, its photo would be on the front of National Geographic!

The same applies for another classical 'reality enigma' the the Loch Ness Monster, what's the betting that if it did exist, as as soon as a boat of sceptical scientists turn up, it becomes less 'real', so they find no evidence. Then a young enthusiastic individual turns up shortly later and takes a picture of it! However if that individual then reads the paper produced by the boat full of sceptical scientist's that says they found no evidence for it, the individual may begin to doubt what they saw... and so it becomes even less 'real' and the next enthusiastic visitor gets an even 'foggier' picture of it or no picture at all...

The same applies to UFO's, the blurring of an original photo may be caused by the effect of peoples beliefs and views on the content... retrospectively! (and the PEAR experiments show retrospective action such as this is possible, on at least the quantum level) So it really doesn't matter how steady your hand is, the quality of the film or camera.. 'reality' will conspire to blur it for you just enough to support the group view that 'everyone knows there is no such thing as UFO's'. But note the UFO was there since the photographer saw it, so reality is only revised enough to make the photographers 'reality' consistent with the group belief...The UFO cannot be completely removed from the photograph because that would remove the reason for the photograph being taken (and also require that any occupants it may have contained were somewhere else at the time!) and require too many other revisions to the 'reality' of people involved later, the lab assistant who developed the photos and so on.. (if the lab assistant is a UFO believer the photos may be less blurred though.)

In summary the chain of causality is modified consistently only by the smallest amount required to keep the 'reality' consistent with the balance between the individuals and the groups beliefs... It may be that the position of a conscious observer cannot be changed (including the UFO occupants) at least in this case) for does nature not always take the path of least resistance... the path that requires the minimum altering of the combined topology of time and causality... (on a roll here! forgive me..)

The statement about not being able to change the position of a conscious observer, however may not apply to something like the Loch Ness Monster, since it probably isn't a conscious observer but may be a thought-form a 'Tulpa' (see my document for a detailed explanation of how one is created.)

But as explained in my paper no-one would be aware of that, not even the original photographer, because it is not possible to cause a temporal paradox using the mechanism I envisage... everyones 'reality' and memory of their reality is changed consistently, instantaneously and simultaneously...

Its begs the question 'Is seeing really believing?' or as I suspect that and also 'believing/disbelieving  is seeing'... eek!

The easiness of altering a particular aspect of 'reality' has to be analysed in terms of its context, considering at least; the individuals belief and their state of mind compared against those commonly held by others...

Acerzw, making Charles Fort spin in his grave... spin Forteans!
(I can explain rains of fish too! really, you don't want to know! even the open-minded really wouldn't believe!)

[FreeEnergy]

I see similarities http://www.jimblog.net/wp-content/uploads/sacredtexts/eso/som