A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, it is an educated guess about reality. Scientists test their hypotheses by running experiments.

If your thoughts create your reality, then what happens when a scientist formulates a hypothesis? Is the outcome of an experiment predetermined by the scientists thoughts, and if so, then why bother running any experiments at all?

What is happening in the case where the outcome of the experiment does not support the scientist's hypothesis? Did the scientist just not believe strongly enough in the hypothesis?

asked 14 Nov '09, 19:11

Vesuvius's gravatar image


edited 15 Nov '09, 00:01


Indeed, why bother running any experiments?

Reality can be molded into whatever you choose. So observing something that has already been manifested by others and cataloging it and then proposing it as the the truth only works as long as other independent thinkers don't come along in the future and manifest a different reality to observe.

Quantum physics has been proposing for some time now that the observer of the experiment influences the outcome.

And I would say that this doesn't just operate on the quantum level but on the macroscopic worldly level too because of the operation of the Law of Attraction.

If a scientist conducted an experiment isolated from the rest of the world, by themselves, and mentally cast aside all external influences (which is impossible anyway), then they would only find the evidence that backed up their pure, personal beliefs about the result they expected.

But, as I understand it, most scientists do not operate in a knowledge vacuum. So their beliefs are a mish-mash of other people's existing ideas and theories about the subject, whether they are going to get extra funding, what their boss thinks about their results, what they grew up believing, what their colleagues are thinking and a multitude of other factors.

Their results are going to reflect that mish-mash of vibrational inputs and expectations.

It always amuses me when people come up with proof that the Law of Attraction does not work because of this and that - and then they point to their evidence that backs up their beliefs...which only proves to me that the Law of Attraction is operating as consistently as it ever has. :)

That's the problem with trying to prove anything you believe. The Law of Attraction will always enable you to find evidence to prove it even if that evidence supposedly disproves the existence of the Law of Attraction.

As Yoda would say...tricky, this proof business is.


answered 15 Nov '09, 08:22

Stingray's gravatar image


So is science really just the art of getting enough people to believe in your ideas that they become true by default? That CD player plays music for me because I believe it does?

(15 Nov '09, 18:43) Vesuvius

Maybe. Why did it take so long to "prove" the link between cigarette-smoking and cancer, or mobile phone usage and cancer...or whatever other "definitive" scientific proofs we currently have?

(16 Nov '09, 08:46) Stingray

The link between cigarette smoking and cancer was not proven for a long time for two reasons. First, it takes a long time to develop cancer from cigarettes, and second, there were powerful lobbyist forces that wanted people to believe that cigarettes didn't really cause cancer. Today we know that cigarettes cause cancer because there is a prepoderance of evidence. But people were dying from them long before there was "proof."

(16 Nov '09, 18:41) Vesuvius

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but I am led to believe that people were dying before cigarettes existed too. :) Your statement: "Today we know that cigarettes cause cancer because there is a prepoderance of evidence" seems a bit odd to use as your argument considering what I wrote in my answer about evidence counting for nothing except the existence of a belief. :)

(17 Nov '09, 00:31) Stingray

Very strong Stingray, re smoking :-) If I could contribute my argument. One can get too inspired to believe in whatever they want enough to even move mountains - with a hundred years of practice. But I thought we chose to come into this platform as you put it (I think) that has physical laws, since this is a physical reality. With physical laws present and operating in a way in which we can study, why finding a link between a certain substance and its harm to a physical body can't be more...

(25 Nov '14, 14:39) einsof

...than a belief? It is a physical platform with laws like gravity; no belief will change that any time soon; not in any conscious way in which we can access it. After all, we wouldn't want to, we chose it (pre-birth, right?) Gravity is observed. Electricity is observed. Running can be bad for your knees because it stresses your joints. There are links between running and bad knees. I am giving you simplistic examples to illustrate my point. Is my belief that cigarettes are good for me going...

(25 Nov '14, 14:40) einsof

...to overpower/reverse the condensation of the idea that it is harmful? I.e. belief or not, it's not that you can take up smoking and can get out of it without harm to your body. If not cancer, there is plenty of other damage done to your body - measurably so. Likewise, you cannot do other drugs - which are faster acting - and there's no need for scientists to tell us about the health hazards of various drugs, and not sense immediate detriment to your physical body. Although I do think a...

(25 Nov '14, 14:40) einsof

...positive-feeling person will be able to repair damage quicker than it can kill you. Exercise, diet, fasting, sleeping, laughing, you know. I think it's mind, body and soul; and you can be inspired to smoke or not to smoke, and take the right decisions for your body, and look after. If you flip the argument about cigarettes and talk about vitamins (Vitamin C and MSM Detox for example, that Bashar, and yourself, recommend) - what if I don't believe in it? What if I believe the opposite?...

(25 Nov '14, 14:41) einsof

...So why not do nothing and believe it's healthy :) There's something to that probably. If you can ignore the whole of science and smoke and believe it will not harm you, I question that or anyone's ability to re-work their beliefs like that. Ignorant people who smoke get ill - they may not have any opinions or beliefs about smoking, but I am sure ignorance doesn't mean good health. I think contrast - and our preferences - applies to the body also. Some things that we can choose are on the...

(25 Nov '14, 14:41) einsof

...damaging side of the spectrum, some are healthy. Part of the game. Also, a part of me thinks you don't fully believe in the cigarette comment, but are expressing this side of the argument that you have aligned with during your comments. It's not hard to think from the other side. No?

(25 Nov '14, 14:41) einsof

interesting points, @einsof. I sometimes ask myself this too. Would love to hear an answer from you @Stingray

(01 Aug '15, 08:45) spacemetalfantasy

@spacemetalfantasy - "Would love to hear an answer from you" - It would help if you could be more specific about what you want answering :)

(08 Aug '15, 07:25) Stingray

@einsof - I've not answered your comments because it's not clear to me if you're making some personal statements or if you're actually asking me a question :) As for this comment... "a part of me thinks you don't fully believe in the cigarette comment"...I would suggest that you tell that part of you to think again :) I don't play games here on IQ. I just present my sincere point of view at the time of writing it.

(08 Aug '15, 07:31) Stingray

@Stingray - I wonder things sort of adjacent to this. My deep belief in "evidence" is currently morphing into something else, which is complex for me (I love science). But in place of it I am seeing that Abraham's "you can be/do/have anything" is not metaphorical: they mean ANYTHING. Like @einsof I wonder if there are limits to "anything" that we agree to before coming in on this planet. Or if that's just the kind of question you ask when you can't see the whole yet!

(17 Aug '15, 01:08) corduroypower

For instance, I remember Abraham answering a question about unicorns and saying that they think it's unlikely that someone could manifest a real unicorn, but that maybe there are beings in other dimensions you sometimes catch a glimpse of here and interpret as, say, a unicorn. And I've noticed that they're fairly uninterested in talking to us about life on other planets. Like it just doesn't matter to them. (Which makes me wonder if we are wrong in our concept of physical reality to start...)

(17 Aug '15, 01:10) corduroypower

And yet surely there are people who sincerely wish to see or have a unicorn, or to visit alien planets? It sometimes seems to me that in our narrow human perspective, we are interested in things Abraham finds kind of humorous, though. So this could be, like I said, the kind of thing you wonder about when you're still pretty far from getting that part of it.

(17 Aug '15, 01:16) corduroypower

@corduroypower - "I wonder if there are limits to "anything" that we agree to before coming in on this planet" - There are no mechanical limits. If you can think a thought, you can keep focusing on it and make that thought dominant (habitual) and it must manifest in your physical reality. The only limits then are self-imposed. There are many occasions where we don't (from a higher level) want to experience lack of limits because there is value in limitation:http://goo.gl/b9dTjI

(17 Aug '15, 08:21) Stingray
showing 2 of 17 show 15 more comments

The nature of a hypothesis is that is still in a state of flux, unproven until experimentation produces enough empirical evidence (measurements) to confirm it. So by its very nature, the hypothesis is a "tentative answer." If I scientist truly withholds judgment until the results are manifest, then the hypothesis is not creating reality.

Whether or not the observation of the experiment's results influences the outcome (as has been proposed by some theorists in quantum physics) remains to be seen. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that the set of all possible states that an object can have "undergoes collapse into a definite state only at the exact moment of quantum measurement." The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment was a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation, through which Schrödinger was pointing out what he understood to be a problem with that interpretation.

Perhaps there is a difference between what an observer of an experiment sees and what is actually measured. An observer may see the cat lying still inside the box that was just opened and say, "The cat is dead!" But then measurements are taken and another says, "No, its heart is beating. It's alive!"

I will agree with Stingray's statement that "beliefs are a mish-mash of other people's existing ideas and theories about the subject," but I suggest that reality itself is a mish-mash of many existing versions vying for dominance.


answered 15 Nov '09, 09:20

John's gravatar image


edited 16 Nov '09, 08:27

The problem with the Schrödinger cat analogy is that it really only applies to nuclear physics. It can be tempting to apply the same analogy to the larger physical world (where things "seem" far more solid), but the truth is that there are many stable, observable properties of the larger physical world (such as gravity and friction) that don't depend on the elusive nature of the Schrödinger cat (ie. someone "thinking them into existence") in order to be real.

(15 Nov '09, 19:58) Vesuvius

They don't "just make it up".

Scientists see some, come to a belief about it, research it and observe it even more, and the idea gets bigger and bigger with more focus.

"Energy flows where attention goes."

As the idea grows bigger and bigger with more momentum/focus, they believe it more and more, and more and more "evidence" is manifested to prove themselves correct.

Awareness/Thought is first, everything else (objects/religions/laws/science) is second.


answered 17 Aug '15, 00:53

arpgme's gravatar image


Click here to create a free account

If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website

Related Questions