Imagine Magical, Mind Map, Flowchart, Morphed to Sigil Workings Using Some Crazy, Free, Open Source Software . . .
Can you see it?
Funny how things show up exactly when I really need them.
wonderful, just as it should be…
Thank you to @SiniS for sending it to me, and thank you to Dan for saying it. 😀
Physics and the Basic Principle of Visualization Magick
For starters, I would like to say a few things about myself to set the record straight. I have a Masters degree in Quantum Field Theory, am working on my PhD in the same, and am a practicing, if tyro, shaman. I have read in several places that the best way to start in magick is to read read read read, and I have noticed several articles using Physics to explain magickal arguments. Unfortunately, many of these articles either do not explain the Physics very well or are just plain wrong. I am not disrespecting these people: after all, not everyone can be a Physicist! I thought I would write a brief article to clear up a few issues on the nature of probability in Physics as well as how probability might play a role in magick.The following article is essentially a short paper on the Metaphysics behind what I call “visualization magick.” I am not going to footnote: all of the Physics arguments are well known and documented and can be found in any introductory text on Quantum Mechanics. As for my magickal arguments, well, they are as correct as I can make them. Naturally, I accept responsibility for any errors contained in this article.
The Nature of Investigation:
Most of the science done today is based on a problem solving technique called the “Scientific Method.” The Scientific Method is a well-established way to start from the basic principles behind a problem and develop an experimentally based explanation of a given phenomenon. It has been used successfully for centuries. There is one problem with this method, though: it can be very difficult to incorporate any newly discovered facts that do not fit the structure of the current scientific theory. This point has been raised repeatedly when scientists try to discover the nature of ghosts, ESP, etc. I think it is natural to take the viewpoint that any axiomatic structure, such as the sciences, can only explain certain types of phenomena. Other systems, such as magick, can explain other phenomena. It is interesting that these different axiomatic structures can overlap: they can explain the same types of phenomena, but they explain them in different ways. One might call different axiomatic systems as “paradigms,” or “representations.” Whatever you call them, it is important not to mix the different systems, because the any term defined in one representation are not likely to have the same meaning in another. For example, anyone trying to explain a magickal phenomenon in terms of Physics needs to be careful of how the word “energy” is used. Energy in magick will not necessarily mean the same thing as it does in Physics. (Incidentally, energy is not a well-defined concept in Physics!) In the remainder of this article I am going to discuss the Physics representation known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics (CI) and, within that representation, provide an explain of visualization magick.
Schrodinger’s Cat and Quantum Reality:
When most people think of Physics, they think of equations, math, and all sorts of difficult problems. In actuality, Physics is based on very simple arguments and can often be put in the form of puzzles that illustrate the basic principles. For instance, Classical Physics can usually be put into the form of some little guy (or person, for you extreme liberalists) firing a cannon over a ravine. Classical Physics describes what we see and touch in everyday life. We are familiar with it and it is the representation that makes the most sense to us. Another representation, which is more basic, is that of Quantum Reality. Classical Reality is fully contained within Quantum Reality, but Quantum Reality contains more phenomena, much of it things we do not see in day-to-day life. Not really accepting Quantum Reality for what it is, Erwin Schrodinger devised a thought experiment to show the odd nature of what Quantum Physics implies. He was essentially trying to ridicule the interpretation of the science he was helping to develop. The thought experiment is known as “Schrodinger’s Cat.” We start with building a switch device based on quantum principles. We are going to take an atom of a radioactive material and place it inside a detector. The detector sends a signal to a switch if the atom decays. Now, all atoms decay eventually, and the amount of time it takes for half the amount of a radioactive material to decay is called the “half-life” of the material. So the chance our one atom will decay in one half-life is 50%. Thus, after one half-life, our switch has an equal chance of being “on” or “off.” We now connect a vial of the deadliest poison to the switch; if the switch is “off” then the poison vial is closed, if the switch is “on” then the poison vial is open and any creature in contact with the poison will die instantly. Now place the quantum switch and vial of poison along side a cat in a sealed box. The question is after one half-life has elapsed, is the cat alive or is it dead? Since there is a 50% chance that the atom has decayed in one half-life, our “logical” answer must be that the cat has a 50% chance of being alive or dead. No other answer in our (Classical Reality) experience makes any sense. We cannot say with certainty if the cat is either alive or dead. However, we are asking a question that requires a specific answer. Is the cat alive, or is it dead? Quantum Reality gives us a third, and actually the only valid, answer to this problem. The cat is in a mixed quantum state of both alive and dead as far as anyone outside the sealed box is concerned. That is, the cat is only in a specific state of alive or dead when someone called a “quantum observer” looks inside the box to determine the state of the cat. This leads us to all sorts of metaphysical problems about the cat as well as the problem of what defines a quantum observer.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Reality:
The Quantum Reality representation of the result of the Schrodinger’s cat experiment does not make any sense as far as Classical Reality is concerned. Nevertheless, it has good basis in Physics. Many of the top Physicists of the time (around the 1930’s I believe) met in Copenhagen to discuss Quantum Mechanics. Several topics were on the board there and eventually a consensus was made as to the nature of a quantum system: if a system is not measured it exists in a superposition of all possible quantum states. When the system is measured, it falls into one specific state. (For you Physics buffs, this is the concept behind the Born interpretation of the wave function.) This representation has become known as the “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.” (CI) According to the CI, Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box to look. There is one other way to look at Quantum reality, but you pay a severe price. The representation, called the “Many Worlds Theory,” states that every time a quantum level decision is made, the Universe splits into two or more copies, one for each outcome of the decisions. The Many Worlds interpretation of Schrodinger’s cat states that the Universe splits into two copies: one with a dead cat and the other with a live cat. When we open the box we find out which Universe we are in. Personally, I find this representation to be a bit ridiculous, but you may feel free to choose which one you like the most. Both the Many Worlds and the CI make exactly the same predictions and we cannot tell which one is correct (if either!).
The Double Slit Experiment:
The Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment does not really tell us anything about the real world unless we can prove it. Obviously, we are not going to learn anything from killing cats (and why would we want to anyway?) so we need to turn to another experiment to give us some facts. The Young’s double slit experiment does just that and is almost as simple as Schrodinger’s Cat. First though we need to talk about light. When Sir Isaac Newton was doing his experimentation on light he decided, based on his experiments on reflection, refraction, and the sharpness of shadows, that light was made of little particles, which he dubbed “corpuscles.” (We now call corpuscles photons.) Later on, interference experiments (such as the Young double slit) showed that light was made of waves, not particles. Was the great Sir Isaac wrong?? Not entirely. In the early 1900s, a man named DeBroglie showed that electrons, which are “obviously” particles, could be thought to have a wavelike character. Eventually scientists realized that all subatomic particles have both wave and particle properties…subatomic “particles” are neither particles nor waves, but are something else which we have come to call by the badly punned name of “wavicles.” (If you are a John Gribbon fan, as I am, then you may like to call subatomic particles “slivey toves.”) When we run an experiment that assumes light is a particle, light behaves as if it were made of particles; when we run an experiment that assumes light is a wave, light behaves as if it were a wave. Young’s double slit experiment assumes light is going to behave as a wave. We start with a monochromatic (single coloured) light source and pass it through a slit so that we obtain a set of equally spaced wave fronts. We pass these wave fronts through a wall that has two tiny holes in it, equally spaced from the centre point. Beyond the wall is our “detector:” essentially a TV that records the wave pattern striking the screen. A diagram of the double slit experiment may be found in any introductory Physics text, just look under the term “interference” in the index. When we turn the light source on, we see a pattern of light and dark areas on the TV screen. This is the expected result since light is a wave and the two slits create an interference pattern: the peaks and troughs of the wave cancel out in different regions on the TV screen. This is entirely due to the fact of those two little holes in the wall…if there was only one tiny hole in the wall then we would only see one point of light on the TV screen and no interference. The one hole experiment is more like treating light as a particle rather than a wave, and we get no interference from it since particles do not interfere with themselves. Now let us play with the experiment a bit. We are going to presume that light is made of particles and install detectors in both holes in the wall to see which hole the photon goes through. What kind of pattern do we get on the TV screen now? According to Classical Reality it had better be an interference pattern again. Nope. We get two little points of light on the TV screen. Why? Because we are thinking of light as particles we detected the particles, so they cannot interfere with each other. Let’s play with this again. We are going to take the original double slit experiment and this time put the photon detector right in front of the light source and then we are going to run the double slit experiment only letting one photon through at a time. Obviously, we only get a point of light on the TV screen each time a photon passes through. However, let us record where each photon hits and run a bunch of single photons through the experiment. What do we get on the TV screen? We might expect to see two little points of light on the screen, but we do not. We now get a full-fledged interference pattern! Remember, this is a composite pattern made up of individual photons going through the experiment, not a bunch of waves. This is truly weird. There are only two ways to explain this last result, neither of them comfortable. Consider a photon passing through hole #1 as a photon in state 1 and a photon going through hole #2 as a photon in state 2. The only way we can get an interference pattern is if we have something going through BOTH holes at the same time. This implies that the photon is travelling through the double slit apparatus in both states at the same time. Remember we are not trying to detect which state the photon is in as it goes through the holes, so the CI predicts that the photon is in both states, just as the results say it must be. (We can make a similar argument for the Many Worlds case as well). This is hard experimental evidence for the CI and has not been contradicted in the last 70 years or so. Just the opposite…other experiments have lent validity to the CI. (By the way, this same experiment has been done with electrons and, I believe, neutrons as well.)
The Extreme Copenhagen Interpretation and Your Quantum Universe:
What follows is my personal interpretation of the Physics mentioned above. Let us go back to Schrodinger’s Cat since it is the simpler experiment. We need to discuss what makes a quantum observer again, because it is a tricky point. A quantum observer is some nebulous thing that takes a measurement of a system. What is it that creates the measurement process? Presumably, we have two systems to consider: the first is the actual experiment that we want to measure, and the second is the system that does the measuring. Therefore, if we take the measurement process to its most basic level, a measurement is the process by which the experimental system “gives” information to the observer’s system. This information exchange is mediated by photons (or W, Z, gluons, etc. Basically any boson you wish. That’s another topic.) To make a long story short, the observer gets information from the experiment by absorbing a photon. This means that an electron can serve as a quantum observer since a absorbing a photon will alter the electron’s state. A quantum observer does not actually need to have an intelligence to function; it merely needs to respond to the experiment in some way. So. Let us go back to Schrodinger’s Cat. According to the scientist running the experiment the cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened. Say that he opens the box and knows the state of the cat. Now look at the people in the next room who are waiting to hear from the scientist in the room with the cat. According to them, the cat is STILL in that odd alive and dead mixed state. We can go further and state that the whole lab we ran the experiment in is in an undetermined state since the scientist in the lab might take different actions depending on the state of the cat. No one outside the lab can possibly know what is going on in the lab. Now look at the people in the next room beyond that, etc. What we have is a nested set of “Schrodinger’s Cats.” Until the information is passed between different rooms, the set of rooms inside exists in a mixed state. We can take this argument to an (I feel logical) extreme. Since the individual particles in our bodies act as quantum observers the only pertinent information we have about the state of the Universe at large is what we perceive through our senses. Therefore, anything that we do not perceive through our senses exists in a mixed state similar to Schrodinger’s alive/dead cat: nothing exists in a definite state unless we are sensing it. This is what I call the “Extreme Copenhagen Interpretation.” (ECI) What this implies, then, is that each of us exists in our own personal universes and everything exterior to that universe exists in an undetermined state until we sense it. Note: I am going to ignore the question of other people existing…I will assume other people exist and our knowledge of their reality comes from the “interference” of these multiple universes. To give a quick example consider the question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to see it fall, does it make any noise?” The ECI states that since no one was around, the tree is in a mixed state of existance/non-existance. Furthermore it has fallen/not fallen, much less made any noise/silence. Since the tree does not directly influence your universe, you cannot say anything definite about it even existing, even though you may have seen the tree an hour ago.
The Basic Principle of Visualization Magick:
The ECI tells us that what we sense is what is contained in our universe. In order to do magick we need (at least) one more principle. When we do visualization magick, we actually feel what it is that we visualize. The ECI says that what we feel makes up our reality. Combining these two statements, we have what I call the “Basic Principle of Visualization Magick.” What we visualize becomes real in our universe. This principle can be demonstrated by a simple spell, which I call an “empowering” spell. First, enter a light meditative state. (This first step may also be achieved by casting a circle.) Next visualize a blanket of white fire surrounding you, starting at your feet and working its way up to encompass your whole body. Hold this visualization until you can actually feel the fire surrounding you, cleansing your spirit and not letting any darkness penetrate your being. Now visualize your hands held outward from your body and let a globe of white fire come into being between your hands. Hold the globe there until you can feel it. This globe of fire represents your inner strength and the longer you hold it the more in touch with your strength you will be. The result of this spell is that you will feel empowered and more able to cope with the challenges of your life. Is this magick, physics, or psychology? Remember, how we view our universe depends on the representation we use. In this case, the empowering spell may be viewed in any one of these representations. Using the ECI to describe the spell what we are doing is literally bringing up our inner strength as a concrete object and physically contacting it. We know it is there because we can feel it, therefore according to the ECI it has an actual existence. A similar argument holds for essentially any magick that has its basis in visualization or feelings. The ECI explains how magick can affect our own universe, what about someone else’s? After all many witches (warlocks, sorcerers, etc.) will claim that their magick affects other people, not just their own universe. We can use visualization magick to show how this might work, so there is not necessarily any conflict here. You (presumably) put some clothes on today so anyone that sees you will see those clothes and all of them will be able to describe the same set of clothing. You know you are wearing a certain set of clothes, and your best friend came up to you and mentioned something about the outfit, so you know she saw them. Both of you agree on the set of clothes because both of your universes came into contact, i.e. the two universes interfere because they both contain quantum observers. Now, can your best friend say anything about what you are wearing three hours after you parted? No, because you might have changed clothes. (Or Heck, you might be skinny-dipping in the local watering hole!) Once the universes are out of contact they no longer interfere. To continue the analogy, if you feel something in your universe then it is real in your universe and thus, because your universe interferes with other universes the effect may well be real in someone else’s universe. Say you know a spell to create a rainstorm. It will happen in your universe. Whether or not it happens in someone else’s universe depends on the strength of the interference between your universe and theirs. I would suppose that the strength of the interference depends on the strength of your belief (and that of others) that you can make it rain. Taking things at face value, I would say that it would take a tremendously powerful mage to create an effect in someone else’s universe seeing how difficult it is to create a magickal effect in our own universe. Note: I am aware the rain spell probably has nothing to do with visualization magick. I am also aware that other magickal principles could come into play here. Remember that I am using a representation, the ECI, to explain an effect. The ECI is probably not a good representation to discuss a rainmaking spell!
The way we explain an effect depends on the representation we use. The rules for which a representation is a good representation to explain an effect are not known, though we may certainly use common sense to guide us. The CI is a well-established representation that is used in modern day Physics. A logical extension to the CI is the ECI, which states that we all live in our own individual universe and that the Universe is composed of the interference of these personal universes. The ECI provides a way for Physics to explain the phenomenon of visualization magick by stating that what we feel is what is real in our universe.
An excerpt from
First of all: Contrary to cult leader types or their naive New Age followers I am not deadly serious about this. I am aware that I am only speculating here, and I tell you so that you are.
I wondered when does the Age of Aquarius actually start? Because I don’t see too many signs of it already being there although I consider the Internet an important novelty in world history. But when I look at politics, society and ideology the mainstream has not changed much lately.
So I looked up how we can date the beginning of the astrological Age of Aquarius. The date that seemed most convincing is something entirely else than I expected: 2442 C.E. According to the model that leads to this date the Age of Pisces started around 300 C.E. Historically that was roughly when Christianity began to be accepted and established in the Roman Empire. Before that it was a punkish persecuted underground movement like some of today 😉
That would lead us to conclude that the initial starting point of the new major religion of the Age of Aquarius should also happen about 300 years before that Age starts astrologically which could be expected in about a hundred years roughly. An event like acceptance of a new world religion by what can be considered the major empire of a large part of the known world should then be expected during the 25th century.
Do we have any idea what this new religion or event that starts one would be? As the starting of Christianity and some of its later development corresponds to the motive of the Tarot Arcanum The Hanged Man which corresponds to Pisces, the starting of the new age should resemble the motive of the Arcanum The Star which corresponds to Aquarius. We can only guess what the star and the water in this image might refer to historically. I am not sure if the water on the card could refer to either something technological or something ethical or both. These are the two basic meanings I can think of if I interpret it as a symbol for a future historical event.
Then we know that the beginning of Christianity was influenced by all kinds of previous smaller sects and other religions. So it might well be that whatever starts the Aquarian Age will draw from an influence of alternative religious movements of today. However it is to be expected that it will be something entirely new only with a significant influence of previous movements.
Then historically we get the information that the dawn of Christianity was preceded by predictions referring to it. Nowadays we also have got sources of predictions of different kinds. Prophecies and symbolism of alternative religions of today very often centre about motives like stars and anything extraterrestrial. It is impossible to say how literal this should be interpreted. It is an option to see it as a symbol altogether corresponding to not yet cultivated (at least by the mainstream) capacities of the brain like Wilson and Leary seem to suggest.
The paradigm I implicitly base my above speculation on is Astrology. Recently I tend to rely on Astrology somewhat (had long times free of it, believe me). If you’d like to look at this paradigm for some orientation of where humankind stands, these were my conclusions. An important thing about it is: We’re still deep inside the Age of Pisces and must deal with the character of this age. And if history develops analogous to the past we’d have to expect some more turmoils in the process of the shift of Astrological Ages.
|Magic — to which altered states of consciousness are the key — has real effects because reality is not separate from consciousness, nature is not separate from mind. Which leads me to two assumptions…
(1) The degree to which we can satisfactorily describe a system as separated from an observer (Kordeš; cf. Von Foerster’s trivialization) corresponds precisely to the degree to which magic cannot influence reality. This gives rise to such notions as magic cannot violate the laws of physics.
(2) The corollary that the more an observer is required to satisfactorily describe a system, the more amenable is that system to magical influence. This gives rise to such notions as magic has something to do with quantum mechanics such as wave-particle duality.
This is the basis of my synthesis of magic and cybernetics: that magic describes the (means to) altered states of consciousness required for desired effects, and cybernetics describes the non-trivial relationship between the observer and the observed whereby altering my state of consciousness alters the world I am conscious of. -Joshua Madara
Y0u, Budi Mulyo, Taylor Ellwood & 2 m0ar p33pz <3 7h15
|Which leads to a third assumption, from my end: we are already cybernetic and our capacity to alter that cybernetic form is currently increasing. -Kyle Milliken|
|Gee whilikers, Josh. That is rigorously and clearly stated. Elegantly, even. I think I’ll be quoting it. -Jeff Howard|
|Magic *could* violate the laws of physics, but it remains to me seen whether it actually happens outside of my mind. -Neko Special|
|@Jeff Thank you. I have been looking for years for a concise expression of my synthesis of cybernetics and magic; this is the best I have come up with. Next is to formalize it symbolically. 😉
@Neko I would respond to that by saying that the laws of physics are not outside of your mind although they may appear that way to others who are not inside your mind. -Joshua Madara
|Perhaps a better way to have put it would be, “magic *could* violate the laws of physics, but it remains to be seen whether other minds can see it when my mind does.”
If all observers witness the same thing, does it matter if it’s a hallucination or not? If everybody agrees to it, it becomes “reality”. -Neko Special
|@Neko I suppose that depends on whether you are considering the laws of physics trivially or non-trivially. There is a sense in which they are non-consensual (from _consent_); a gale blows you down whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not. But there is also a sense in which they are only consensual, they emerge as laws through our consensual (from _con-sense_, to sense together with) interactions with others. Non-consensual physics are mechanical; consensual physics are social. As Carroll said, science describes how apples fall from trees, and magic is a way of asking trees to drop apples when we need them to. Both descriptions require observation, but we can imagine that apples fall regardless of who watches them, yet the second scenario has a special relationship to an observer through her desire for something to happen in a place at a time. -Joshua Madara|
|If everyone agreed that magic violated the laws of physics, then in a sense, that would be the case. But do their observations corroborate their claims? Did the sun move about the earth until we changed our minds about it? In a sense no, and in another sense, yes. -Joshua Madara|
|I’m reminded of that story about the Native American tribe who couldn’t see the ship floating out at sea, until the shaman of the tribe noticed it. At that point, everybody in the tribe could see it. -Neko Special|
|I have heard many versions of that story; I am not sure how true any of them are. Cf. Steven Pinker’s rejection of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. What I do know is that my everyday experience tells me that reality does not simply conform to my expectations of it, and also that I do not notice things until I notice them. -Joshua Madara|
|I was also reminded of a Warren Ellis comic, in which the world of the characters saved themselves from Armegeddon by consensus. The majority of people took it upon themselves to believe they’ll be okay, and crisis was adverted. Their morphogenetic fields combined to create a new branch in reality. -Neko Special|
|There seems to be a lot of truth to this, but how would you explain it interfering with chance in ways that aren’t obviously connected to any system? – John S. Madziarczyk|
|@John I wouldn’t. Not exactly. Magic is magic *because* two things are not obviously connected — they have “opaque causal mediation” (Sørensen). To describe magic as manipulating probability is to trivialize it, which has its uses but starts us down the path of searching for a linear, causal mechanism which we will not find — at least, not apropos of magic. -Joshua Madara|
I’ve been thinking – There is this notion among the unenlightened and enlightened alike, that science and religion kinda bite each other. Hard. So I’ve been trying to figure out, if there is a way of connecting, joining those two together. First – my motivations:
Ok, having those two things explained – let’s proceed with the actual article.
This is my approach to integration of science and spirituality – three main scientific priciples that prove or will soon prove, that magic, magick and whatever you call it, is not only not unnatural in the physical sense, not subjective, but is directly and deeply interwoven with the very fabric of reality.
Before proceeding kindly note, that I haven’t read the whole archives on the forums or anywhere else on kiamagic.com, so if this subject has been discussed earlier, let me know. Also, feel free to state your thoughts on this subject. This is just an introduction. As I learn more in the area, I intend to explain it further, but for now it’s still far from comprehensive.
The Holy Trinity of spiritual physics is as follows:
I will not go into details on those theories, mostly because I am far from understanding them in the deeper sense. However, I will briefly explain the reasons these ideas have been chosen over a multitude of others.
String theory in a nutshell has two aspects that I would be the most interested in. Firstly, the main assumption of it is that basic molecules that construct our very reality are not solid quarks or anything. String theory ‘believes’ all those ‘solid’ molecules are actually strings of energy, vibrating at specific frequencies, which grant them specific attributes. There, I’ve said it – there is nothing ‘solid’ in the universe. There’s energy vibrating, everything is the same thing, except has a bit different attributes.
There is also one more aspect of string theory. In order for it to be remotely valid, it must assume there are more than three dimensions. Some of the aspects of this theory only work when we assume reality consists of 10 or even more dimensions! Theoretical physicists have already stated, that the assumption means there might be other forms of communication/energy transfer, in fact whole new worlds in those alternative dimensions.
Conclusion – magic/spirituality is active in other dimensions. This is one of many reasons why we cannot explain why spiritual stuff works – we just can’t (yet) perceive the dimensions in which it happens.
Let’s proceed with Quantum Mechanics. Some of you might be aware of the diffraction of light and how it works. For those who are not, wikipedia has a quite decent explanation.
What I would like to focus on in this part is the fact, that quantum mechanics defies non-quantum mechanics. Essentially, what happens in the diffraction of light is that one photon interferes with itself as if it was in two places at the same time. Two places! Can you believe that? But how is that possible?
No, seriously, this is a fundamental quality of the world of quantum mechanics. Stuff goes all weird when things move at the speeds near the speed of light. You would get freaked out.
Anyway, in quantum mechanics, you get a situation, in which perceiving the state of things (like the location of a photon or something similar) has a huge impact on this state of things. To give you an easy to catch example. It is as if you were sitting in a room, with a chess game going on behind your back. You know it is happening but you have no idea what the current position of a black king on the board is. There’s a trick to it. In quantum mechanics, the king might be in two places on the board at the same time. But when you turn around to look at the board, the king assumes one position that would ‘work’ according to your understanding of the rules of the game. When you turn back to your newspaper, things go all weird again – until you take another peek, and so on.
Conclusion – the perception gives birth to a specific situation. In philosophical sense, it has something to do with solipsism, but it’s based on solid physical assumption (wink). The universe is a reality of possibility – in which nothing is set in stone. Only by perceiving and trying to figure it all out, we shape this reality – we create it, we give it specific form.
I know, I know – what kind of conclusion is that when we are not all moving with the speed of light, right? But add this to the string theory please, and you start getting what I mean.
Finally, we arrive with Chaos Theory – this one you might know quite well since you are reading here on this site and not some other (I’m also going to publish this text on my own website).
What I want to focus here is the Butterfly Effect, or the sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
What it means is that regardless of how irrelevant an event might seem, it might have big impact on the whole system. A fart in Berlin, Germany, might cause a flood on Madagascar. Somehow. Not everything can be planned, not always the same experiment will give the same results. The system of universe is sensitive.
Conclusion – there is no reason why a prayer, ritual or spell would not have a desired effect.
There we go. The scientific basis for every spiritual system I can think of right now (when I’m excited and kind of in da zone).
Consider it a framework for your own ideas. Use it, abuse it, have fun with those ideas. Explore – find more theories that can make things work this way – I just wanted to clear the foreground.
I feel no need to comment on all the hype surrounding the USA working towards selecting its next president, so I won’t. But I will admit following some of it in the internet news. And one of the things that has struck me is the sheer number of people in some states that returned Clinton a majority on grounds of race. I knew there were racists in the US. We have them here too. I don’t like it, but there we are. They aren’t going away anytime soon.