Do "probabilities exist?" and if so how?

Here is my idea:

Probable events "exist" in the mind worlds as they are approached by causation and conscious beings but they do not manifest if they are not "chosen" (followed through on) and observed or experienced.

They appear as possibilities and then disappear.

Example: Imagine what events could transpire if I were to go skydiving. I could have a great time, I could fall to my death, I could injure myself, I could meet someone who would changed the course of my life etc. etc....

These probabilities appear when intention becomes evident. As long as I intend to go skydiving the probabilities exist. The moment I decide not to go, the probabilities disappear. They can always reappear at such time I change my mind.

Future events appear and disappear in the same manner as intentions unfold. This is how we create our reality and our futures.

The key to creating your future is INTENTION. Without it, probabilities will not become manifest.

Example: You are approaching an intersection where if you turn left, an accident will happen. The probabilities appear. You may be killed, you may be injured, you may escape unharmed, you may kill someone. All of these different probabilities may depend upon split second decisions that you make during the accident.

But at the last minute you remember you need to go someplace else and you decide not to turn left but to go strait. The probabilities disappear as you change your intention to turn left.

jb

Please?





I have enjoyed reading the discussion - thanks to all who have participated ...

it is more enjoyable than my high school physics class ever was ...

OMG! Artgurl did it!

She wins the Nobel Prize!

Artgurl arrives on a magic carpet pulled by two mermen ...

I had no idea there would be a 'door prize' at this shindig ...

(“a giant quantum leap”??? Wish there were an applause emoticon ‘cause that one definitely deserves it! Where does the quantum humor wave collapse for that one? Sarcasm, double entendre, pun or irony? )

<wiping eyes and catching breath>


You’ve done a masterful job of boiling it down to the only two available choices…

1) it’s a closed system where everything is ultimately the effect of everything else

or

2) there is some agent that can be causative over the system, but is not necessarily the effect of it

Step right up folks and place your bets!

Personally, my money’s on the observer.

(Another story by Robert Heinlein addressed this. The world’s leading physicist discovered how the randomity of quantum phenomena worked. The last sentence of his last conversation with anyone of this world was – “Magic is loose in the world!”)

I tend to think of "decision" as being what does it. I'd put it like this...

You're sitting on the couch watching TV. You think "I'm hungry.". What are the probablities that you will get someting to eat at any given instant? The probablities may change as you think about the pros and cons of doing so. And both remain probabilities until you actually make your decision one way or another. Once you make the decision, the wave collapses and you head into the kitchen.

It's actually two words....

I AM

That's an interesting thought. But then it begs the question, how did the universe work before conscious beings evolved?

I'm not sure how to deal with that one.

I can in a sense remember being conscious before I had a body.

I have vague memories of watching the uinverse evolve.

You might think, "Oh well, those are probably memories of having watched scientific documentaries, or reading books, or whatever."

But actually those memories were much more profound in my early childhood than they are today. Long before I ever even studied science.

I remember as a child having vivid 'memories' of being in a very primitive world. The memories were more like being a 'fly on the wall'. Except I didn't percieve myself to be a fly, or any other physical being at the time. Just a conscious observer.

Interesting memories.

I guess that's kind of like Jeanniebean's memories of being dragged away from her library studies to come and play in this world.

She didn't want to come but I talked her into it.

And a find mess you've gotten us into.

Decision and intention can be very closely related but they are not the same.

Yet you can decide you need something, and you can decide you want something and nothing will happen.

When you decide then you have to "intend" to get it, then is when things begin to happen.

You can decide to get a divorce or you can decide you need a divorce and you can decide that a divorce is the best solution and yet nothing will happen until you intend to get a divorce.

The intention is the call to action and failure is not an option. You don't consider it. Before you act you must intend the outcome.

So I will have to disagree that it is not "decision" but Intention that creates probabilities. A decision only creates the order. An intention is a call to action and towards an intended result.

p.s. Even deciding to act is not always "intention." It is only deciding to "try to get what you want."

But intention is a decision to receive it. Intention is the decision to have it or do it.... failure is not an option.

That is when probabilities are created.

jb



What decision did you make? You decided to get something to eat and you intended to get up and get it. That is a decision but it was followed by the intention, then the action.

decision--->intention--->action----->Outcome.



JB

decision--->intention--->action----->Outcome.

By the above formula one might be inclined to argue that "action" was the key to creating your reality but they are not considering the unseen forces that are immediately put to work for you at the point of intention on the quantum level to bring to you your intended outcome.


More times than I can count, I have received what I have asked for and intended BEFORE I ever took any action.

And many times I received what I have asked for not from the direct result of my actions but from a completely different direction while taking action of a different nature.

It is important to take action but that action does not always result in you getting what you intend. Many times it will come "out of the blue" or "out of the universe" from another direction.

That is because the entire body of the universe knows your intention and the law of attraction is at work to bring you what you ordered and your order was received the moment you intended to have it.

Again, I think we're talking about the same thing only in different words.

Per your diagram, decision was the “prime cause” of the event. Without the decision, there could have been no intention. That’s really all I was saying. Yes, intention is necessary, but intention is the result of decision.

Which leads me to the anatomy of “intention”. I see intention as being simply “continuing decision”. That is, the decision being continuously decided over time.

The original decision happens at a specific instant. Following that comes the “intention”, which spans a period of time. However, the original decision is still “in effect” throughout that entire span of time. And if that original decision should ever become “no longer in effect”, the intention disappears.

Example: You walk into another room in your house only to get there and realize you forgot why you were there? (“Why did I come in here?” = “What was my original decision?”) The original decision disappeared and so the intention disappeared. Once the original decision is “reinstated”, (“Oh yeah, I remember now!”) then the intention returns.

But as I said, we’re both really talking about the same thing. I’m just being nit-picky about the semantics, as is my wont.

Yep... nit picky

The example above is an example of a case of the "hereafter's."

You come into a room and you forget what you are here after.
I do that all the time.

I don't know how much you have read about my "Power of attraction" threads but "intention" (I have discovered) is one of the most important ingredients in the "secret" formula of creating your own reality. It is very closely related to "decision" but they are not exactly the same word.

(You just want to start a fight. )

I have been working on this formula for years.

You can use "decision" in your soup if you want, but I prefer "intention."

Both are certainly important ingredients, but if you make the decision to kill someone, that "might" be a one time split "decision" however if you "intend" to make them dead, you won't stop until they are dead.

This is not to say that intentions don't change, but that they are just more determined. LOL

Well I certainly wouldn’t argue that.

From my viewpoint, the “unseen force” is the decision. There’s nothing else it can be.

The decision is “cause”. Everything else is “effect”. I matters not whether the decision is “conscious” or “unconscious” or “forgotten” or “automatic” or “hidden” or “agreed with” or “denied” or anything else. Decision is always “cause” and cannot ever be “effect”.

This is so simple as to be almost incomprehensible and so universal as to be cliche. It is the fundamental principle behind “karma” and “the law of attraction” and “the power of positive thinking” and “what goes around comes around” and “you get what you pay for” and “there’s no free lunch” and “you create your own reality” and “pay it forward” and any/all of several dozen other sayings.

It’s the mechanics of how your decisions mold your world.

[edit: Ok, I didn't see your last post until after I posted this, so this is not a reply to your last post. That may come later )

Ok, just one last left jab before I throw in the towel.

My main point was that decision is the prime cause of the event. If there were no decision, there would be no intention. Thus, intention is dependent upon decision. Without decision, there can be no intention.

[edit: A better way to say it is that decision sets the direction for the intention.]



P.S.
I've been working on mine since spring of '73. How long have you been working on yours?

Assuming “some agent”, “observer” and “conscious being” are all synonymous…

The simple answer to that is: It didn't.

The long answer is that the question is meaningless.

1) It assumes that conscious beings evolved

“Evolution” is dependent upon time, which is part of the system, which the conscious being is, by definition, not the effect of.

2) It assumes that the universe existed before conscious beings did

Again, “before” requires time, which is part of the system, which … etc. as for #1

I think another way to put it is that you haven't truly made a 'decision' until you have the 'intent' on doing something about it.

Otherwise all you were really doing was toying with ideas.

The very act of becoming 'intentional' about something is the very essence of decision.

If you never actually become intentional, then you haven't truly made the decision, you've merely pondered on thoughts and maybe even wish you had the stamina to become intentional.

But without intent, you truly haven't made the decision.

So intent and decision are in a very real way inseparable.

But the way to hell is paved with good intentions

I have many of them, but I never do what I intend, therefore I haven't really made a decision, have I?

I understand what you are saying on a pure philosophical level of abstraction.

But I think it still begs the question of which came first assuming that the history of the universe holds (i.e. there was a state when it did not contain physically conscious beings:

Let's assume that conscious beings always existed (in pure spiritual form or whatever).

They created the early universe via their thoughts. Then as physical bodies evolved within the universe they became incarnate in them.

This begs the question of why?

If they were already conscious beings, then why conjure up a physical universe in the first place? Was there something fundamentally missing in their original spiritual state of conscious being?

In other words, is the pure spiritual form actually lacking in something that drives spirits to want to become physically incarnated?

Maybe religious people have it all backwards. Maybe it's spirits who want to become physical beings. But then once they become physical beings they become religious and strive to be more spiritual.

It could be a vicious circle where the grass always seems greener on the other side of the reality.

Personally I like the physical incarnation part. Of course, not remembering what it's like to be in a pure spiritual state I can't really compare them.

I do sometimes imagine that being incarnate in the univese is the true freedom. When we die and return to the spiritual world we find an overcrowded world where everyone is desperately hoping to become incarnated into a physical world again.

Maybe we're on the lucky side and don't even realize it!

Quantum Probabilities exist at every level, but to calculate it you must take account of the probability of every atom involved. So if the probability of a single electron to tunnel across a barrier is 1x10^-6 (1 in a million - this is a made up number btw) then you take into account that each atom has many electrons, and that there are an ungodly number of atoms in you, that the probability of you quantum tunneling through your kitchen wall would only happen for certain if we where to wait a few thousand trillion years . . .

So its not that the quantum weirdness doesn't happen at the macro level, its that as we move up from the extremely small the probability becomes proportionately smaller until the phenomena are just not experienced in normal observations.

But remember how probability works, just becuase its unlikely to happen, doesn't predict when that 1 in a thousand trillion chance will occur. It could happen the first moment you start watching it, then not again for another thousand trillion years . . .


And again its not that FTL means we toss out cause and effect, it just means we have to realize that something may be traveling through time backward. So in one thought game scenario I could say that IF the universe collapses back in on itself, and as the anti big bang happens a world where particles that move faster then light speed would see that as the beginning, not the end as it would be for us slower then light speeders. The big bang would have been that particles end moment. Time reversal does not destroy cause and effect, it reverses cause and effect.