Maybe it's because you hold a belief that the world you live in includes potholes and so, in terms of probabilities, you have subconsciously assigned a value/frequency to encountering them, and therefore periodically you will.

That's a thought. But it wasn't actually the presence of the hole that twisted my ankle, it was my ignorance of it. Not realizing there was a hole allowed my timing to be off a bit causing me to land wrong on my foot, twist my ankle, lose my balance and tumble. Had I believed it was there I could have easily adjusted my stride to compensate. So any belief, subconscious or otherwise, would not have resulted in the fall. It was actually my disbelief of the hole that lead to the unfortunate event.

If your idea were true, I think babies would begin walking much sooner in life because they've had little time to form many beliefs about the world.

Yes, but if there was no hole to begin with, nothing would have occurred. Also, as far as babies walking are concerned, they learn to walk generally about the time your beliefs say it is possible.

That's a true statement, but I I've shown that belief had nothing to do with it's presence, by showing my disbelief in it is what actually caused the fall. If what OP claims is true, my disbelief would have prevented it's presence and the fall, and babies would never fall down either.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that your "greater" belief about holes in the ground would trump your belief in the moment. I am speaking to your underlying belief about reality.

Right, that seems to be sort of the theme here. It's so vague though, and nobody has been able to describe how or why my underlying belief can magically go back in time and create a hole in the ground before I stumble over it. Isn't it much simpler and more likely there was actually a hole there the entire time, and I simply didn't see it?

My only point was that in science, nothing is really ever true. Scientific theories can (practically) only be disconfirmed, not confirmed. It's a one-way street.

That's a rather innaccurate/ignorant view of scientific theories. Scientific theories are there so that we can try to predict, to our best knowledge at the time, what will happen given initial/boundary conditions. That's the whole point of science. Best guess (at the time).

My point is that, although science does not say what is absolutely true, there is no meaning behind thinking in this way. It is more meaningful to think of science as "best guess".

I don't know. Again, I guess it goes back to what you believe and how you believe time "functions" and what it is and isn't.

this truth would be the one thing that can be confirmed and the only thing, because even when it proves it self wrong it still self admits that it 'works'. So again when people show that its wrong with their sort of 'evidence' they are really just using the 'magic' or whatever to make it wrong. And then everything else because a changeable reality so nothing can ever be 'right' or 'wrong'

yes thx your doing a good job, i also feel slightly less insane.

Yes its kind of circular because our minds have been conditioned to let reality be the proof for everything. So we constantly bring up points to refute the truth even though the truth states that refuting it literally makes it wrong.

If beliefs shape everything then I don't have to explain how or why do I?

And now you are mixing time travel and once we understand what I'm saying I'd like to bring time travel into this because all of sudden all that paradox baloney about killing your grandfather or what ever makes sense. The whole model of time and time travel instantly makes sense.


Simpler for now maybe but possibly not at all true.

If what I'm saying is correct we can see that science is simply creating itself and re writing itself when it sees fit. This makes a lot of sense I think when you read about advances in physics and the universe etc.

yes and I think if what I'm saying is right then our minds become able to model time better.


I think I read a quote from F Scott Fitzgerald that said something like: intelligence is being able to hold two opposing thoughts without going insane. Can't really say he was talking about this but I find it an interesting insight.

Also people will bring up 'the secret' and say thats how 'the secret' works. I'm assuming most here have heard of that series. But if people were really happy they wouldn't need 'the secret'. So also if what I've proposed is true then it explains why positive affirmations can actually attract being unfulfilled, while costing a lot.

Nothing you said about scientific theories contradicts what I said about scientific theories. OP said we have to go back and change things we thought were true, but my point was that we should never think anything to be purely true through science because of the problem of induction.

ahh i was looking for this...

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dangerous-knowledge/

this is a documentary I believe supports my claim, these mathematicians each were looking for something like a unified theory (what each was looking for I can't actually remember), and throughout there life they would flip flop believing the ultimate part of their work was absolutely proven untrue, until at some point they had an insight in which they were sure that it could be true....each drove himself crazy with this process....

My description of the doc might be slightly off but I full remember that its relates.

This thread is now linked to this Fabric as part of a bigger discussion.

Cliffs for this thread: op suggest the matrix principle of controlling our reality is truth and only not true because our controlling makes it not so. Many disagree but op suggest there act of disagree 'makes' them right by using the 'matrix principle' itself.

Yes Bolzman was a phycicists for starters :P Ii's an interesting documentary nontheless, I tihnk the death link is a bit cheesy.

Would much rather see Cantor->Gödel->Church/Turing->Chaitin->Cohen as a link that is explored.

Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma