If Science says Opposites Attract, How Can The Law of Attraction Work?
ByI got into a discussion on the law of attraction on another blog the other day. A person asked me how can the law of attraction work when it says that like attracts like and science says that opposites attract?
I really felt that is was a profound question because many people say they do not believe in the law of attraction. I understand because while the secret movie is a great introduction to a very powerful concept it is really just touches the surface of the knowledge of how the law works. The secret movie set me off on a journey to discover more because it just seemed to simplistic.
I am a Scorpio astrologically and when we get hold of a subject that interest us we will look under the hood, take the hood off and then disassemble the car to get to the meat of our interest/subject. Skimming the surface and letting it lie is just not our nature. Now you Gemini’s will take it at face value and move on with other more fun business.
So what of this like attracts like thing? It goes against science. On first glance the law does seem like a contradiction. Science and the law of attraction are both on target. Here’s what I mean.
Everything in the universe is energy at the most base level, science says this. Everything in the universe vibrates, science has proven this also. In order to create anything there has to be an opposite counter part for any charged particles, wave or people to come together and create anything. We tend to want to use the terms negative and positive however, it is more useful to understand them in the aspect of masculine and feminine. Nothing at all to do with sexuality they are opposite energies. But it takes the masculine and feminine aspect to come together to create anything. That means the masculine and feminine energies must coexist to create. It takes masculine and feminine energies to create a thought, masculine and feminine to create a child, a planet, or a universe. It works on any level of creation. This is going under the hood of the law of attraction.
So what is the like attracts like? This is where the movie comes in and explains the concept. That which you vibrate in harmony with is the masculine or feminine counterpart that will attract to you. If you are sending out a masculine vibration your energy will seek it feminine counter part to create the experience you sent to the universe. Your masculine energy vibrates like the feminine counterpart that was attracted into your experience. Again this is irrespective of sex. Masculine energy seeks, it is the aggressor. Feminine energy is passive, it is the receiver. With out the feminine the masculine can not create. Without the masculine the feminine can not create.
If the both energies do not vibrate in harmony with the other they will not be attracted to each other. Like vibration attracts like vibration. A great symbol for how masculine and feminine energy work together is the yin and yang symbol. You see the light and dark masses intertwined in a circle. Imagine the energies constantly moving, balancing and rebalancing each other. The amount of energy never changes in the circle. It is a constant dance between the masculine and feminine energy. If they are not in harmony, they can not coexist. Like attracts like. The Law of attraction at work.
The law is not in conflict with science. One just has to go a little deeper under the hood to understand it in totality. As above, so below.
Is the law of attraction real or something just made up?
Are you a brave soul?
Reginaldc is me
I love the way you answered this question. A very inspiring post, I linked to you from my post on the subject. You got me pondering now! Your approach does make a lot of sense.
Palma, thank you for the complement on the post. The law of attraction can be a sticky issue for many that just look at the surface and how they are told to handle it. thank you for taking the time to comment and then link back. I am honored.
Reginaldc
[...] or vibrate in unison to stay together. I wrote more in depth about this law in the article, if science says opposites attract how can the law of attraction work? The law of Gender is definitely important in understanding how our universe [...]
Your explanation proves that opposites attract! Man attracts woman. So unless you’re talking about gay attraction, then you proved that opposites attract, which is the only scientific law of attraction anyway. This does not change when dealing with quantum physics.
Anyway, comparing the behaviour of a single particle to the way we function as people is not a valid comparison. People have complicated brains and we don’t follow nature very much. People can decide to spend time with those who are the same, different, or whatever. But particles do not get to choose their charge or what they are attracted to. In science, the laws of nature have not changed: opposites attract, like repels like.
In human behaviour, we already know why some people are successful and some aren’t, and it has nothing to do with quantum physics. That opposites attract is proven scientific fact. Like attracts like never happens in science, never.
Human relationships are not charged particles. People make decisions. Their decisions are not subject to the scientific laws of attraction on any level. If they were, there would be no diversity in the world and we wouldn’t have a choice who we attach to, we would attach to any opposite in our field of energy.
So for me, the secret fails big time because it’s primary premise is wrong . They’ve hijacked the language of quantum physics but they ignore the laws of physics and make up their own laws.
It’s an insult to intelligence.
By the way, new research in the area of attraction confirms that in primates, opposites attract. The article explains why.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/05/24/opposites.attract.how.genetics.influences.humans.choose.their.mates
@steeeeever,
Thank you for your input. Quantum physics is about how thing work in the atomic world. The laws of physics works the same in the atomic world as it does in our reality.
as I stated in my post, the opposites of masculine and feminine energy do attract each other, as in negative and positive. Which does work in the atomic world.
Vibration must be in harmony.
we are not in disagreement on opposites attracting. I simply gave a more in depth metaphysical perspective on the subject.
No one can insult your intelligence unless you choose to be insulted.
Reginald – more cognitive distortion for me on the acoustic science of sympathetic vibrations I’m afraid.
BTW, if I choose to be offended by nonsense (no offense) it’s because it “offends” or goes against what I know about reality, including metaphysics. If I choose to be offended by wrongness, am I a lesser person? Is choosing to be offended by nonsense wrong? Don’t we have the ability to feel offended to protect us from nonsense? What are you really meaning by your statement that I choose to be offended? Have you done any studies on offensiveness? Have you accessed any? Are you sure that being offended isn’t an instinctual reaction to nonsense (no offense). And why did you think I don’t know why people choose to take offense at offensive and wrong-headed nonsense (no offense).
You’re playing the same game as many religious people by trying to take on a teacher and authority role, being polite and condescending in your wrongness and insistence of rightness, and yet, none of it is provable. It doesn’t have to be, it’s metaphysics which you think I know nothing about. Your polite refusal to see the wrong in your thinking is no more or less offensive than someone trying to prove the earth is flat.
Furthermore, metaphysics had evolved into scientific method by the end of the 18th century. Most scientisits, if not all, abandoned metaphysics in favour of science. So, are you now saying that your beliefs are philosophical and not scientific? Yet, you want to use the scientific theory of sympathetic vibrations to make your point, not sure what the point is. That people vibrate like guitar strings? You seem to be saying it. So are you making a metaphor then or do you believe people vibrate just like instrument strings and cause other people to vibrate sympathetically?
I reread your article in which you argue quite rightly that opposites attract. I appreciate that you are not stubbornly holding to the false idea that like attracts like. But then you go on to talk about sympathetic vibrations, a science concept that explains why when you strike a note on a piano, other strings you did not strike vibrate with it, or why objects in your house rattle when an airliner goes by flying low. That’s why there are dampers on pianos. Sympathetic vibration has nothing to do with human behaviour. Strings that vibrate sympathetically are harmonically (mathematically) related, for example, octaves. It doesn’t apply to people however, because we are not vibrating strings and our thoughts do not vibrate sympathetically with other people’s thoughts on a quantum level. BUNK! (no offense). We cannot read, feel, or sense other people’s vibrations. We rely on body language and other visible and real senses to give us clues what they might be thinking or feeling.
So please clear this up: are you being literal or are you being poetic when you hijack the language and theories of true science to back up your non-provable assertions?
Lastly, metaphysics was what science was called before scientific method was invented. Scientists do not engage in metaphysics anymore because metaphysics evolved at the end of the 1700s into what we now know as science. Why take a quantum leap into the past and dig up the bones of metaphysics and apply them to the present when we have science?
So are you saying that sympathetic vibration really happens with human beings in a literal sense, or that you are being metaphorical?
And by the way, I don’t appreciate the icon you put by my name. Is that how to argue like sensible mature people? Grow up.
Listen, you can try to recreate reality to suit your theory, or you could engage in reading better sources, but I really think you are going to continue with the sympathetic human vibration theory or metaphor, even though you really don’t fully understand the theory.
These theories you have usurped and redirected for improper use in your human behavioural theories were developed to answer very specific questions about nature, e.g. why do piano strings that you didn’t strike vibrate? They were never intended to be used the way you are using them or to prove what you are trying to prove. That opposites attract is a theory of charged particles. If it were a law of human behaviour, there would be no gay people. There are no gay particles in nature, but there are gay people. Explain that if you like. Sympathetic vibration is a sound wave theory, not a people wave theory. It doesn’t apply to people, has never been tested on people, and their is no evidence for it having any effect on people.
I would be willing to do an experiment whereby I smack you in the head with a 2×4 in one room (just to get your vibrations going like a tuning fork, not being violent) and another room full of people can try to pick up your vibes by telling us exactly when you got struck, how hard you got struck and what note was produced by your vibrations. Get back to me when you’re ready to test your theories.
@steeeeever,
Steve, I truly thank you taking the time to comment on my blog. You are very passionate and I can appreciate passion on any level.
Personally I consider myself a skeptic. I love science. However, I do not accept scientific method as the ultimate in authority on knowledge and learning. There are many questions that SM will not even address.
I do not accept physical reality as the only plane of existence. hence, metaphysical (beyond the physical).
Scientific method by its own definition can not and will not accept metaphysics.
I have found that questions teach me sometimes more than answers.
I do not stubbornly believe anything. Life has taught me that much.
As a teacher, i often times use metaphors to connect something that a person understands to something they are trying to learn. All teacher understand this concept or they will not be much of a teacher. The metaphor is rarely literal because it is a metaphor.
I enjoy science and quantum physics. But I believe there are things that we can not experience with our 5 senses. It is a part of a much more broader reality than physical.
My blog is really about my journey. If it resonates with another, great! If it does not, it’s ok. I have learned that experience is multidimensional and infinite in its possibilities.
Therefore I can not tell another how and why they should believe what I do. Nor can I judge them any less intellectual than I am because they are ignorant of what I know.
I am not so arrogant to believe that I can know anything for another.
If you don’t agree with what I write, i am totally ok with that. I don’t have a need to have others agree with what I believe.
I put my beliefs out for others that may be as skeptical and have a love for philosophically addressing what may not be apparent to them physically.
and yes, we as humans, the earth and the universe vibrate. Science will agree on that. It is literal.
@steeeeever,
my friend, it is a system generated icon. If you had your own gravatar it would show up in this spot. I would not insult anyone that would honor me in sharing their thoughts on my blog. Whether I agree with them or not. It is all an opportunity for me to learn.
@steeeeever,
Steve, You don’t know my sources. Is a better source what you believe it to be?
I know what I know. If it does not resonate with you, then so be it. When I was religious I used to try and convince others in the superiority of my beliefs.
anyone has the right to believe as they wish and it does not make them any less of a human being than I am because they don’t share my beliefs. Their is probably a lot more that you and I share than this difference.
No belief is ever reason to degrade and put down another human being.
Namaste (the god in me recognizes the god in you)
Hey, thanks for clearing up the icon thing.
Okay, so you admit then that the language of quantum physics is being used mostly poetically, not literally. You’re the first person to admit that; I appreciate your honesty.
Still, you believe literally that vibrating particles equals vibrating humans, vibrating planets and so on and that those human vibrations can affect other humans. While it seems possible that the charges of particles making up human mass should add up to create a vibrational sum = to the sum of all the particle charges, there is no evidence of that either, unless you can point me to it. And if that does happen for real, it would be testable in an experiment similar to the experiment I laid out above.
Although I was clearly being facetious, it would be very easy and inexpensive to prove whether or not people are capable of vibrating and whether those vibrations have any effect or can be picked up by other people.
Why hasn’t this theory been tested? In a way it has. All experiments dealing with mind reading, supernatural forces, mind kinetics or anything related have shown the thesis of external mental vibrations to be false.
When they are successful at guessing someone’s thoughts or feelings, it falls within the realm of probability: take 100 guesses at something, and a certain, predictable number of those guesses will be correct. So, I can’t see how the theory of human sympathetic vibration can be true or literal.
Reginald Martin Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Steve, I enjoy discussion. I will admit that language is not exact. But it is what we have to try and bring understanding between two people. Terminology can be interchangeable depending on who is using it. Personally it is more important that a concept is understood rather than the words we use to explain the concept. As long as the concept is communicated the terminology is irrelevant. When I teach, I use everything I can to help my student comprehend.
as I stated before, humans are matter. ALL MATTER vibrates. However, the term vibration is what we have to explain the concept of how we draw experience into our reality. A thought vibrates. Where does a thought come from?
Our perspectives on reality is different. You believe the way to do. I can accept that you may not see existence as I do. Your experience is the most relevant experience to you, in the universe. As is my experience to me.
Reginald: the only reason I don’t know your sources is because I haven’t seen any references to your sources. Have you put them up somewhere? I would be interested in what sources you are reading or experiments conducted to back up literal sympathetic human vibration theory.
Reginald Martin Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Steve,
the source on human vibration is basic natural science. ALL MATTER vibrates. Even at the theoretical temperature of absolute zero matter still vibrates.
a human cell is matter. We are made up of trillions of cells. They all vibrate. at the most base level all matter is made of the same energy. This again is basic natural science.
at the most base level humans, a planet and a star are made of the same thing. Energy. Due you dispute basic science? As I have stated before, I do love science. but it does not answer all questions. as far as experiments, I do much of mine the same as Einstien would. I think through them.
Steve, you seem to come from the perspective that only the physical is real. there is much about humans that natural science still has yet to quantify. We have memories, yet science has yet to find any place physically where a memory is stored. Our consciousness can not be quantified by natural science. Our imagination can not be quantified. A dream can not be quantified. Intuition can not be quantified yet it is something that many can attest to. All these things are “real” yet they can not be proven by natural science except to know that we as humans have these things in common.
Scientific method can not quantify any of these phenomenon. Yet they do exist. There is no experiment that has yet quantified these aspect of the human condition that is a part of us all. They must be acknowledged even if scientific method can not “prove” them.
Much of metaphysical knowledge is subjective. For me God is real. It can not be proved, only experienced. There is much scientific method will never be able to “prove” about human subjectivity. For me that does not discount its reality, only to raise questions about its greater existence beyond the physical.
You said: “the source on human vibration is basic natural science.”
So you don’t have a source then. I could say all of natural science backs my position. Neither of us proves our point with that statement.
“ALL MATTER vibrates. Even at the theoretical temperature of absolute zero matter still vibrates.”
Particles vibrate, yes. I don’t know how you get from that to rocks vibrate, trees vibrate etc. Their particles vibrate, not they themselves.
“a human cell is matter. We are made up of trillions of cells. They all vibrate.”
There is no evidence of cells vibrating in any of the scientific lit I’ve read. The particles that cells are made of vibrate. Cells do not as a whole have a detectable vibration.
“at the most base level all matter is made of the same energy. This again is basic natural science.”
True.
“at the most base level humans, a planet and a star are made of the same thing. Energy. Due you dispute basic science?”
Nope.
“As I have stated before, I do love science. but it does not answer all questions. as far as experiments, I do much of mine the same as Einstien would. I think through them.”
Hmm. Thinking about an experiment is not the same as doing one. I would think that in less than five minutes I could find proof that Einstein did real experiments or had someone do them. The times he didn’t do an experiment were when he was working on theories for which the technology to prove them hadn’t been invented.
“Steve, you seem to come from the perspective that only the physical is real.”
Pretty much yes, because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
“there is much about humans that natural science still has yet to quantify. We have memories, yet science has yet to find any place physically where a memory is stored.”
Clusters of neurons in our brain are where memories are generated from. They are not really stored anywhere. Chemical processes produce memories in response to certain stimuli. Lots of research has been done on memory.
“Our consciousness can not be quantified by natural science.”
That’s what I’ve been saying all long. We agree on that. But that is what you are doing isn’t it? Trying to use quantum science and sympathetic vibrations, both areas of natural science, to explain human behaviour or consciousness.
“Our imagination can not be quantified. A dream can not be quantified. Intuition can not be quantified yet it is something that many can attest to. All these things are “real” yet they can not be proven by natural science except to know that we as humans have these things in common.”
If we know we have them in common, then why even try to test? Tests are to try to understand what we don’t already know and serve to challenge common knowledge. Common knowledge in the past asserted that the sun moves around a stationary earth. It took one man with a very low quality telescope to disprove common knowledge.
Anyway, dream states have been quantified in terms of alpha waves and so on which are measurable. Lots of experiments on dreams have been done. I don’t know about intuition.
“Scientific method can not quantify any of these phenomenon. Yet they do exist. There is no experiment that has yet quantified these aspect of the human condition that is a part of us all. They must be acknowledged even if scientific method can not “prove” them.”
But science can prove them. Put 100 people in a room and ask them to intuit something and then look at the results. People’s brain waves have been observed while dreaming. These are quantifiable. Lots of scientific tests on dreaming. Claims of paranormal powers have been tested numerous times. The Amazing Randi has tested many claims of the paranormal and nobody has yet to be able to do what they say they can do under controlled conditions.
“Much of metaphysical knowledge is subjective. For me God is real. It can not be proved, only experienced.”
There is no such thing as true for me. I can say that for me, the world is flat, that it is true for me. Doesn’t make it true. Something that is true is true for everyone. Or it’s not truth, it’s something else.
” There is much scientific method will never be able to “prove” about human subjectivity.”
Subjectivity is “judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts” (Princeton). If someone wanted to experiment with subjectivity they could. There just doesn’t seem to much to be gained from it. Mostly, you would discover just how fallible and unreliable subjectivity is.
“Much of metaphysical knowledge is subjective.”
Something based on individual personal impressions, feelings and opinions rather than external facts can hardly be called knowledge.
“For me God is real. It can not be proved, only experienced.”
God can be disproved. Anything that is “real” presents itself in reality. There is no evidence for god except personal anecdotes which aren’t proof at all. Plus, you could take ideas from the Bible and test them. Science has tested prayer at least ten times for instance with quite surprising results. People who were prayed for after surgery got worse while people who had no prayer did better in recovery and had fewer complications (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html).
Reginald Martin Reply:
January 29th, 2011 at 7:48 am
Steve, I hope you are not insinuating that a rock and a tree are different matter? If you are, I am going to have to question your scientific knowledge.
On physical being the only reality, you said your belief is:
I can understand your belief. I was once there myself.
You stated:
My friend much of our experience is subjective and non-quantifiable. If your statement were true, then you would know that pizza is the absolute best food in the universe and that chocolate chip cookies and milk is the ultimate desert. You would know that a snickers is the best candy bar and that all others need to be taken off the shelf.
However, a diabetic may have a totally different experience and opinion of my meal. For me it is the next thing to heaven. For a diabetic my favorite meal would be a decent into hell. The foods are “real” and can be experienced in objectivity. However the experiences are subjective and true for each individual. If everything in “reality” was objective we would all feel the same about all things.
Wow! If you flunked a test in school, the teacher told you that you are a waste of human flesh and using up perfectly good oxygen for other more smarter and deserving human beings, would would accept that assessment? The test would be an external fact. But only a person that has internal knowledge and belief in themselves will push on. No matter the opinion of another.
For me, feelings, impressions and my opinion is the most valid assessment of my experience in the universe. Our acceptance of any knowledge comes from our internalized beliefs. If a person in poverty only accepts the “perceived” objective reality they will never be able to escape that poverty. Their individual personal impressions are the most relevant source of inspiration they can have. In order to change their reality, they have to imagine themselves in another reality and believe they can get there. Despite all objective circumstances. Without the faith that things can change before it does. It will not. That is real for them and it is subjective.
Your above statement invalidates the human experience. It is a contradiction of your involvement with me in this forum. You have beliefs that I do not share. from my perspective they are subjective based on the knowledge you have. For me it is neither good nor bad, it is how you believe. I don’t feel a need to convince you to change. You are a beautiful
human being in your form and worthy of existence. I would not discount your beliefs by saying to you they are invalid based on a limited set of rules and information.
If you truly believe your above statement, and I have no reason to think that you don’t, then your experience can only be validated by someone or something outside of you. That is no different than any dogmatic belief in a religion.
In reality, there is only one.
Hey have a good evening Reginald. Off to bed for me! Good debating with you.
noting that good was used 2 times in last comment. good. : )
Reginald Martin Reply:
September 10th, 2011 at 8:53 am
@kath stutland,
@Kath