Scientific Evidence That Proves We Create Our Own Reality

It might seem an idea more suited to the realm of science fiction than science, but nevertheless, even science now gives us clues as to our amazing ability to affect the world around us with just our thoughts and intentions.

Ironically, it was early science and philosophy which originally seemed to suggest that we couldn’t do so.

Newtonian physics seemed to suggest that the world was a large machine that operated independently of us and that we were mere spectators to its activities.

Sure, we could participate and affect things out in the physical world, but only by intervening physically.

And René Decartes’ mind-body dualism suggested that mind and matter were two separate and distinct things, with the implication that one couldn’t affect the other.

But, as our scientific enquiries and knowledge progressed, these ideas have had to give way to the mounting evidence that suggests otherwise.

Though much of what follows has been known for decades, if not longer, we still seem to be at the dawn of the age where it’s no longer heretical to suggest that mind and matter are linked and able to influence each other.

I pray that we will live to see a breakthrough in our understanding during our lifetime. It would be the quantum leap we sorely need to take us to Human 2.0.

But for now, let’s take a look at what we do know and what we have learned so far. And let’s review some of the evidence which proves that we do have the ability to create and influence physical reality.

The Placebo Effect

This is the most widely-known idea from this list and therefore something we’re all probably familiar with.

Placebos are fake medications (often sugar pills) used in drug trials as a way of testing the effectiveness of the drug being trialled.

They’re given to some of the participants who believe they’re taking the real medication.

The researchers then compare the effects of the drug against the effects of the placebo to see how effective the drug has been.

But often, and surprisingly, the placebo produces similar beneficial effects on the health and condition of the participants who take it, compared to the drug.

For example, in a study with patients experiencing Irritable Bowel Syndrome, placebos demonstrated positive effects in 40-50% of the cases.

In such cases, we know it wasn’t the sugar pill that caused the effect.

We then have to conclude that the positives outcomes were somehow connected to their belief that they took the actual medication, and the belief that this medication would improve their condition.

Even more astonishingly, placebo surgeries (or ‘sham surgeries’ as they’re also called) have also shown to have similar effects.

In sham surgeries, the patient is anaesthetised and a cut is made and then sutured up. But they do not undergo they actual surgery that they believed they would be undergoing.

Nevertheless, their health improves!

Some experts caution that placebos cannot ‘cure cancer or reduce your cholesterol levels’ and will only work on symptoms controlled by the brain (such as pain levels).

It is beyond the scope of this blog post (and my scientific knowledge) to explore a comprehensive critique and rebuttal on the effectiveness and validity of placebos.

But it’s clear that placebos have a positive effect and that they therefore warrant further scientific investigation.

I will end this section with a quote from Dr. Alia Crum and invite you to watch her Ted Talk linked below:

Our minds aren’t passive observers, simply perceiving reality as it is. Our minds actually change reality.
–Alia Crum, assistant professor of psychology and director of the Stanford Mind and Body Lab

The Observer Effect in Quantum Physics

According to our classical model of physics (or ‘Newtonian Physics’), atoms make up all matter.

These atoms are made from sub-atomic particles, such as protons and neutrons, which in turn, are comprised of smaller particles, or ‘quanta’, such as quarks. Quantum physics deals with matter at this most basic level of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

Although the universe seems to behave quite predictably and independently of our minds at the larger, Newtonian level, things seem to change at the quantum level.

‘But why does that matter?’ you ask. A particle is still a particle, isn’t it?

Well, apparently, it isn’t. Not at the quantum level.

Quantum particles have been shown to behave both as particles, occupying a specific place, and, as waves, spread out over several places at once.

And the form they take at any given time depends on how and whether we’re ‘observing’ or measuring them.

It is the act of measurement or the intervention of our consciousness that determines their state.

This is therefore referred to as the ‘observer effect.’

The observer effect has been demonstrated time and time again, through the double slit experiment.

Here, particles, usually single electrons or even photons, are fired one by one at an opaque screen in which there are two closely placed, narrow, vertical slits.

Behind this screen is a sheet made of a medium which can record the impact of these particles.

Based on how particles usually behave, what you’d expect to see on the last screen are two lines or bands where the particles made contact.

But instead, what they saw were several bands, which is what you would see if you were shooting waves at the slits. This is because the waves would go through both slits at the same time and collide, or ‘interfere,’ with each other, causing what is called an interference pattern.

The physicists were baffled and wanted to see what was going on and so, they placed a monitoring device behind the screen, close to one slit and ran the experiment again.

This resulted in a pattern of just two bands being recorded (and not an interference pattern of many bands, as before), suggesting that it was particles making it through these slits, one at a time, and not waves.

And the conclusion the scientists reached was that the act of observing or measuring caused what was originally something that existed in a state of multiple possibilities (wave or particle) to ‘collapse’ into a particle-state, upon being observed.

What this could imply is that we create reality by interacting with it using our consciousness.

We cause it to arise out of the ‘quantum soup’ and solidify, just by observing it!

Heart Field Influence

Research at the Heart Math institute discovered that our hearts generate a strong electromagnetic field. This field is believed to be the strongest electromagnetic field generated by the human body.

Researchers found that the more ‘coherent’ or the more emotionally positive and relaxed a person was, the stronger their electromagnetic field was.

Scientist have measured this field extending up to three meters around us.

They also discovered that the electro-magnetic field generated by one person’s heart can be detected by the hearts and brains of those around them.

For example, in a 2007 study, they found that a baby’s heartbeat was detected in the mother’s brainwaves.

Researchers believe that our heart’s electromagnetic field can influence others around us, especially their feelings and emotions, and said that:

This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us.

So we’re literally changing and affecting the world around us with every beat of our hearts!

PEAR Experiments

A Random Event Generator is an electronic device that can behave like a virtual coin toss. It can randomly generate states akin to ‘heads’ or ‘tails.’

Scientists at the Princeton Engineering Anomalous Research (PEAR) laboratory conducted studies to determine if human operators could influence the machine to generate more of their preferred state of heads or tails.

The expected score for either state, if only chance operated, would be 50%. However, the studies found that some operators were able to produce a score of 51-52% in their favour.

Although we wouldn’t regard an increase of 1-2% as anything significant, in the world of science, it’s regarded as ‘statistically significant.’

Lynne McTaggart points out in her excellent book, ‘The Field’, that it’s not only the percentage that matters. You also have to consider the odds of obtaining such a result, if only pure chance was at play.

According to McTaggart, if you combined the data from all the REG trails she refers to in her book in what is called a ‘meta-analysis,’ where you pool all of the data, the odds of achieving the scores achieved by mere chance alone are a trillion to one!

There have been other variations of the REG experiments. With these, researchers found that:

Baby chicks could cause a robot which they thought was their ‘mother’ to come towards them more often than not, though it was programmed to venture about in random patterns.
Some people had a ‘signature effect’, which meant they were more likely to secure similar results across a number of experiments.
Some people had a negative effect and produced more of the results that were in opposition to what they intended.
Some people formed a coherence with the machine and their scores improved the more they worked with that machine.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, couples that had a special bond had a stronger intention effect than individuals.

So again, there is certainly a lot of food for thought and a justifiable need for further investigation. Who knows what other amazing insights further research will uncover?

I would like to close this section of the post with a quote from McTaggart’s book, The Field:

The US National Research Council also concluded that the REG trials could not be explained by chance.

Group Meditation and the Lowering of Crime and Violence

In this section, I’d like to share some studies involving group meditation and their effect in lowering violence and crime rates.

International Peace Project in the Middle East, 1983

This study proposed to test the theory that by reducing societal stress in the underlying ‘collective consciousness’ through group meditation, they could lower the rate of violence.

The hypothesis was that if enough people collectively stimulated and experienced a sense of peace within, that it would have a positive effect on the behaviour of people throughout society.

A group of participants based in Jerusalem, practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique developed by the Maharishi International University with the aim of reducing violence in Israel and nearby, Lebanon, during the months of August and September 1983, at the height of the war in Lebanon.

The results showed that progress towards peace, characterised by reduced war deaths, injuries and bombings etc., fluctuated in line with the number of people who were meditating as a group.

It showed that the more people there was meditating at any time, the greater the progress towards peace.

I highly recommend that you watch this short (but wonderful) talk by Dr. John Hagelin on this study. It’s just four minutes long.

In this presentation, he states that:

There is far more evidence that group meditation can turn off war like a light switch than there is evidence that aspirin reduces head ache pain.

According to Dr. Hagelin, the above study was successfully replicated by seven other groups over the course of the next two years.

The TM Crime Prevention Project in Washington D.C., 1993

Dr. Hagelin and others conducted another study, this time in Washington D.C., USA in 1993.

A group of around 800 meditators participated in the project, which took place from 7th to 30th July.

It was overseen by a diverse (and unbiassed) group of academic experts and the group of meditators included a member of the local police department.

The researchers, going by previous studies, predicted a lowering of violence and crime by 20%.

The local police chief, used to seeing an escalation in the rates of violence during the Summer months, is reported to have said that the only thing likely to decrease crime and violence was 20 inches of snow!

Nevertheless, the study recorded an impressive result:

A 23.3% reversal in the predicted violent crime trend!

Many other studies on group meditation and group prayer/intention have been conducted with similarly encouraging results.

One study was conducted by Lynne McTaggart in Sri Lanka, in 2009. I will probably cover this in a separate post, but you can read about her study here: The Peace Intention Experiment.

Conclusion

Scientifically speaking, it’s hard to say just how connected we are and how much our thoughts and intentions affect reality.

Spiritual, metaphysical (and even some religious) sources seem to say that it is absolute. That we are all connected and we do have the power to create and influence reality, if not totally, then at least to a considerable extent.

But with science, there is the issue of just how advanced our technology is.

The best instruments at our disposal today may not be sensitive enough or capable of measuring the things we want or need to be measuring.

With the world of medicine, there is the obvious problem that a lot of the research is funded by the pharmaceutical companies, which rely on the sale of medications for their sustenance and profits.

You have to wonder how happy they would be if it were suddenly proven scientifically, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we don’t need their drugs and medications to stay healthy or heal.

So could we expect them to fund research aimed at proving this very thing?

Also, science and academia have rigorous rules which need to be followed–and for good reason.

But these rules and conventions can sometimes stand in the way of scientific progress.

Besides, those who are heavily invested in the status quo cannot be blamed for doing their best to protect it, when faced with ideas that threaten it.

And again, we have to consider the issue of funding. Who would want to fund something they perceive as being ‘woo woo‘ or would threaten their career?

And what if there was no financial profit or academic benefit to be gained from such research to the individual decision maker?

And what if, at the same time, there was a risk of ruining one’s career by pursuing a certain line of enquiry? Who would be mad enough to still go ahead?

So, we have to accept the fact that not every scientist would be brave enough to risk their reputation in order to champion an idea whose time has come.

And it’s understandable. They may have kids to put through college or a mortgage to pay.

Ultimately, we have to accept that what we know, is probably far short of all that we could be knowing at this point.

But that’s ok, because we at least know that our thoughts, beliefs and intentions matter. We know that they have the power to affect people and events in the external world; and that we should be far more careful and discerning about what we think and believe, and about what we allow into our lives.

Resources

Many of the ideas discussed in this post are based on the work of Lynne McTaggart and her wonderful books, ‘The Field’ and ‘The Intention Experiment’.

I would encourage you to check out her work and her public talks on Youtube.

Other ideas are taken from a variety of sources linked below: