Bootlicker  Yikes.  How would you like to be an author and wake up to this comment on your website?

“You really want to hear from me? Well, here it goes: Your writings amount to nothing but a collection of useless mumbo-jumbo disguised in scientific jargon which clearly reveals that you have no clue what quantum physics is all about. Have a look into some quantum physics book and maybe copy the Schrödinger equation in operator formalism into your future rants, so that your bootlickers, who fall for your vapid nonsense, may become even more awed.”

Courtesy of Mr. “James Smith”.

I Would Never Create a Version of You Where You’re a Bootlicker

My first thought was, “Bootlickers?  What a ridiculous condemnation of everyone who decides to try these new paradigms out for themselves.”

But I also knew the comment was useful.  I’ve posted things here about how most proclamations of “pseudoscience” are disingenuous at best and insulting to you, who have actually tried these techniques in your life, at worst.  There is no reason to give credence to cynicism because a cynic already has her mind made up and will never try the thing she is dismissing.

I Love Skeptics; I Can’t Do Anything With a Cynic

I’m coming close to finishing my next book.  And, lo and behold, my next book is called Why Quantum Physicists Don’t Stay Skeptical: The Skeptics Guide to the Science of Intentionally Influencing Your Material Experiences.

Not that this comment is one a skeptic would make, but I recognized a great opportunity to list some of the things I’d recently been compiling which might be important to a skeptic.

A skeptic is, of course, a person who has reservations and must authentically try something out to see if it works (before proclaiming it “true” or “false”).  The key difference between a skeptic and a cynic is a willingness to authentically try something out before publicly trumpeting (or dumping on) its veracity.  The difference is an open mind.

A cynic, by the way, is getting easier to recognize when they say something like  “…you don’t know anything about quantum physics…”  Maybe they’re right?  Yet my books aren’t “about” quantum physics anyway – they’re about new paradigms from quantum physics (see the list, below, I wrote in response to James).

So if someone hasn’t read my books/articles, what chance is there they’ve authentically tried using these paradigms?

I Also Love New Age and Law of Attraction Writing

I have no plans to abandon writing about the science of intentionally influencing your material experiences for a “law of attraction” audience.  Yet, since my greatest desire is for suffering to be optional (for everyone), I love the idea of providing access to these paradigms for skeptics.

Intentionally influencing our material experiences can be explained and discussed in rather pedestrian ways.  People can learn about it and try it out without ever referring to it as the “law of attraction.”  Now, we might all say, “What’s the fun in that?”

Yet I believe there are many people who will benefit from such an approach.  Not to mention that many of those “many people” are you and me.

Plus, I reveal a decent-sized secret about an unintentional similarity between skeptics and many of those who are already big believers in our ability to intentional influence our material experiences.

My Response to James is Sincere and I Truly Feel Grateful to Him

So here is my response to James:

“Hey James. I could be wrong, but you don’t come across like a true skeptic who has authentically tried using this application of new paradigms and found them to be ineffective.

Still, your comment is a good opportunity to address some important things. You’ll find the following throughout my writings:

1. Quantum physics does not say that the law of attraction is real, nor does it say that someone can “create” a material reality of her choosing. Nor, for that matter, does it need to.

2. Quantum physics absolutely does, however, provide us with new paradigms. “Non-Causality” and “Indeterminism” are two of those now well-established paradigms (which, once again, do not explicitly say that the law of attraction is real and don’t need to).

3. Non-scientists using paradigms in “non-scientific” endeavors is not only appropriate, it has a long-established historical precedent. Paradigms from Newtonian physics were applied in virtually every field after the first scientific revolution and, thus, the modern, industrialized world in which we now live was formed. We have never needed science to “sanction” or “endorse” any application of a scientific paradigm in a non-scientific endeavor.

4. When someone applies new paradigms in a “non-science” field, the litmus test for whether we will call that application “true” (or not) has almost nothing to do with whether “Greg Kuhn” says “This is true” or “James Smith” says “This is not true.” The litmus test is: people authentically try the application and see, for themselves, whether or not it works.

5. It is not even necessary, in fact, to frame “intentionally influencing material experiences” as “the law of attraction” or a “new age” endeavor; the mere acts of putting on makeup, getting a college degree, or ironing a blouse are all methods people employ (among countless others) to intentionally influence their material experiences.

6. Applying paradigms such as “Indeterminism” and “Non-Causality” to intentionally influence our material experiences is absolutely an appropriate use of them. Whether this application works or not, however, is another thing altogether – something determined by people authentically trying it out.

7. I have found the application of these paradigms as a method to intentionally influence our material experiences works beautifully; it is 100% “true”, found through authentic use of it, that this application of these paradigms allows us to be much more intentionally influential over our material experiences.

8. No one will ever be forced to authentically try this application of these new paradigms out.

9. Calling this application of new paradigms names like “pseudoscience”, “baloney”, or “nonsense” without authentically trying it out, however, is disingenuous.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to list all these important clarifications in one place.”

We Can All Try These Paradigms and Make Suffering Optional

Sound about right?

Not fantastic.  Not really “new age” at all, right?

Yet still very usable and valuable.

I’m looking forward to your feedback about this book.

And, in the meantime, stay tuned to this site for more tips and techniques for using new paradigms from quantum physics to align your beliefs with your conscious desires and live a life of your dreams…