So what is the chance that a coin will land heads when flipped? Scientists say there is a 50% chance. Is this necessarily so though?
From reading my other articles it should be clear that one theory of our universe that I’m particularly interested in is consensus reality. A universe created by our collective consciousness that fits within the confines of our collective belief systems.
I often feel that science is not so much determining existing laws of the universe as is commonly thought, but in some respects creating the laws itself through self-reinforcement in the conscious minds that continually maintain the structure and behaviour of this planet.
When you toss a coin, your subconscious beliefs dictate that, if you toss it enough, it will come up tails eventually. The concept of probability, chance and chaos are so well rooted in everyone’s minds that it is impossible to convince yourself that you have the power to make that coin show heads each and every time.
If you do the experiment yourself, say tossing a coin 1000 times trying to will the coin to be heads, and logging the results as you go, you may notice after the first 50 tosses that there has been a rather large bias towards the coin coming up heads, for e.g
Heads Tails
31 19
Odd? Not really, mathematicians and statisticians will tell you that if you continue tossing the coin, and more data is amassed, that the tosses will average out more.
That is entirely possible, and if we are to believe that the physical world follows the laws of probability as rigidly as they say, probable.
But... this experiment has been insurmountably tainted by the preconceptions of the person carrying out the experiment. If that person, with 100% complete faith that that coin WOULD land heads every single time, actually had the power to make that happen, there is no way they would EVER find that power out, because 100% faith is impossible with the conditioning of randomness and probability concepts since the day they were born. The most faith you can realistically ever have that it will land heads is... well, 50% really.
If you managed to convince yourself 100% that you had the power to influence the coin toss, and then tossed the coin and it came up heads, what are the “chances” that it will come up heads on the second toss? 50% still. It’s counter intuitive, as you would assume that there is less chance of it coming up heads again if it already has done, but probability states that the second time (or any other time) you toss that coin, it still has 50% chance of being heads.
Despite this, when tossing the coin a second time, you would be aware that you had just got a heads, and this niggling doubt would mean that you were no longer 100% convinced that you could make the coin come up heads again. You toss it again... Heads! Unbelievable...
That’s two heads in a row, maybe there’s something to this?
Time to toss again. You are still willing it to be heads, but you can feel your conviction and faith waning this time...
Heads again! Three in a row! That’s 12.5% chance given traditional views of probability. About 1/10, pretty lucky I guess, but not exceptionally improbable...
Next toss. Four heads in a row would be pretty unlikely, 6.25% chance, taking into account the irrefutable laws of probability. Your confidence in this coin toss is not high at all... This time, it must be tails!
You toss again... Doh! Tails... told you! It’s just random.
But what if no-one had ever told you about probability? What if at schools, pupils were taught that nothing was random, but was merely configured by the consensus of conscious minds observing it, based upon their beliefs on the outcome?
Would those children, upon reaching adulthood, be able to toss a coin 1000 times and it come up heads every single time?
Maybe, maybe not. But my point is that seemingly provable scientific experiments may have their results contaminated by the belief of the persons doing the experimentation.
If scientists believe that they are unable to influence probability, then the results they will glean will support this belief, whether that is because they are right, or because they are wrong but believe they are right.
Imagine if everybody in the country put the same numbers on the lottery, and watched the draw convinced “I’m going to win this week I can feel it!”
Would the chances of those numbers coming out still be millions to one?
Maybe, maybe not.
But then again, scientists will freely accept that quantum particles can be influenced merely by our observations and expectations. So why not visible matter constructed of these quantum particles? Because its easier for them to accept strange goings-on with an invisible sub-atomic particle than it is with something they can see, feel, taste, and touch like a coin or a dice. If they don’t see anything that supports this belief, they will not believe it. But if belief is what makes it happen, then they are never going to see it in experimentation.
If belief is the key to defining our reality, then while we retain a steadfast and narrow belief system, be that religion, science, or a combination of the two, then we are severely narrowing the possibilities open to us in this reality. We need to reset our brains back to zero. View everything from “provable” and “observable” science to religious or spiritual philosophies as a child would, from a neutral place where you can freely explore them as possibilities, but be in a place where you can also explore the other conflicting areas of possibility without contaminating them, or rendering them invisible, with your own preconceptions.
If you get in to a reality too deeply, you will believe in that reality to the point where you will automatically dismiss any other reality presented to you... this is dangerous, especially when you consider that the reality you are part of may have been devised with a malevolent intent.
