Law and Legal Expert

by wallyg

A Critical View of the Law of Attraction and Quantum Theory

The law of attraction which claims itself to be a law, fails to justify itself on the grounds of falsifiability, that is, “the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown as false by an observation or a physical experiment”.

Falsifiability implies that if a certain condition applies to a situation, or a person, an inference may be drawn out of it and the same condition may not apply to all other similar situations or persons. For example, a man who is dark skinned is Asian. This does not mean that all dark skinned men are Asian or that all Asians are dark skinned. The law of attraction takes a few incidents where people have tasted success, and attempts to apply the same philosophy to all situations.

When judged by many scientific testing parameters the law fails to live up to its logical quotient. This means that the claims brought by the theory are unable to give an exact relation between the thought process and the results. The cause and effect relation, as posited, often overlooks the probable deterring factors or differences in circumstances. The theory makes a hypothetical study of human nature and draws out the inference, by frequent and repeated reference to a few instances, some of which may also be coincidences.

Modern believers in the law of attraction are of opinion that the theory originates from quantum physics, in its treatment of thoughts as atoms.

According to theories in quantum physics, the world is composed of countless atoms. Each of these atoms is charged with energy and is interchangeable, i.e. they can be used to influence each other and are open for infinite changes. This explains a sense of dynamism of thought. The law of attraction speaks on somewhat similar lines as quantum physics in terms of thought as energy atoms.

Following the example of quantum physics, the law supposes the human mind to be composed of thoughts. Each of these thoughts are like charged atoms which are capable of generating enormous power. The law of attraction, going further along the lines of quantum physics, points out, that since energy and matter are interchangeable and can be utilized for good results, the human mind, which is also open to changes, helps us in molding the situations in our life to shape our reality.

According to quantum physics atoms have energy and are drawn towards atoms with similar energy composition. So following that principle, the law of attraction states that thoughts like atoms are drawn towards same kind of thoughts. Thus, the law of attraction points out that “like attracts like”. This explains how thoughts relating to ones goal attract thoughts centering on the ways to achieve it, eventually attracting thoughts of reaching the goal.

Again, quantum physics points out that everything has potential and nothing is fixed, which means, if our goal is fixed, there are a number of ways to achieve it. In the same way, the law of attraction points out that if we are focused over what we want to achieve, nothing can prevent us from reaching it. Thus, quantum physics also speaks of what the law of attraction referred to as fending off negative thought through thinking.

Though the law of attraction bears similarity with quantum physics in many ways, it is not a scientific law, in the true sense of the term. The law of attraction is more a part of pseudoscience and a gathering of spiritual philosophies to gauge the power of human mind. Quantum physics may be considered a concrete means of explaining what the law of attraction aims at propagating.

The references to quantum physics made by the law of attraction are mostly incorrect. The proposition that thoughts, like atoms have energy fields is not a proven fact in science. The principles of thought, as supposed by the law of attraction, underline certain beliefs that are true in some cases and may be followed as example. Many of its credos have a hypothetical explanation, often attaching magical imagination. The law of attraction is mostly refined pseudoscience and has very less to do with concrete scientific truth.

Among the spiritual circles, the law of attraction is criticized strongly because of its attempts to hold individual ego and self will at unity with the higher self. The two are contradictory and cannot operate in synergy. On the other hand, the law of attraction which emphasizes repeatedly the inner consciousness and spiritual integrity makes a generalized statement; it overlooks the diversified collective mind and treats the single as the many.

The law of attraction refers to abundance. The theory explains profundity as feeling of happiness. The question is, why the law of attraction, (which is capable of resolving every situation), is unable to solve the problem of inequality of wealth? Moreover, the law of attraction aims at abundance, taking into account, there is enough for all and one only has to find his share of prosperity. The theory wants us to believe in a truth which hardly exists. The law of attraction does not delve deep enough to consider the societies or cultures where it cannot operate likewise.

The law of attraction, no doubt, is an inspiring theory dealing with the unrealized powers of mind. However, the theory appears too generalized and often misses out on external factors which may not be within the minds reach.

Presented by the Theory Working Group. Several prominent analytical legal theorists hold the view that the task of analytical jurisprudence is to identify the necessary features of law and leave discussion of contingent features to other disciplines. How should this view be assessed? In this paper I shall argue that a lack of emphasis on contingent relations and features of law both misrepresents some paradigm work in analytical jurisprudence, and worse, threatens to rigidify what are already paralyzing divisions between analytical jurisprudence and other theoretical approaches to understanding law. My aim is to take some initial steps towards rebalancing the purposes and methods of analytical jurisprudence by pursuing its intersections and continuities with related disciplines. MICHAEL GIUDICE is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at York University, Member of the Graduate Faculty at Osgoode Hall Law School, and Associate of the Jack and Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime, and Security. He has studied at both the University of New Brunswick (BA Hons) and McMaster University (MA, PhD), and was also a Visiting Student in Analytic Legal Philosophy and a Commonwealth Scholar at the University of Oxford. He has published several articles in the philosophy of law, and has just finished co-writing (with Keith Culver) Legality’s Borders: An Essay in General Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, forthcoming Feb. 2010).