It is a widely held belief that we create our own reality by way of our convictions and beliefs. What we are deeply convinced that should happen, not rarely actually manifests in the real world. It’s a phenomenon that we all know. We sometimes call it self-fulfilling prophecy, or we find it in proverbs such as »Faith can move mountains«. If you are a spiritual or religious person, you are likely to accept this phenomenon as real. If not, you probably regard it as a kind of superstition, but even then you can likely think of situations where you seemed to be able to manifest reality just by having a strong conviction or intention about it.
A while ago, it occurred to me that we are actually constantly projecting our future reality – any conscious action that we perform is linked to this kind of future-projection. As we form an intention to perform a certain action, we project a future where this action has already occurred, and if we can overcome any barriers that inhibit our action, we act. Most of the time, this happens unconsciously, and the span of time that we project into the future is quite small (fractions of a second), as many of our intentions are immediately followed by the corresponding actions, causing the projected future to manifest near-instantly. Anything we do could be regarded as the projection of intention into a future where they become real.
Larger goals need more far-reaching future projections and more complex intentions (affirmations). Any abstract goal (being further ahead in time) can only be reached by a large number of actions, all requiring the appropriate intention. But even small goals, such as reading this article, can probably be broken down into smaller micro-goals, requiring micro-intention, such as reading the next sentence, and this is further broken down to reading the next word, etc. – all taking place unconsciously. As time advances, the intentions are upheld, resulting in a continuation and perpetuation of these micro-projections of the immediate future, continuously forming our reality. As intention results in action and actions follow upon actions, we are able to (in)form our own reality to any level of complexity.
Last night, I came upon a more elaborate hypothesis of how we may actually influence (create) reality in this way. I was lying in bed with a hot water bottle because I was cold, and I was troubled by the idea that this would make me more prone to freezing the next day as I would get too used to this external heat source instead of training my body to adjust to the ambient temperature on its own. In other words, I was anxious about using the hot water bottle because I thought it would make it harder for me to deal with natural changes in outside temperature. I then started to questioning this belief, wondering if it was actually true and not just a conviction. It occurred to me that using the hot water bottle might just as well not have any effect at all on my ability to withstand cold. But if I deeply held the conviction that it did, would this manifest in my actually having problems dealing with cold? In other words, would my reality somehow »adjust« to my belief?
I then thought about how convictions may actually shape reality. I intuited that a deeply held conviction (belief) would create a kind of shadow-reality, or reality template, where this conviction is manifested as truth, and project it ahead into the future. Actual reality would then tend to align (match) with this reality template, increasing the likelihood that the projected reality (based on conviction) becomes real. The reality template would lower the energy barrier for this specific reality to manifest, just as a chemical catalyst lowers the activation energy for a specific reaction to take place, increasing the likelihood for this very reaction to happen. Put another way, the projected reality template affects the entropic conditions for a specific reality to come into being, out of all the possible realities. In the same way, a chemical catalyst makes a certain reaction product much more likely to appear out of the various other reactions that can take place, because it lowers the energetic barrier for this specific reaction, whereas other reactions are energetically inhibited in comparison.
Because of the energetic interaction, the reality template and actual reality would tend to resonate, that is, the more they already match, the more likely that actual reality would behave as »predicted« by the reality template.
I realised that my notion of »reality templates« has quite a lot in common with Rupert Sheldrake’s notion of morphic fields and morphic resonance, as described in his book »The Science Delusion«. Sheldrake posits that morphic fields exist, which shape reality by providing a kind of memory (or template) of how physical reality should arrange, favouring certain arrangements over other ones out of the innumerable number of possible arrangements allowed by physical laws. Some of the examples he gives where morphic fields could play a role are the arrangement of cells in living organisms (something that is not fully explained by currently known biochemical mechanisms), or, on a lower level, the spatial arrangement of atoms in proteins (which always occur in nature in a very specific singular shape, even though a very large number of possible shapes would be energetically favourable; as of today, it’s impossible to determine (predict) the natural structure of a protein from minimal-energy calculations alone).
According to Sheldrake, due to morphic resonance, nature would tend to assume shapes or arrangements that have been »used« before, the morphic field providing the »memory« of this previous arrangement. The more often an arrangement has been used, the more likely it will occur in the future. He provides some very interesting real-world examples of this phenomenon, such as the fact that chemists are sometimes unable to make certain chemical compounds form crystals, but as soon as a laboratory somewhere does manage to make crystals of the compound, other labs all over the world are suddenly able to crystallise the compound as well.
Sheldrake mentions the notion of chreodes, which are the »beaten paths« that natural phenomena tend to follow. The more often the path has been followed, the more deeply entrenched it is, forcing phenomena to follow the path more closely, which in turn deepens the path, establishing a kind of self-reinforcing resonance. On an energetic level, the chreodes correspond to »sinks« where the entropy for a certain arrangement or behaviour is reduced, which causes this specific arrangement to be preferred.
In my hypothesis, what happens when we have strong convictions about how things will turn out is that we cause chreodes to form in the future, providing a path or guide for reality to align with. It is possible that we are capable of this by directly interacting with the morphic field using our consciousness.
As to how exactly we would be able to affect the future in this way, I have two ideas. The first is that morphic fields may exist independently of time, providing a framework for reality to resonate with as soon as the present moment calls for its (re)arrangement. The other is that our projection of the reality template is self-propagating through being consciously upheld as time progresses. As soon as we form an intention, causing a projected future reality to take shape, this intention is perpetuated as time advances, since we keep up the intention while progressing along with the present. You can imagine a kind of »beam« of future reality that we project outward, carrying it along with us through time. At each point in time, the projection into the future is infinitesimally small (and would practically be measured as zero), but as we keep it up while time is advancing, in sum, we are able to project an intention across long stretches of time, even (theoretically) until infinity. All that is required for this projection to be upheld is our continued intention.
If this is truly what happens, then whatever future we predict for ourselves has an elevated likelihood of becoming factual reality. Thus, we would be quite literally shaping our own future purely by way of our intentions, which are in turn based on our convictions.
Not all convictions will become reality. If the conviction is not held deeply enough, intention does not lead to action. If the energetic barrier to overcome for an action or change to take place is too high, this change will not occur. For example, a very »irrational« or divergent conviction is unlikely to manifest as reality, as the entropic threshold for actual reality to align with the corresponding reality template cannot be overcome.
As the hypothetical phenomenon described is resonant, any actual change of reality that is in alignment with the projected reality, reinforces that path for reality to follow. If we see that the change we hope or wish for becomes true, even in the most infinitesimally small increments, our intention is re-inforced, strengthening the path (chreode) that our reality will follow. If reality matches up with our convictions, our convictions become stronger, in turn causing reality to align further with what we believe.
If a single person can affect reality by way of his intentions, then a number of persons can affect reality more strongly, due to the resonant nature of the mechanism. The more people project a certain kind of future outwards, the more likely it is to manifest in actual reality, as the individual projected reality templates tend to resonate and become amplified, forming deeper chreodes for actual reality to align with. And we do observe that a change is much more likely to happen if a larger number of people support it.
A more complex future goal requires strongly held convictions (resulting in intention and action) over a long timespan to allow the corresponding chreodes to form and deepen. If more people support the same goal, the entropic barrier for its manifestation as actual reality is lowered. This corresponds to basic, everyday observations and insights: if you want to reach a certain goal, you have to believe in it strongly, and if you get more people »on board«, you are more likely to reach that goal. If you are a secular person, you may practice affirmation to reach your goal; if you’re religious, you use your faith. Both affirmation and faith are essentially the same thing: strongly held conviction.
In another extension of my hypothesis, I have examined the notion that »energy goes where attention flows, energy flows where attention goes«. This is the idea that wherever you focus your attention, change happens, which entails a conversion of energy. Quite literally, any physical change that occurs corresponds to a rearrangement of matter, which involves shifts of energy. The individual energy shifts are tiny, but they may add up to a considerable turnover.
How is attention linked with change? In my hypothesis, wherever we focus our attention, we cause our convictions and intentions to project a »locally constricted« reality template, which affects actual reality as described above, causing an increased turnover of energy in the »target domain«. You can imagine attention as a focusing of your projected future reality »beam« onto a local area of reality. The obvious analogy is to shine a light onto something that you are looking at and focusing it with a magnifying glass. In the focus point, the light beam causes a local change in temperature that may be intense enough to start a fire.
If my hypothesis has any degree of factual truth to it – as of now, it is just an idea that needs to be explored – we can in fact affect reality purely through consciousness. If our thoughts, leading to convictions, leading to action, affect reality, then we should be careful of how we use this power. After all, whatever thought you held strongly enough would eventually become manifest. Or, as the saying goes: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!