The laws of physics can be misleading

in marketing?

Lesson 2:
Cause effect,
Reality ...

Ready? Here we go:


t | time

In marketing physical quantity type with the least availability - even before budget and staff - therefore mathematically linked to those with the dependency triple "If you have little time (1) for an expected effect under strong competition, you need a high budget (2) and / or a lot of staff (3)". The classic causality.


The addition of the, in contrast to the variables mentioned, almost completely self-determined (!) qualitative dimension 'courage'(e.g. on otherness) can optimize the equation.


v | speed

The highest possible speed with which the effect of a certain marketing measure can spread spatially (e.g. via> digital media) is Speed ​​of light c.

A force exerted at the speed of light (e.g. persuasive / motivational energy) can cause a Dimensions own only with lower speeds than c move.


You can accelerate slow action speeds (e.g. purchase) by increasing the acting force - also using the laws of leverage - or by inclining the straight plane.


The kinetic energy of a rigid body with its total mass M. and the speed vs = 0 its focus belies the amount of motivational energy that is responsible for this. This can under certain circumstances be very high, have been acting over a long period of time and have thus led to plastic deformations (> law of interaction, see above).

A Change of position with measurable speed greater than zero is only through one higher force than the one currently acting possible.

Increase your budget or creativity.


? | causality

The purchase seems to be the second of two appearances that always occur in the same sequence: from the first, "Advertising" called, it is said that it produces the second, which is no more sensible than if someone believes that coffee is the cause of cafes just because they have never seen a cafe that does not drink coffee. On the other hand, it can just as well apply that cafes are the cause of drinking coffee because this is not possible in the same place without them.

So is advertising the "cause" for a purchase? Or vice versa: the purchase is your requirement?


Who is right?

Is that a rabbit running across a field root cause for the dog that runs behind you? The dog owner will say so. The forester, on the other hand, said the dog was the cause of the rabbit "running away". A third argues with the big bang. Who is right? And with what right does it become "guilt"? Who should "be responsible"? When something "goes wrong"? Your employee?

"Nothing without a reason, no effect without a cause". But theirs Relationship, mostly as a sequence of related events, is - like many relationships - undesirably complicated:

Ever simultaneous Events occur the more more unsuccessful seems to succeed in simplifying what follows what and who is to blame. For example, Newton had no causal connection in mind for a flower vase flying horizontally through a room ("Cause? = Provocation energy of what is thrown at"), but established as the basis of the dynamics that both forces are equal and opposite (see above> law of interaction).

Storm probability 20%

This makes it difficult for a deterministic justiciability "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (1927), according to which only the probability predicts from later observations ("the flower vase will fly with 95% probability") - not what will actually happen. An event is just Not determined by a definable set of causes, but rather from the coincidence.

This quantum mechanical discovery (which is ineffective before courts seeking guilt) relieves mankind. In particular of Albert Einstein's claim that "coincidence" is only an excuse for ignorance and one has to find all the unknown causes ("God does not play dice"). But this is largely disproved. So Einstein was only right with a 20% probability.

In marketing

  • An event will only occur with a certain probability.
  • Each of your "safeguarding" measures is just an increase in the (security) probability - with the increased probability of reducing it (> "Worsening").
  • You can transfer the possibility observed in quantum physics that several mutually exclusive states can apply to one thing at the same time: A success can also be a failure at the same time, something right something wrong.
  • Thus, each cause has several effects, whereby only your assessment defines the effect and isolates it from the other probabilities of the state. So the effect of a z. B. at the same time masking the dominant market position the effect of redefining the portfolio (> see e.g. Kodak, Agfa, Polaroid, SONY, music industry, taxi trade, etc.)
    Opportunity for disruptive companies.
  • It may be "more correct" to do exactly the opposite of what is suggested to be linearly extended. This can never be ruled out. An answer to that can only be > Decision give.



./. | Decision

Misleading term, that means Parting from something, even if the prefix "Ent-" it (analogous to e.g. "Ent-disposal", "Ent-Mündungs", "Ent-Warning" etc.) answered in the negative. It is precisely this that induces the common mistake of being able to keep what is to be divorced when you divorce.

Not infrequently leads to high-energy states (> "decision-making difficulties"), often over longer decision periods (process of inner struggle with the acceptance of what is to be expected as a result after the parting).

Decisions are therefore as Future selections are always of a prognostic-speculative nature - nevertheless inevitable, since no decision is also one.


Reduce internal pressure: If you can't make a decision, decide that your decision doesn't have to be compulsively the "right" one: play. Please note the next point ...


-t | error

are retrospectively derogatory comparisons of the state from the position of post-temporal knowledge gain. That's why it is physically impossible, To make mistakes.

Such a skill sets one Time leap into the past advance to have shaped an earlier event with a knowledge acquired later (more precisely: the prematurity of the present before a past).

Even if time travel were possible such would want to avoid designing the event in the way it will be evaluated later. Correcting it would, however, change the future in such a way that there would be no reason to travel back in time to correct a mistake in the past. So the error could not be corrected at all, even though a journey through time was made to correct it ... = physical paradox (controversial in quantum physics because it cannot be experimentally carried out). So mistakes are impossible.

Other forms

"Errors" on the other hand, those im simultaneous knowledge of their defectiveness are committed either stupidity or so determined, willful behavior, Serving a (possibly unknown) purpose / program (e.g. self-tearing). So no mistakes.



Similar to the time paradox, the "error" (only in the opposite direction) is to achieve a goal Presence of an already past future helpful:

If in the here and now the effect of a state to be achieved can be seen in all details as "already fulfilled" and experienced emotionally "after" (Vision and identification), the target projection is powerful: the target / future "pulls" the present with its energies in his / her direction (> see also magnetism, below). The penalty taker hits the ball into the goal because he "saw" it there and "heard" the applause.


... are based on the same process, only unconsciously (hence the belief that they would be fulfilled "by themselves"). This does not mean that a target projection that one does not know (or suppressed out of fears, for example) does not work.

Gaps in the "target review" usually lead to not reaching the goal (which distinguishes it from the desire), often also to ...


+/- | Disappointments

Effects / results of incomplete> perception (see next section), Discoveries of the same as previous self-delusions. Those who are not mistaken cannot be disappointed (cf.> uninhibited / inhibited, etc.).

The much more common passive form ("have been deceived") serves as Responsible attempt to rescue the self-imagenot to have to be disappointed with your own (!) belief in something.

Problem: It doesn't matter to the emotional balance.

The charge energies positive (deception) and negative (disappointment) relate point-symmetrically to the transition point (red) of the phase change: A slowly increasing and intensive deception phase is followed by an equally intense and slowly decreasing deception phase. The polarity of the positive charge potential is usually reversed by the action of an external force (e.g. facts) into its negative of the same intensity.

The one that can be measured with the highest amplitude during this (mostly abrupt) charge reversal Anger Energy QE (e.g. anger, frustration ...) is directed only in self-referential systems against themselves (> "I'm an idiot", with the possibility of positive change) - in others against the inducers of self-deception (> "You idiot", without own conversion option).

In marketing

A measure, thing or person can only "disappoint" you if you have deceived yourself beforehand (e.g. with unrealistic expectations due to incomplete perception and / or a tendentious will to interpret).


~ | Perception

produces assumptions to be "true" - but not truths (reality). Because there are none.

Perception is a process of "to take as true", that is, the production of assumptions of truthfulness, even if it is an untruth. A lie can be perceived as true just like a truth, of which it is to be doubted whether it is true, since in the physical impossibility of perceiving everything to the full (limited sensors for ultrasound, infrared, wishes of the life partner, etc.) each "Truth" from a Interpretation of reality constructed from (perceptual) excerpts arises. Neurologically based views even speak of a "personal invention of reality" at the moment of perception.

(> see also video documentary on YouTube: "Is our reality just an illusion?" Click here for the film, but 41 min.)

Thematically, the ...


% | Probability

Established by quantum physics (> Copenhagen Interpretation, see> Causality) truer understanding of truthas it is this ("only") for one Sham (= a perception illusion) holds.

The ...


0 | objectivity

exists (if at all) only as an alternative to> "subjectivity" and is according to William Hazlitt (English essayist 1778-1830) "only possible where Subjects do not matter " - so nowhere.

"Objectivity" is a self-destructive illusion of a state: where there is nothing, nothing can be.



From a purely objective point of view ...

So where there are no subjects / subjectivities, objectivity would theoretically be possible. However, not observable by the subject and recognizable as such, since his observation changes what is observed through subjectification (> Heisenberg, Schrödinger et al.). The moment of observation destroys objectivity. Having already invented them in the brain makes them a paradox.

Method only

This is related to "objectivity" "Objectivity", also always a subjective product and thus part of the cosmos of forms of all emotions and - like the "ratio" - at best a method for mastering them. The control energy can reach critical levels (up to e.g.> incandescence) and trigger the opposite effects: e.g. B.> Anger discharge, often rated as a "hysterical attack", also rampage.

In marketing

1.) If subjects (people) are involved, objectivity does not exist in spite of the appeal to and evocation of the same. Statements like "you have to see that objectively" urge extreme caution, as they often do proportional to the intensity of the exposure mask a very subjective subject.

2.) Objectivity is a formal communication style for the production of the emotion "Objectivity" (often used by e.g. banks, insurance companies, etc.).


! | My Ung

First person singular of an expanded possessive pronoun, conjugable as Deinung, Seinung, Ihrung (not Irrung), Wirung (not Wirrung) and Unserung.

The Plurals suitable for consensus are rarely used: According to the Ptolemaic worldview ("everything revolves around me ") primarily used as an "opinion" - mostly even with a double reference to the ego ("I + mean ...", "My + opinion ...") - and, according to this solitary meaning, from the pronoun to the rank of a noun.

Yet massive validity problem, there
1.) Product of> perception (see there) and
2.) everyone has their own opinion anyway - even if it comes from others.


Self-defense opinion

Because there is no truth in systems of subjective participation (see> Perception,> Objectivity), but only interpretations of it, the opinion (your opinion, opinion, etc.) is the only quality there, inevitable, always personal, per se wrong and right at the same time ( Duality of the states according to Schrödinger, so only "probably right / wrong "). Due to the lack of objectivability, it really only counts to have one (principle of talk shows, among other things). In the" post-factual era * ", the less substantiated it is, the more willing it is to displace it. Truth Era "by Ralph Keyes, 2004).

freedom of speech

The so-called "freedom of expression" does not mean the state of the Absence of opinion (See e.g. "Accessibility", "Freedom from customs duties", "Impunity" or similar). Even if this were meant, only ignorance excuses such a *: A valuation starts with the beginning of knowledge (perception) - that of "irrelevance" is also a valuation.

*) Nevertheless, ignorance often leads to the formation of opinions. Rarely in the knowledge of not knowing anything.


F.ü | Persuasiveness

Perfect harmony of content and form - that's why so rarely.

On the other hand, energetic incongruities between assertion and proof are statistically more frequent and debilitating, e.g. B. if cleaning staff smells bad, laminate parquet wants to be, the doctor sick or an offer "super cheap" ... (etc.)

Conclusion: pay attention when choosing a partner ...

  • The Huh and Hott in the brain ...

The physics of skepticism

Discrepancies in multisensory perception (e.g. spoken language versus body language seen) as parallel signals sent to the brain that checks the plausibility of the Interferences as disturbances identified and generated as a result (usually) questions, skepticism or even mistrust.

For mental health reasons the brain tries such interference signals first with z. To harmonize and compensate for the high contribution of one's own energy (self-conviction, glossing over), especially in the case of conflicting goals (see> Decision). Frequent negative experiences dampen this process and can turn it into its opposite.

However, completely interference-free signals are extremely rare and the same magical borderline experiences (compare orgasm = highest congruence of all senses in absolute presence). Such spontaneous enthusiasm and conviction are difficult to convey with the classic (learned) forms of marketing.


"" | Free will

The belief in "acting of free will" is one peacemaking imagination to confirm a chosen self-image - one (after Einstein)"sheer illusion" so.

In other words: why people "free will" take on physical exertion, high financial burdens and even existential risks with danger to life and limb ...

  • Enjoy your cake ...

Who has the power?

The implies that something can actually happen of free will Knowledge of all aspects that determine the will as well as the unrestricted freedom of choice about it ahead. But at the latest at physiological constraints (Hunger, thirst, urge to urinate, tiredness, freezing, etc.) it ends. Not far from it existential constraints like living, earning money, mobility, hygiene, security, etc., followed by social dimensions like recognition, belonging, love, status, self-reward (sugar-dose cake), ... and cultural as well as spiritual goals (see, inter alia,> Abraham Maslow, Hierarchy of Needs).

Will: a jungle of motifs

All of these are very early ("my fetus is already listening to Mozart") formed by a whole broad side acting forces, z. B. of genetic codes, biochemical processes, (early) child experiences, social environment, value conventions, habits / patterns, role models, etc.
All are included in this equally "negative", often taboo forces like laziness, cowardice, greed, vanity, cruelty, etc ... incl. all energies of oppression and repression that All in all, an increasingly interwoven motif network that is becoming increasingly transparent in its complexity form (> "character / personality", the recognition of which nourishes whole professional groups) ..

Anyone who still claims to eat his cake "free, self-determined will" overlooks a) the origin of the desire for cake, b) the motive for believing in "voluntariness" (acutely and per se), c) the reason to assert this and thus to justify or defend it. "Self-confidence" - in everyday life rather monodimensionally understood as "assertiveness" - means, however, the awareness of oneself.

Conclusion Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants".


:- | I

Noun personal pronoun used by the expressing person on yourself refers ("cogito ergo sum") - less often, however, to his inherent responsibility for himself (corresponding to Freud's foreign-determining "it" and relieving passive position "I became ...", "They gave me ...").

According to what is differentiated in psychology Super- and I-ego from marketing primarily as linear causal and - in the market model of the "target groups" - at the same time collective Consumption I. hoped, makes this increasingly self-determined in over-saturated markets Validity I. ("92 like this") place - still sufficiently removed from the "cogito" life qualifying Knowledge I..

The latter, as it is mostly assigned to esotericism, generally remains outside the radar of conventional product developments and marketing, although there are opportunities for both, as it is sustainable and ethically constructive.

  • The highest goal of the I:


peace as a higher form of (situational) happiness: perfect harmony with yourselfregardless of the stylistic form.
The most frequent question: how to achieve? A simple mind helps - intellectuality, on the other hand, has to overcome itself in order not to rotate in autoprogrammatic doubt.

Impossible as a stable state

There lasting peace not provided for in the universal evolutionary concept is ("eat & be eaten", even physics already excludes stable states on a subatomic level - and consequently on every other level), peace is rare, always temporary, causally ambiguous and (among other things because of that?) so desired: Whom it does not succeed psychologically, it brings about it physically (often chemically).

So the peace after a potato chip usually only lasts very short, that after a tax assessment maybe longer. The Christmas peace comes - following the wave dynamics of the grocers - already on the shelves at the end of August, from January 7th Easter. Every state includes its detachment - mostly as its opposite pole ..

Weigh in safety - until you fall asleep

The Predictability in the periodic offers certainty and with it the longed-for "peace". But because it makes you tiredhe allows himself the Aberration. Not to the extent that it would become a strife, but a little. We like to entertain you. Bernd Opinioner's line of text "A bit of peace" (music: Ralph Siegel, singer Nicole), which is still criticized today, finds its deeper meaning and thus also the criticized their own bit of peace.

More is after the Laws of physics also not possible at all.


@ | Data-i

Much more inaccessible "second" identity of the already complicated self - not to be confused with "split" or "multiple personality" (alter ego / shadow), but actually physically independent parallel identity,

  • consisting of the digitally collected sum of all behavior including inactivity (with a wide scope for interpretation as to the reasons),
  • created interpretatively by those serving external interests, withdrawn from the self-determination of the "primary" ego Linkage and evaluation algorithms,