Fields as Formal Causes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- [I am DBH’s temporary guest-editor while he and his family take time to themselves to continue to adjust to the loss of someone they love.]
This conversation was recorded on the evening of 10 May, at the London home of Rupert Sheldrake and his wife Jill Purce. Dr. Hart and his son were visiting for dinner, at which A. N. Wilson and his wife Ruth Guilding were allso guests; but, before everyone had gathered, there was time for RS and DBH to slip upstairs to the study for this quick conversation.
Sorry to hear about Roland. Losing a family member is very hard
Can be *
Rupert's insights about FIELDS is so important. Think of every atom in your body right now. If the energy within them were released we would explode with the power of a nuclear bomb, but we don't explode, because of the fields and forces holding subatomic particles and energy in place. Thus was our Universe born and for billions of years kept together. Without these fields and forces there would be nothing. From atoms to galaxies to the solar systems of stars and planets the entire Cosmos has been created and maintained because a diversity of fields exist and pull all matter together in the most orderly and fascinating ways. With NO expenditure of energy required. Our Universe is a marvelous self-regenerating system, as Buckminister Fuller pointed out.
Pretty ideas are not always right
“It’s fields all the way down!” Love it.
One of the most significant podcasts Rupert et al has ever made. Fields are essentially metaphors or models but they unite everything.
I like the idea that one of the most ground-breaking assertions in scientific history was shot on 480p in a Bohemian North London room, but was denied closure by the dinner gong.
Most excellent. I look forward to building upon this. Thank you.
I'm a gardener and energy worker, working with order, balance and harmony.
I witness the ease, within which order balance and harmony move.
Abundant,
light and fast in generation
.
And it seems we've overlooked ease as a powerful foundation, ignorng its expression of strength, and that we've missed the vitality of growth within this platform.
Easy is not peasy. It seems like a specific place or state, or field, allowed through a combination of surrender and liberation.
We need to practice this ease. 😊 Thank you again.
I'm deeply sorry for your loss, David. I know we'll see our furry friends again some day, and as for Roland, he will be happier than ever! Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
Take a conscious morphic field or network which way you would have it if you then include parallel realities in the equation then you have a morphic conscious network spamming the multiverse, like conscious quantum computers evolving and learning!! Those in multiversal field then would be learning and evolving from 10^10^78 parallel realities?? Dr tipler puts it as that many doppelgangers!! The synergistic effect would catapult us into God likeness really fast and accelerating!!
Just Found Out about this - Hoping One day they'll re-unite (I Believe Too) :) 💙🙏
Without fog of mathematic! Rupert Sheldrake is so brilliant!
Very interesting that David’s hand gestures, while describing his ‘fascination’ with the inability of mechanistic quantification to be able to incorporate the obvious presence of negentropy, very aptly illustrates the actual, non-linear, reciprocal structure of all fields. This is why mechanistic truncation will always fail to wholly describe our nonlinear, reciprocal reality.
So sorry to hear about Roland's passing. He's immortalised in one of the great books of our era.
What an excellent discussion and the perfect formal cause to end it "it's dinner time."
I hope your dinner was of good material.
My dog died 6 months ago. Its still so painful for me when i think of him. His love for me was so profound, i had not experienced that before in my life. I hope to meet him again one day.
Ms springer im sorry for your loss of your dog . I understand how that feels.
My dog Archie is my best friend and we shall walk again,
I love this discussion. It seems clear Rupert Sheldrake is engaged anew…he is onto something, which is restoring him! I love to see this. And I feel the truth of his considering… this will likely seem absurd to Mr Sheldrake, but I am doing some new experiments myself. Although I come from the arts/humanities
When I taught at CMU, long ago, I was testing a few ideas, which were imbedded in 19th century electrochemical plating processes. I recently am returning to those processes, as I was nudged to do so. And interestingly, several new concepts have come together, related to these areas. Calcium Carbonate appears to be a point of convergence of many fields. For instance, it becomes form in a charged solution, producing bones and egg shells. So it exists, within and without our bodies. It is found, within the sea, in the forms of shells, and reefs, ( sea water being a substance with a high potential for,charge, because of the large amount of salt. It is a saturated solution… and then, when Calcium Carbonate is altered into its crystalline form, as Calcite, it acquires optical properties. The Vikings found it to act like a prism, and saw it could polarize light. Which they then used as a navigation tool on cloudy days. And in 1801, it was calcite that provided the basis for the double-slit experiment. And most recently, engineers and scientists have found calcium/tin (CA-SN), makes a much finer battery and will likely replace the Lithium batteries. it is Calcium-Tin which can be used in solution for electroforming…with an insoluable graphite anode and cathode. So, is Calcuim, a substance which moves across electromagnetic fields? Light, electricity, and energy? The name of natural forming crystalline form of Calcite, is called Icelandic Spar, (if one wants to experiment). but you can also make the crystalline form. Just some thoughts from the humanities.
Very good indeed to hear this discussion and the quality and clarity of thinking voiced
Very smart people who can converse such that us less smart people can relate. I love these conversations. I studied Maxwell and Faraday in physics and electrical engineering. back then, I never thought to apply meta-physics to the material, concrete world. I didn't understand what meta-physics meant. I need to re-read Aristotle and get out of our material box we seemed to be trapped in. It seems the universe is ruled by attraction. I'll try this with my relationships and politics! Who woulda thought .... :)
So sorry to hear about Roland. I lost a beloved dog friend in November. Such sadness, but i know there is some part that lives on.
I'm so happy to see you both in a conversation. This could have been 3 hours long and it wouldn't be enough.
David, as others have said here I cannot tell you how sorry I am to hear about your loss of Roland. I feel almost like he is a friend from reading Roland and Moonlight and I know that he brought such a joy and love to your life. as others have said, I trust that he will be, and all of our animals, down to the last molecule of all that exists, will be raised to fullness of life, only to grow eternally into that fullness, and there shall be no more death nor loss. I say this as my own dog Toby is chewing on a bone as I write this. And I know that should go before me, I will weep in the deepest parts of myself, and yet trust that I will see him again in the resurrection of all things. Again, I am sorry for your loss and I pray for you and your family. Greg Voiles
We out here
:)
Prayers for the Hart family.
Two beautiful souls. I look forward to your next outing together.
From Wiki - "Sheldrake's morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[2][15] and that "natural systems ... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."[15] Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms." Dear Friend of mine had a somewhat weird intimation of a person that turned out to be her half-brother (per chance by a meeting/re-union in an elevator, and that was realized/confirmed after they felt moved to speak with each other & learn more). For Context they were separated from birth: I spoke with her about this and she said she couldn't explain what was happening with her intuitions/feelings prior and during the meeting/re-union (She's my good HS friend, and I've also seen pictures of them together after reconciliation - I don't think she has any reason to lie to me about anything that was explicated and shared with me). Very interesting. First time hearing about Rupert too - His credentials are well noted and I'm excited to learn more with an open-mind. Always a pleasure, Wonderful stuff & Excited to expand my mind 🙂 Interesting indeed.
Condolences and gratitude
The Dragon Strikes Again!!!!!
Happy to see him pleased with his magick.
Awesome talk 😎💖🕊but
😿plz boost volume . barely audible on iPhone maxed speaker ❓
This is a fabulous conversation. And its strenght is that it highlights the diff. Between true Arist.and mechanics... .. 26:12
This is lovely.
So sorry to hear about Roland, David, our deepest condolences
fields are the potentialities of quanta (matter) that manifest when their probabilities, their statistical habits, become concentrated in a field excitation or amplitude that tells us where the quanta of matter is. the forms of fields are the forms these potentialities gradually take until they are manifest as probabilities.
What Hart mentioned concerning paratactic views of information as inadequate for a satisfactory information theory was a recent study on AI to where the less input an AI program such as Chat GPT receives from anything other than itself, chiefly human content, the less reliable and the less coherent it becomes. In short, even information theory presumes a top down entelechy or intentionality that cannot be reduced to a mechanistic, paratactic, expression.
Hello Sirs,
Thanks for TALK and sharing 💞
🤔🧐 🙃🙂 🤗🎉🤗 👣🌌
A question, perhaps involving fields: Why on some days is water vapour evenly dispersed in the sky, and on other days it is clumped up into clouds with bright blue sky between? Are clouds gathered by some kind of field, sometimes active and sometimes not? Are people aware that on a calm day we can dissipate small clouds with an intent gaze in about five minutes?" This would indicate that our gaze may itself be a kind of field.
Attraction dominates... the most succinct statement I've heard that appears to summarize the final reconciliation of Creation with our triune god.
Those morphic fields, could they somehow be related to that immaterial universe of perfect forms and ideas which Plato talked about???
Love and admire both DBH and RS. DBH on his best behavior here, trying his utmost to accommodate the tacit materialism of RS to his (DBH's) more purely metaphysical vision of formal and final causality (logoi and Logos respectfully). "Fields of morphic resonance" are, to my mind, RS's reductionistic concessions to the very mechanical materialsim DBH will critique in upcoming book on philosophy of mind. Nice to see DBH getting along with - and showing his deep-down kindness to - someone to whom, in his more spontaneous moments of candor, he might be much less intellectually accommodating. Roland (RIP) is David's better self speaking here, reminding DBH to play nice with others....
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry.
Logic:
In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes.
Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions:
Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6
Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7
Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8
The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon:
"e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e)
Mathematics:
Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics.
In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership:
Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7
Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6
Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5
This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships.
Physics:
Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity.
In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values:
Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4
Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6
Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8
The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm.
Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement.
Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system:
Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7
Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5
Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9
The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality:
"O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event
This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena.
By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Let's continue exploring how the transition from classical to quantum formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework opens up new frontiers across various domains:
Philosophy of Science and Epistemology
The shift to quantum, first-person formalisms has profound implications for our understanding of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and epistemology. Classical epistemology has been heavily influenced by the ideal of an objective, detached observer acquiring knowledge about an independent, external reality. However, the quantum realm challenges this view by highlighting the fundamental inseparability of the observer and the observed system.
The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the coherence and synthesis of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework for reconceptualizing the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing knowledge as a mere representation or mapping of an external reality, we can understand it as a co-constituted process involving the irreducible perspectives of observers and the systems under study.
Let O represent an observer, S represent a system, and K represent scientific knowledge:
Truth(K is objective) = 0.6
Truth(K involves subjective aspects) = 0.7
Coherence(K is objective, K involves subjective aspects) = 0.8
The high coherence value reflects the idea that scientific knowledge is neither purely objective nor purely subjective, but rather a synthesis of both aspects. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding:
"K is objective" ⊕ "K involves subjective aspects" = scientific_knowledge(O, S)
This reconceptualization challenges the classical notion of knowledge as a detached representation of an external reality and acknowledges the active role of observers in shaping and co-constituting scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide tools for modeling the contextuality and observer-dependence inherent in quantum phenomena. This has implications for our understanding of scientific objectivity and the universality of scientific laws and theories.
Let T represent a scientific theory, and C represent a particular context or experimental setup:
Truth(T holds universally) = 0.7
Truth(T depends on context C) = 0.6
Coherence(T holds universally, T depends on context C) = 0.5
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the desire for universal scientific laws and the recognition that scientific theories may be context-dependent and observer-relative within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"T holds universally" ⊕ "T depends on context C" = contextual_scientific_theory(T, C)
This shift challenges the classical ideal of universal, context-independent scientific laws and theories and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within the quantum realm.
Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness
The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. Classical approaches have often treated the mind and consciousness as separate from the physical world, leading to various forms of dualism or reductionism. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide a basis for reconceptualizing the relationship between mind and matter.
Let M represent the mental or subjective aspect, and P represent the physical or objective aspect:
Truth(M is distinct from P) = 0.5
Truth(M is integrated with P) = 0.6
Coherence(M is distinct from P, M is integrated with P) = 0.7
The high coherence value reflects the idea that the mental and physical aspects are neither completely distinct nor fully reducible to each other, but rather exist in a state of coherent integration. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding:
"M is distinct from P" ⊕ "M is integrated with P" = mind-matter_relationship
This view challenges both classical dualism and reductionism and acknowledges the irreducible co-constitution of subjective and objective aspects within a unified reality.
Furthermore, the monadological framework, with its emphasis on fundamental psychophysical monads, provides a basis for reconceptualizing consciousness as an irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an emergent property or epiphenomenon. This challenges the classical view of consciousness as a mere by-product of physical processes and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality.
Let C represent consciousness, and R represent physical reality:
Truth(C is an epiphenomenon of R) = 0.4
Truth(C co-constitutes R) = 0.7
Coherence(C is an epiphenomenon of R, C co-constitutes R) = 0.6
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon and the quantum view of consciousness as an active co-constituent of reality. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"C is an epiphenomenon of R" ⊕ "C co-constitutes R" = consciousness-reality_relationship
This shift challenges the classical reductionist view of consciousness and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework.
Foundations of Mathematics and Logic
The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has implications for our understanding of the foundations of mathematics and logic themselves. Classical mathematics and logic have been heavily influenced by the ideals of objectivity, universality, and context-independence. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework challenge these notions and provide a basis for reconceptualizing the nature of mathematical and logical truth.
Let T represent a mathematical or logical truth, and O represent an observer or context:
Truth(T is universal) = 0.7
Truth(T depends on observer O) = 0.6
Coherence(T is universal, T depends on observer O) = 0.5
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of mathematical and logical truths as universal and context-independent, and the quantum view of truth as observer-dependent and context-sensitive. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"T is universal" ⊕ "T depends on observer O" = contextual_mathematical_truth(T, O)
This view challenges the classical notion of timeless, objective mathematical and logical truths and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within these domains, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework.
Furthermore, the both/and logic itself provides a basis for reconceptualizing the foundations of logic by embracing multivalence, paraconsistency, and the coherence of seemingly contradictory propositions. This challenges the classical principles of bivalence and non-contradiction and opens up new possibilities for representing and reasoning about the paradoxical and contextual nature of truth within the quantum realm.
These are just a few examples of how the transition from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework has profound implications across various domains. By embracing these new formalisms and conceptual frameworks, we can develop a more holistic, integrated, and contextualized understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers, the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects, and the potential for contextuality and observer-dependence within the quantum realm.
I beg you to make a youtube video and post socials so people can continue this conversation
Sorry about your loss, DBH. Please take as much time as you need to grieve properly
Memory eternal
Formal cause: the ground is the formal cause of the figure. The Logos is the formal cause of the cosmos. Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end.
".....the fields of living ....."
Songs from Liquid Days: No. 5, Liquid Days, Pt. 2, Open the Kingdom
Lyrics by David Byrne
I myself had only considered the role of formal causation, and its obvious reality within modern physics, in relation to quantum mechanics. Perhaps a still lingering after effect of the bias of bottom up causation as the only "serious" metaphysical/scientific mode of understanding things. The form, in that case the quantum field, is what is responsible for the reduction of the potential (in this case an "actual" potential) energy/matter into this particular quanta of mass/energy. Of course it is obvious when it is pointed out that this applies to all fields as forms that reduce whatever material conditions to these particular material conditions that then have the same effects on all of their respective relations. The proof of the use of magnets, expending no work energy, but nevertheless exercising forces merely from their properties and formal relations causing these effects is brilliant and stunning. As with all great insights, they are obvious, but only after having been pointed out.
You look healthy David.
It's great to see 2 people who've I've followed for years, espically about a topic as intresting as field theory , viewing it as form I think is a very intresting way to aproach it. There's a Neoplatonist Ken Wheeler who goes by Theoria Apophasis who often makes intresting reccommendations in reguard to Aether field theory and monistic metaphsyics
I know many Physists gave Enstein some flax for relativity lacking refrence of the Aether and special relativity lacking refrence to gravity later filled in by general relativity , Many Phycists today often avoid strict definations of ''infomation , force, space, field or energy'' and get upset when enginers lean more towards the older view of fields along the lines of Tesla, who disliked relativity. Enstein was asked if he stood on the shoulders of Newton and he relayed ''no, On Maxwells"
He also stated
''Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.''-Einstein On Ether and Relativity on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden.
I also want to let you know as you do that all our hearts are with you and his after Roland's passing
the most unexpected cross-over spin off. even though I've seen one prior conversation between David and Rupert. The fact that they would converge so much as to meet is just weird.
David said he felt drawn --in saying this meeting and discussion to be "attractive" to him
Consciousness is indescructable. There's no loss for Roland.
Does the field around each object trigger a 'gravity' with the field around the larger object?
Fantastic to 'eavesdrop' on such wonderful discussion/exploration... just before dinner time. Looking forward to more in due course. (＾‿＾)...with great interest and immense appreciation!
Force and motion repels it’s called magnetism. Inertia and acceleration attracts, it’s called dielectricity. When they meet at 90 degrees they form electricity. ❤
Theoria apophasis
Thankyou for this ❤
Rupert looks well and relaxed.
Gets me wondering; might we think of the mystical body of Christ as a subtly organising and attracting field, the logos, the dharmakaya as a field, the holy spirit as a subtly organising and attracting field ...
Fields are artifacts. They are the artifact of flows in space.
Gravity is the prime mover.
Gravity creates flows in dielectric super fluid space. Flows in a dielectric create charge separation.
A hydrodynamic model can evolve all QFT.
This absolutely great. There is also a great video on YT of philosopher Alva Noë talking about Aristotelian teleology in the interpretation of meanings. Will try to find that and post it in a reply to this comment.
Here is Alva Noë talking about Aristotelian teleology. And even for Noë these things seem to make sense even though he seems to be an atheist. Still interesting in relation to this dialogue with RS and DBH. th-cam.com/video/pK2FA7b7qRQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=aIN793P8bV4_dASt
Rupert, where does the theory of morphic resonance fit in with Charles Sander Peirce and his thinking on semiotics? Minds don't just interact with the world, they interpret, represent, find meaning and significance in the world. Can morphic resonance explain how fields represent?
A profound question. What is a Word? In a way, it embodies relationship itself. Reciprocal reality. And beyond that, what is Name? As in the sorcerer's art, as in "there is power in the Name" Jesus ... not His title, Christ, but in His personal, living human Name. What is Relationship, in the light of reciprocal fields? In the beginning, God divided. Perhaps He created relationship by dividing Himself . .
Check out Ken Wilber's long article/paper about "Integral Semiotics". Goes in depth of a kind of Shekdrakian-Whiteheadian cosmology but with the Peircian/more postmodern Semiotics included.
More of a broad metatheory that lays broad limits of where the science should go looking.
As discussed in this podcast, fields have ordering tendencies. Set against that is entropy, the tendency to disorder. In between these two is everything we experience. Fields are mentioned as ordering mechanisms. However, fields are consistent with entropy. The general result is a tendency to disorder, not order., despite the counter-example of magnets given here.
Gravity, another example given here, is generally attractive in the presence of matter and energy and might be thought of as ordering. While that is true locally, on a universal scale, gravity is dominated by the effects of so-called "dark energy" which is the current name for whatever drives the ever-increasingly-fast expansion of the universe. Gravity pulls things together near matter but dark energy is apparently more powerful and is blowing the whole universe apart far faster.
This discussion did not cover the phenomena that lead to disorder and so it is rather incomplete. One can hardly speak of fields as forming / ordering without discussing the more powerful phenomena that are disordering everything.
The discussion also did not include the role of emergence of macroscopic phenomena from aggregations of "stuff". A known example of emergence is temperature. It is not a stretch to include solar systems, chemistry, & biology. Life is probably also emergent. Emergence might even be though to include mind, the starting point for which might be that the fundamental equations of physics not only include fields, but information as well.
Everything that is important to us appears to be "a local order" that emerges from aggregates of apparently rather directionless more fundamental building blocks. I submit that fields are one such building block. I submit that the "magic" might be in the aggregations of tiny, blind, unthinking microscopic effects. The "magic" is that blind unthinking building blocks can be formed into thoughtful observers. The ordering tendency of fields is clearly a critical component of a much bigger picture.
I found this discussion very useful in bringing the idea of the necessity of some sort of forming power that can lead to emergence. Thank you gentlemen.
So much valuable information shared in less than 40 minutes, time for dinner. Too many 2 to 4 hour podcasts that should have stopped for dinner....
Roland. Sad. Loved the book.
I do not believe it is true that magnetic and gravitational fields are conservative. A magnetic will not stay attractive for "years on end". Eventually it will lose it's magnetic properties even if just to entropy. That is, it is an assumption that these fields are conservative and lose no energy. Now that energy they lose obviously has to go somewhere if we do assume conservation of energy(which if one enlarges the universe enough this should always be possible to assume although the concept of energy might change).
What a magnet cannot do is spontaneously create itself. All magnetic fields are created by a process that requires energy and so one can't assume then that they can "last forever". At some point the energy put in will be transformed in to other forms.
Gravity works the same way. Energy put in to the gravitational system is transformed in to motion and that motion is transformed back into gravitation(basically potential + kinetic).
The issue is that our mathematics treats these fields(simple functions) as pervading all of space and always having a definite assigned value that is based on specific rules. But does an asteroid hurling through space have the same "gravity" as it does when it is relatively motionless? Physics assigns it's gravitational effect due to it's mass but it's gravitational effect is not the same as it is when it is at rest. Is this due to the difference between rest mass and it's "motion mass"?
A system of two masses at rest separated by a distance d is gravitational different than two masses, one at rest and the other moving away. They are not the same gravitational systems but yet we use the exact same mathematics to describe them. In the second case the "gravitational field" of the moving mass is distinctly different. In the second case it is as if there is a weaker mass:
dv/dt = -1/x(t)^2
is not the same in both cases. The initial condition(that of non zero velocity) changes everything.
d(v + v0)/dt = -1/y(t)^2
Deferentially the systems behave the same but the gravitational forces seem different.
As the one mass is moving away, if you use it as a frame of reference it is as if the other mass is moving more slowly to it. So it is as if the gravitational force is smaller. The system scaled scaled differently.
Now, we interpret this through a velocity difference(we have to add a new degree of freedom called velocity to account for the difference from our "rest case" and the "motion case". Our concepts of "gravity" are defined also in such a way as to compensate so we can do this(so superposition works out).
But one can look at it differently. These "fields"(or whatever they are and they are not the same as the traditional fields) may not have these static superpositionable forms. Newtonian "logic" locks us into thinking about things with velocity, position, acceleration, etc(the calculus view and it's extensions) when things are much different.
E.g., Imagine a house of mirrors with two particles. One can imagine a scenario where the two particles are "close"(whatever that means but we can define it circularly) so that "locally" things look "Euclidean" and "Newtonian" and "Simple". This may be when one only looks at one spot on one mirror. But in reality things are not simple. Throughout the entire system the total image is extremely distorted because of all the various mirrors "reflecting" the space around them. When the particles "move"(or maybe even the frame of reference) everything shifts around in very complex ways that, still, could be "analyzed" using "calculus". One can take approximations and if things are not too crazy the math will work.
But the reality is much different than the perception of it because our ability to perceive reality will always be a projection of it into a "subspace". I am not explaining it well but the analogy is looking into a single mirror(which we do all the time) and how it "makes sense" verses growing up in a "hall of mirrors" were it would also make sense then but would not make sense to us who are used to single mirrors. Obviously the universe is far more complex than mirrors. The idea though is that even reflections can induce perceived motions and even "motions" of mirrors can induce perceived motions into things(other mirrors likely).
I don't think we have the mathematics to describe such a universe and even if we did it likely would still be incomplete. At best we can do is come up with new models that explain things better and that is a never ending process. What is amazing is just how well our system seems to work(or maybe not). One must realize, and it seems scientists for get this almost all the time, is that all science is just models. There is nothing real about them. They are just mathematical equations that work because, in some sense, we've thrown out all the ones we had that didn't. This doesn't mean the equations/theories are reality. It simply means that was the ones we had left over. This is why people are constantly trying to generate new models because without coming up with new possibilities we are stuck with the old ones... but again, this will be a never ending process unless the universe is really quite boring and existence is meaningless.
I wish more people like yourself paid attention to TH-cam videos like this who would respond intelligently to your comments ..
A morphogenic field may be more of a network than a field, consisting of conscious beings such as monkeys telepathically connected into a network, and in that way it's an evolving learning network!! Factor in a multiverse into the field and youd have organisms learning and evolving from 10^10^78 separate realities!! That estimate is from dr frank tipler!! Imagine being able to learn from that many variations or evolutions of a problem!!
T. F. Torrance talked about the discovery of fields as a game changer in our view of the universe. I'm not sure if that's relevant to what is discussed here.
Makes me think of Lonergan. The formal provides a rational relation readable by mind even given a non systematic (random) element. Tha magnets aren't actually straight. But, we could just as well say the magnets read straightness out of the field exactly in that they are oriented towards straightness.
🙏
Why does no one talk about Leibnitz???
one of many known Quantum Components is "Direction" ; some of these quantum components are used in materials science; anyway "Direction" is a component and is prominent in iron (and cobalt, nickel); ; it is hard to explain but the Quantum Components are the most powerful quantities known, literally like a "first system" in interactions and form the basis of Quantum Mechanics Simulations in industrial applications
i just started reading roland in moonlight before i clicked on this, rip
Isn't their reflection in the mirror beautiful, chiral animation of form, thought and light.
Their non-local conversation of Souls.
I don’t think there was anything more disappointing in my physics education than finding out that there’s no explanation for magnetic dipoles in current dominant theories of physics.
Idk if Dennett and co. hope for physics to somehow come around and offer accounts of that would satisfy a Leibniz or Descartes. But I think that the fact that things like this aren’t even considered problems shows that no one is concerned about arriving at such a theory as the terminus.
Some kind of message is being put in area by both magnets. Call it the "signal of sameness" It's the magnetic power that attracts
other magnets to merge together to become a stronger magnetic force. Consciousness and energy= GOD, we understand very
little about both? What I do know, GOD WILLS ONE FANTASTIC REALITY!! thank you LORD for the opportunity to experience it!
Modern science does not view natural processes as purely mechanistic and bottom-up. Instead, it recognizes the importance of bilateral causality, where top-down and bottom-up processes interact dynamically and nonlinearly across various levels of analysis.
Gravity doesn’t exit. The correct part of a field your looking for is dielectricity
Bravo !!!!
BTW we now know that the supposed ‘brute pushing’ of the mechanistic play (allegedly) occurring between any two interacting bodies is completely incorrect as - & due ENTIRELY to the repulsive electrostatic fields which make up the surfaces of all increments of ‘solid’ matter - two such things never actually even touch. So it’s ALL electromagnetism.
To repeat - That which is currently considered to be brute mechanical ‘pushing’ is simply never the case - it’s always two interacting bodies REPELLING one another via the electrostatic repulsion of their surfaces.
Another observation I feel I must make concerns Rupert’s reference to ‘the Big Bang’ as he, better than most, knows full well about the ‘Electric Universe’ (more correctly recognised as the plasmatic, or electromagnetic, universe) as he gave a presentation at ‘Thunderbolts’ (a nexus of ‘the Electric Universe’) some years ago.
Among other easily demonstrated distinctions between current mainstream cosmology & the Plasmatic/Electromagnetic Universe is that the latter gives no evidence whatsoever of either Big Bang beginnings, ‘expansion’, black holes, dark matter, dark energy or final cold, heat death endings…….
I think you should consider that what you are dealing with are Semiotic processes, and (per anthropologist Eduardo Kohn) minds are Semiotic processes and Semiotic processes are minds. Trees read their environment as a set of signs and respond to that environment by presenting "signs" of their own. In this way, even a Tree, as a system, is a semiotic process or mind. Trees even have 'choice' because they connect all the way down through their chemistry to the underlying field of freewill (the Keroi or K-field) below quantum fields.
Agree. In quiet forests far from human activities, you sometimes encounter great a old tree that has a powerful presence (field?). Most definitely it is a mind. I feel they exist differently in time than we do, perhaps because they live by holding still rather than by darting about . . (Don't be hasty!)
The semantic content derives from acausal (Semiotic) ordering and cannot come from causal (Mechanistic) ordering. Acausal ordering is unpredictable, not random, so it produces an increase in information entropy, or semantic content within the energetic-material universe. This may or may not relate to entanglement in the universe bulk, but it's measured in Shannons -- draw your own conclusions. Acausal ordering derives from the field of Freewill underlying reality (K-field) implied by the Strong Free Will Theorem. Freewill is choice, and by definition unpredictable in the same manner as true cryptographically strong random number generators that use quantum effects. The universe operates on choice, not causality or randomness, which means Austin Osman Spare was correct about how bats learned to fly.
Is a feeling accessing a field?
Does a magnet not lose energy, say, a fridge magnet??
Is THE field Love? Magnets, gravity, love - attracts. Put a sponge in a puddle of water it would move, attract the water to it - unmoved mover - God bringing us home by love.
'If everything we see is moving then something must be still.' Gautama Buddha (relativity?)
23:35...
runs a bit off the page but there you have it someone who apparently has given this thought making the following claim of existence
as related some hand wavy way to the idea that the earth has a 4000 mile radius and therefore not so surprisingly a 24000 mile circumference at the diameter around which
at a 24 degree angle to/from/along/at an angle to the primary local source of light/heat/etc. aka the sun...
there is a rotation which is represented by 24 being equal to one and to one 365th of one in the same interval defining what is popularly known to be called time rather than the definition of the elliptical motion which provides the atmosphere to sustain life in the drop of water we live in...
as it is blown around in what adds up to a generally consistent arc of arcs defined no differently than the way a tear drop is defined
or the way drops of water fly off a wet dogs head when time comes to dry out a bit
There is a past (aka what still remains of what was now then)
There is a present aka the drop of water we spin in now
There is a future aka the possible in the possible continuity of now for this drop of water
so you basically have now recycling the remainder of what was now leaving the bits and pieces of what was now once to be picked
up and turned into pieces of what is now now and will be part of now when tomorrow gets here to be now then
C^2=A^2+B^2 no matter how you add it up or what one divides the multiple pieces created by the repeated division
of a sphere into circles into whether you want to model them as ellipses or some other form of regular polyhedron...
Plato lays this out in The Timaeus but who's counting
Understand Leibnitz know what gravity is...
This is how Newton ends his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. 3rd Ed.
Book III Section IV, as translated by Ian Bruce.
"At this point I have established the phenomena of the heavens and of our seas through
the force of gravity, but I have not assigned the cause of gravity. Certainly this force
arises from some cause, which penetrates as far as to the centre of the sun and of the
planets without diminution of strength; and which acts not only on the quantity of
particles on the surface, on which it acts, (as they are the customary mechanical causes)
but also on the quantity of the solid material; and the action of this is extended thence
over immense distances, always by decreasing in the inverse square of the distances. Gravity in the sun is composed from the gravity of the individual particles of the sun, and
by receding from the sun it decreases accurately in the square ratio of the distances as far
as to the orbit of Saturn, as that is evident from the quiet of the aphelion of the planets,
and as far as to the final aphelions of comets, but only if these aphelions are at rest.
Indeed I have not yet been able to deduce an account of these pleasing properties from the
nature of the phenomena, and I devise no hypothesis. For whatever cannot be deduced
from phenomena, it is required to call hypothesis; and hypothesis, whether it be of some
metaphysical, physical, occult, or mechanical qualities, have no place in experimental
philosophy. In this philosophy the propositions are deduced from the phenomena, and
rendered general by induction. Thus the impenetrabilities, mobilities, and the impetus of
bodies and the laws of the motions and of gravity have become known. And it is enough
that gravity actually exists, and acts according to the laws set forth by us, and it is
sufficient to explain all the motions of heavenly bodies and those of our seas.
Now this will be the place to add something on this most subtle kind of spirit that
penetrates through all solid bodies, and which is hidden in their substance; it is by this
force and the action of this spirit that the particles of bodies attract each other mutually to
the smallest distances, and are made to stick together ; and it is by this same means that
electrified bodies are acted on at greater distances, both by repelling as well as attracting small bodies in the vicinity; and the light is emitted , reflected, refracted, inflected [i.e.
internally reflected], and the bodies heated; all the sensations are excited, and the
members of animals are moved according to its will, evidently by the vibrations of this
spirit through the solid filaments of the nerves from the external sense organs to the brain
and propagated to the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in a few
words; nor do we have a sufficient supply of experiments, by which the laws of action of
this spirit must be accurately determined and shown.
The End"
Umm Force is not Static. Force is Dynamic and ONLY Dynamic. It does not switch from Static to Dynamic! Force in f=ma is applied as Static. Utter bs
@@morphixnm brilliant deduction
@@morphixnm Copenhagen
@@morphixnm Dynamic tears
i'm just gonna say "magnets" when someone asks me to prove God's existence for now on
Based
They’re (advertising) telling that ai is gonna survive quantum computing but it’s just not it’s totally different ai is contingent upon a switch working
It’s water
The clue îs diference between objects and entities. Even insects have ego.
In Algonquin languages, pronouns are not based on gender, There are two pronoun systems, one for living entities and one for non-living.
@@mondopinion3777 New language, new terms, new concepts, need for New realities.Wave of colective conscience, individual conscience, divine conscience, ingrow ego, perfect ego, I belive that like interdimensional molecule, humans have 3 body, phisical, mental and body of feeling. 3 universes correspond. Beyond îs The Univers of egos, beyond is univers of divine egos and beyond, 3 persons superdivine, uncreated God ego. There is a ierarchic worlds structures. Humans are a liant between them.
the idea that interactions lose no energy in reaction is flawed, its only imperceptible due to the scale of difference, the earth does move a minute amount and lose or gain a infinitesimal portion of its momentum on absorbing an asteroid, change the ratio of difference to see that effect. likewise the magnet does lose power of around 1% per year when under HIGH load, a piece of paper in this case is the same scale of difference as the asteroid vs earth, the mechanism is well over build, change the scale to notice the loss. so what is happening? i think the magnets are energized by their environment and would not be magnetic if taken out of the ionic wind of our sun or that which feeds it (EU model plasma-cosmology). we cant forget we are always being fed from interstellar currents thru the solar relay, it is a material function which is active only when interacting with a specific field. the source is the forever unknowable, that which is and gives way to what is. to test this you would have to send a satellite out to deep space, where there would be very little energy flow, with a magnet but if youre in a spot with no flow itll be a tricky thing to communicate the results. not to mention it might take millennia to reach an appropriate location... its hard to imagine thatll get done.
the mention of heat causing degradation of the effect should show it IS material. it is only supposition to say that its unchanged, we know how to magnetize and demagnetize and it has to do with the magnetic poles on the atomic structure creating a cohesive chain so as to not inhibit flux of the already magnetic molecules. under sufficient heat the atoms are forced to bounce around and realign randomly as they cool if not under the influence of a strong magnetic field. this is like the difference between clear ice and ice with bubbles in it, the clear ice is vibrated(fed a field) as it cools to cause alignment, if not you get entropy. to say its power is unchanged is the same folly which leads people to chase the idea of perpetual motion machines, of course theres loss in the pendulum swing, give it time.
13:03 i fully agree, i take slight issue with the wording here as well, "to put form into something", a "thing" is already a form. my understanding of the definition of "information" is that it implies "Energy which is in formation" as was said, whatever form that may be, any perceptible pattern at all. even to inform someone is to shape their thoughts which is the electric impulses in their being, their consciousness. energy can neither be created nor destroyed so if there was a point in past which there was no matter, and then matter arose, it is thru the (god/conscious)energy which existed beyond time and space (if time is the measure of material events and cyclical change and there was nothing to change theres no space/time) which fed into whatever feeds into the Planck field to be made perceivable to create the particles and quarks which lead to space, time and the grand expansion story. its this same energy which pushes the galaxies apart and feeds the stars. so it is in alignment with the "field as formal cause" explanation but it involves all things acting as antenna interacting with the ongoing main field in different ways which output local fields all the while being a complex product of the chain reactions which have risen from this consistent input. this is eletro-mechanics, plasma, particle physics, the particle-wave duality and the dual-slit observer-energy phenomenon... fractal fields.
edibles before dinner. 🙂
There is no South Pole! Only north!
Mathematics does not occlude all discussion and prevent all thought in physics. This could hardly be a more inaccurate statement.
The beard drops into an extreme form of windbagism, my semantics aside. Paratactic he is not, and appears not to want to address the subject at hand. And Rupert, try to focus your camera. I did not rate this vid as useful.
GUYS WAKE UP! MORE KOOK SCAMS BY SHELDRAKE JUST DROPPED!
This time its about FIELDS- from a bozo who probably doesnt know how to add vectors lol
It sounds as if Rupert is catching up! O happy day. But seriously, this IS serious. Re-read Jayne’s’ essay “The Problem of Motion in the Seventeenth Century “. Monkey see, monkey do. Rupert and David teach us to think out of the box. It’s where true elucidation lies. Shhh! Listen to them think! Brilliant.
Julian Jaynes ?
@@mondopinion3777 Had the same question