1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cosmic Intuitions Versus Mental Constructs

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Native, Sep 26, 2022.

  1. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,433
    Ratings:
    +602
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Sub-OP: What is mathematics and theories really worth without the philosophical understanding of cause and effect in nature everywhere?

    Michael Faraday, the mathematical illiterate



    Video abstract:

    Faraday Biography: How much luck did a brilliant scientist like Faraday need to succeed in science? Turns out, quite a lot! Fortunately, he had a wonderful boss, a good book, a rich patron, a chemical explosion, a fistfight and a fortunate outbreak of the plague! Wait, those last three don't sound lucky at all. Well, they were for Faraday. Watch the video to find out how.

    Laws for electromagnetism and gravity is equal



    Video abstract:
    How did Charles Coulomb create his famous equation without losing his head? Watch this video and find out!

    My comment:
    Compared to the one way working "gravity", Coulomb´s Electromagnetic Law works equally with both ATTRACTION and REPULSION in all kinds of charges, thus is the logical fundamental force to govern everything in the Universe.

    THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE PROVIDE BOTH ENERGY, FORMATION, ROTATION and ORBITAL MOTIONS TO EVERYTHING.

    My philosophical conclusion:

    In the ancient natural tradition of understanding, the human intuition comes BEFORE making systematic theories and practical use of the observed information, just like the example with Michael Faraday.

    Isaac Newton (and Albert Einstein) failed to use their intuitive qualities when making their theories of gravity. Intuition provides IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE and a such is evidently absent as nobody can explain scientifically by what dynamic means "gravity" should work.

    Both scientists relied on mathematics without having any clues of what they were dealing with, hence it´s no surprise their occult contributions led to lots of "dark this and that" all over in the observable Universe.

    They simply weren´t enlightened and informed via the only genuine way of gathering natural knowledge of causes and effects.

    BTW: Besides Coulomb´s Electromagnetic Law, we even have the law of Atmospheric Pressure which follows Newtons gravitational pull assumption, so we really have two better cosmological candidates but Newtons mental construct.
     
    #1 Native, Sep 26, 2022
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2022
  2. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    11,426
    Ratings:
    +7,559
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Yes, an admirable man, largely self-taught. Reminds me of the self-taught Whitley Stokes, whose genius with the Celtic languages, Gaelic in particular, made him a leader in the scholarship of old Gaelic texts. (He was the star of the Cambridge language department but because he'd never taken a degree, was never ranked.)
    The same intuition that makes young males leap off roofs, certain they'll fly ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    16,985
    Ratings:
    +18,021
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I like the notion of "contra dictionary ideas". Does that means ideas based on misunderstanding the meaning of words, or just bad spelling? :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,433
    Ratings:
    +602
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Yes it often take some maturity time to reckon and learn that all humans CAN fly – though only in their spiritual state of mind in where ALL kinds of intuitive visions and knowledge are available.
     
  5. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    11,426
    Ratings:
    +7,559
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    But being wholly mental, they aren't answerable to any objective test of truth, however much fun they are.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,220
    Ratings:
    +6,491
    Religion:
    Pi π
    “spiritual state of mind”?

    You mean like tripping on acids?

    Or during climax of great sex?

    Oh! :eek: Did I say the last one out loud? :oops:
     
  7. rational experiences

    rational experiences Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    10,026
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    I always wondered why a conscious human living within filled in space conditions... would believe they owned space intuition.

    Gases. Unlike mass owns a huge amount of extra space already. Stretched water...oxygenated. our bio conscious breathing brain....oxygenated.

    So I thought just because I can.

    I dreamed. I saw visions. I heard humans claim...the universe allows such and such. Why I asked?

    Then I looked at human choice. What wasnt actually natural yet applied a constant term that would affect thoughts or beliefs.

    Science design machines converting mass by reactions the answer. Choices of just humans.

    Earth mass taken leaving unnatural undulations. The spaces opened in mass controlled by men inside their machines.

    Space. Transmitters. Changes to transmitters. About earths mass.

    Humans transmitting out from earth receiving back. By machines they designed controlled. Thinking non stop. Yet no human was leaving.

    Machines used a long time ago. Yet human consciousness only renewed regained healed evolved. Memory used as consciousness itself.

    Made sense to me if a human designed inside a heavens protection. Had altered about up above and outside. Space itself a condition.

    Humans caused consciousness to be affected.

    By the space they cause in science.

    Therefore to advise old stories realised it came from a falling star mass burning. Mass that changed cold gas water oxygen a humans brain mind existed with.

    A lesser given conscious awareness that was attacked yet survived to have learnt biologically by and as a lesser mind.

    Made sense to me as an answer we have and gave ourselves.

    That past human mutation healed evolved both bio health and mind. So verbal stories could become researched and studied to produce human only expressed data.

    Our own proof.

    Evidence men introduced space conditions to earth themselves.

    The advice I believed hence made sense to conscious life on earth.
     
  8. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    11,426
    Ratings:
    +7,559
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    To be fair, both standard forms of the human body are designed with the potential for exactly that.

    My grateful thanks to the Evolution Department.
     
  9. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,156
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    Unless, of course, you want to work with something (or anything) that changes in time. Then Coulomb's law doesn't work anymore. So, for example, it only holds approximately when you can consider the force between two stationary charges at a fixed time (sure, it doesn't always work even approximately in all such cases, but if you are looking for a fundamental description, surely you'd want something that allows motion).

    I'm not a historian, a theologian, a classicist, or a comparative religions expert (although I would recommend you reading some up-to-date work on the subject such as Masuzawa's The Invention of World Religions, Nonbri's Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept, King's Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and" The Mystic East", Dubuisson's The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledge, and Ideology, etc.). But as someone interested in such things I have read a fair amount on such topics and in particular, as an undergraduate, I added an additional major classical languages (Ancient Greek and Latin) so as to be able to read primary sources (and studied German, French, and Italian to read both current and older scholarship). I never got as far in studies of Hebrew and Arabic as in these previous languages, but they were important enough to me to dedicate time to as I know how important primary source material is and how much is lost in translation.
    Now, students of Ancient Greek typically start reading Homer as one half of intermediate (2nd year Greek) and then take more dedicated courses on Homer, Epic, etc., later. But even 2nd year Greek students might learn that by the time the "ancient" Greek philosophers we are most familiar with were writing, Greek had already lost sounds that are preserved only in Homeric Greek. And that the ancients used to speculate about the meanings of words from Homeric Epic that were no longer used or known (usually, very badly).
    And it wouldn't take long for such a student to wonder, based on reading the source material (let along scholarship) what on earth you are talking about.

    Faraday invented the "occult" force fields you are so fond of denigrating. For Newton, gravity was proposed as an effective abstraction that (he argued) could not exist. He made that explicit in a now famous letter, but even in his main works the famous "I frame no hypothesis" was part of his acknowledgement that this hidden mechanism he used was not something he was proposing actually existed.

    Farady, however, was an ingenious experimenter with a gift for abstract visualization. So he came up with the picture of mathematical fields still used in (multivariable and/or vector) calculus textbooks today: Faraday's "lines of force". They were his visualization of "occult" forces ("occult" means "hidden"), or invisible forces he could only detect through the manipulation of experimental devices.
    But as brilliant as his visual aids were, and as skilled an experimenter as Faraday was, he could only show that electricity and magnetism were related. Since both "fields" were invisible and the mathematics to describe them had yet to be developed, he was limited by his inability to develop a corresponding mathematical description of his "lines of force".
    That required mathematical geniuses like Maxwell and Gauss. And it was through mathematics that we learned electricity and magnetism were really one and the same, by virtue of the equations governing these fields.

    Einstein relied very heavily on intuition. It was the basis for both his special and general theories of relativity. Special relativity was due to his asking what a beam of light might look light to someone traveling "along with" the light beam. General relativity grew in part out of his intuition for the way that free fall "frees" one from the effects of gravitation.
    When Einstein's teacher, Minkowski, turned Einstein's rather simple algebra from "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies", the paper that founded special relativity) into the first spacetime we still use today (Minkowski space), Einstein disliked it precisely because he considered it as an unnecessary mathematical abstraction. He was to level the same criticism at his co-author in his famous EPR paper for burying the point he was trying to make under mathematical learnedness.
    He changed his mind about the usefulness of Minkowski's geometry, however. And, additionally, he spent years trying to cast his intuition about gravitation into a workable theory that may have been considerablly easier had he been familiar with more differential geometry and non-Euclidean spaces.


    There we go with the "occult" again. You can't see magnetic fields. You can't really see most electromagnetic fields (visible light being a possible exception, although you run into the interesting issue of the fact that acknowledging you can see these means that this is all you can see). Faraday and the rest of those contributors to electricity and magnetism were dealing with "occult" (hidden, invisible) forces. The "ancients" frequently described "occult" forces that we have no experience with in ways that are completely alien to us. If you spent a little less time on youtube searching for critical videos of overly-simplified descriptions of physics and a little more time reading about the actual history of the ideas you are attempting to describe (because god forbid you actually learn some modern physics as it is understood beyond the biased sampling of popular physics you have been exposed to, mostly indirectly through criticisms that don't bother with real physics either but rather, like you, with depictions that are simplified not to give people a real understanding but a basic grasp of some notions), you might be in a better able to avoid so many contradictions in your historical presentations of ideas. You'd need a lot more in order to get a basic understanding of either the physics of Faraday's time or Maxwell's or modern physics, and then you might be able to speak intelligently on how the laws of physics you seem to support, such as Coulomb's, can't do what you describe because they concern what now goes by names such as electrostatics rather than electrodynamics, and then perhaps also address such issues of how to understand the infinities and paradoxes of classical electromagnetism that arise in the dynamics of charged bodies due to e.g., the self-energy that stems from the body's charged interaction with the electromagnetic field.
    But as you are proposing stuff about what "the ancients" thought, you could at least get some basic history of the last few hundred years somewhat more correct.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...