I'm a big fan of David Bentley Hart, and my favorite quotation by him is as follows - "There can be no physical explanation of existence, because anything physical is by definition something that exists, so there can be no physical cause of existence."
@@GEMSofGOD_com I think what the quote means by "physical explanation of existence" is something like "physical explanation for why there's something rather than nothing." For the sake of argument, we can draw a distinction between "why" and "how" type explanations, with "why" referring to the metaphysical, and "how" referring to the physical. In this context, the quote simply means something like "Why things exist at all is a metaphysical question."
@@dbz5808 I've always personally thought of "meta" in "metaphysical" in a historical sense, not a causal one. The quote sounds too pompous to be correct. When something causes physical effects, I'd say it's physical-it belongs to the physical universe, just like photons do, because they eventually get observed. With "meta" meaning pre- in causal sense, sure, there can be a framework of causes and effects, of past and future. If you make this distinction and place physics in the realm of effects, then yeah. I place physics in the testable category, and I believe in a 1-to-1 correspondence between the true mathematical model of causes and what will somehow be derived from physics without zoomed-in observations of details - simple, unambiguous.
I was reminded, listening to this fascinating conversation, of Teilhard's fundamental insight that things hold together not from below and behind but from above and ahead.
Excellent discussion. As a simple minded layman, I nevertheless find Rupert’s thinking innovative, superbly imaginative. A truly gifted, original thinker with a deep soul and so guided by a genius intuition
What a pleasure to have 2 of my heroes (1 from science, Sheldrake, and from theology, DB Hart) in the same video! Please keep this most important dialog going.
I’m so glad I found you Rupert. Your discussions on morphic fields are spot on, I believe. I’ve been pretty strongly telepathic for decades but I don’t seem to have much control over it. I do notice that my telepathic understandings are enhanced while I’m in proximity of an obelisk. My strongest telepathic knowing was when I was within about 100 yards from a granite obelisk with a total height on its pedestal of about 30 feet. The amplification of my telepathy while near this obelisk is quite significant. I didn’t know anything about obelisks but after being near them, I understood them to be a type of spiritual energy amplifier. Unsurprisingly, after then studying obelisks, I found that they are designed, at least in part, for this purpose. This is why they were used as gravestones. If you experiment with any obelisks during your studies of morphic fields, I believe that you’ll find that they are a variable that can enhance the morphic field significantly.
Great stuff, Rupert. The strongest force is attraction. ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. ‘ How the tides move is endlessly fascinating.
This conversation is foundational to the unfolding paradigm and central to a more harmonious convergence of science and spirituality, ancient and contemporary worldviews, and anthropic and meta-anthropic unfoldings of reality.
At this point, I'm just about convinced that the morphogentic field is the soul. It explains so much, including how our resurrected bodies can still be us. Our field survives death and forms our new physical bodies into each unique person.
This was a great demonstration and discussion on immaterial teleological causality. And thrilled to have the likes of RS and DBH in conversation. I’ve watched it a few times since it was shared on David’s channel. I would love to see a conversation with RS, DBH, and the Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor. That would be immense.
A fascinating questioning and consideration of possibilities over this idea of attraction, an idea that, somewhat ironically, attracts our thinking as well.. I have long puzzled over fields of attraction, including in a very very broad sense: I've had so many rather astounding "alignments"(synchronicities--sp?) in my life that seem to defy odds that I've also wondered if life EVENTS and everyday events can created eddies and whorls of a kind of attraction in space-time. Do certain occurrences wind up giving birth to a kind of CONFLUENCE FIELD that somehow acts to align together (ie bind or link together) events that have things in common across time and space, if not universally, than locally? See, this discussion has kicked off another mental dialogue....for which I am thankful.
19:30 On the self repel: 0.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922). 1.[The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] 2.Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl).* 3.From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. By the way, in SR: I(G)=inv; this follows from the Lorentz transformations: m=m(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2) and ∆t=∆t(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2). Hence, obviously, we have I(G)=m/t=m(0)/t(0)=inv. 4.For clarity, let's draw an analogy. In electrodynamics, a circular conductor detects the properties of two conductors with currents flowing in opposite directions, since for each section of a conductor with a current on the opposite side there is a reverse current flow. Thus, the conductor is self-repelled by the magnetic force: F(m)=μ(0)I(e)^2, where I(e) is the electric current. 5.Then the force of inertia is: F(i)=(1/i)[I(G)^2], where I(G)=mw. That is, the expansion of the mechanical system is due to the inertial force of self-repelled (it is clear that this is not an anti-gravitational force). 6.In the case of the Universe; the gravitational current flowing along the phase trajectory: I(universe)=M(universe)H~m(pl)w(pl), respectively, the inertial force of self-expansion: F(i)=(1/i)I(universe)^2~F(pl). 7.It is clear that this approach is also valid for bodies moving in the same direction: then the inertial force of attraction will "appear", and this is not a gravitational, and even more so, not a "dark matter" effect. {For example, for clusters of galaxies; for stars orbiting the center of galaxies.} 8.The general formula for both cases: dF(i)=(1/4πi)[2I(1)I(2)](dl/r), where dl is the "element of length" of the trajectory of motion of the test body: a vector modulo equal to dl and coinciding in direction with the motion-current of the body, r is the distance between the trajectories of moving bodies. Thus, the three directions I(G), r, B(i) are perpendicular to each other in pairs: it follows that gravity/inertial (and electro/magnetic) actions are closely related to the structure of space-time and form a natural rectangular coordinate system. 9.Moreover, if "The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin); then the gravity/inertial field is a dynamic 4-space. -------------- *) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n=M/2∆m: system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). The constant c^2 / 2w(pl) in the final formula is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction:ф(G)=-Ф(i)w.
This is beautiful! The magnet pieces exhibit the properties of repulsion and attraction inherently due to the internal configurations and states of their atoms and subatomic constituents. It's these configurations and states that give rise to all reactions and interactions, the direction of energy flows not withstanding.
Everything is known as the light of mutual love (the union of fields) through all and in all, the eternal harmony in the heart of nature (including humans) interconnected as one sacred truth. Hidden in plain sight for sure!
Probably wrong but Ive always envisioned the Fields 'set the Tone' and any energetic interactions within the field are inhibited by this 'tone' or resonance. Nestled fields have nestled resonance relationships.
Great topic. I believe that gravity is a Casimir effect! And the same with the other forces in physics. And the closer the distance the stronger the force, so for example the color force that binds neutrons and protons together is extremely strong. And the Casimir effect is a gradient in the vacuum energy (two plates cancel certain wavelengths).
Being based in reason always wants to break things down into sub parts. It is inherent in the nature of reason. It is spot on for some purposes but will always miss the bigger picture.
I really enjoyed this,the use of the magnets pure genius!!! Would love to see RS interviewing Bernardo Kastrup …also reminded of Husserl’s description of regional ontologies .
The magnets are drawn to each other because the impetus given to them by Rupert was TOWARDS each each other. The main direction of energy is towards attraction rather than repulsion.
I appreciate the idea of morphic fields cause nature comes with smart mechanisms and theres too many unknowns yet. I respect Dr. Sheldrake but this magnet experiment should be carefully repeated and subject to a plot distribution like any other, as instance, take the naive coin tossing experiment, which, by the way can be very biased like this one
6:20 The channel Theoria Apophasis... Ken Wheeler discusses magnetism and the point of natural rest in detail, referring to philosophical points and past scientists like Walter Russell and more.
Great Scott!! Do you realize your assertions make the case for astrological tenets of cosmic influence to all lower bodies and fields as well as many quite ancient and post modern mystical teachings? Of course you did. Bravo!
From the perspective of an external observer, the rate of non-linear 'proper time' experienced by an object moving through the universe is proportional to the volume of a cone, where the height of the cone represents constant and linear 'coordinate time' and the base radius is modulated by the Lorentz factor.
Amazing. I need some time to digest this further, but it seems to me that neither attraction or repulsion are fundamental in this example. Rather, the fundamental cause would be the seeking of alignment and growth, with the two opposite forces being two sides of the same coin or field, or two methods towards the same end. This would apply to particles, except that atoms seek stability while molecules seek growth again. And it seems that to counteract this seeking (towards an end form) requires external energy or intervention. I have enough troubles grappling with the arrow of time, now I have arrows in all of the fields. How are we to make sense of this?
Thrilled to attempt absorption of this stirring conversation between two extremely erudite & thoughtful people. Also to see how many others would agree based on SO MANY comments. In the end, the Big Bang still can NOT be explained & so even though the many points made may compel formal adoption…hypothesizing their Top Down origins remain. And of this, I happily embrace the notion that we may never know, due to our own design or not…it’s still worth trying…but we must also focus, as much, on how might we live now based upon the current fragments we do know. Cheers to: @fraserreal8496 Fields all the way down @porkylongpig5282 More! @jan-martinulvag1953 I am the field, not the content. @millerbiop I loved watching this discussion between two people I respect, admire, and learn from -but the key question: whether one calls it 'soul', 'field', or 'God' is there anything, intelligent, deliberate, premeditated, or personal about it? @anotherblonde Everything stops for tea (well dinner actually). Great discussion.
The emergence of form (and telos) in physical phenomena is better discussed in precise terms of the stationary action principle than orphaned terms of forces and energy. It is, in my view, best conceptualised from feynmanns point of view in particular. It is not wrong to say that fields are a manifestation of formal order, but this discussion feels rather like hitting a nail home with the wrong end of a hammer.
Unified Wave Framework Core Principles: 1. Entanglement with Source: - All waves are fundamentally entangled with their source, maintaining a coherent connection that influences their propagation characteristics. 2. Coherent Spiral Trajectory: - Waves propagate in a coherent spiral trajectory over time, determined by their source and modified by environmental interactions. - This trajectory implies a deterministic path rather than a purely probabilistic distribution. 3. Determinants of Wave Properties: - The frequency, speed, shape, and other properties of waves are influenced by the source characteristics (e.g., charge, spin) and their interactions with the surrounding environment. 4. Measurement Influence: - Measurement affects the outcome by interacting with the wave's trajectory. The probability aspect lies in both the timing and position of the measurement rather than the state of the wave itself. Implications and Applications: 1. Photon Behavior and Light Propagation: - Explains polarisation, gravitational lensing, and other light behaviours through entanglement with the light source and spiral propagation. - Offers new insights into optical technologies, quantum communication, and imaging systems. 2. Particle Physics and Jet Substructures: - Anomalous jet substructures observed in high-energy physics experiments (e.g., CMS research) could be manifestations of these coherent spiral trajectories. - Enhances machine learning models for detecting new physics by incorporating spiral dynamics features. 3. Acoustic Waves: - Applies to sound waves, improving models for sound propagation and acoustic engineering. 4. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity: - Bridges quantum mechanics and general relativity by reinterpreting spacetime curvature and wave behaviour through spiral dynamics. - Provides a new perspective on unresolved theoretical issues. 5. Technological Advancements: - Promotes advancements in various fields including optics, acoustics, quantum computing, and high-energy physics by leveraging the unified wave framework. Research Directions: 1. Simulation and Modeling: - Develop detailed simulations of wave propagation based on coherent spiral trajectories. - Validate the model against empirical data across different wave types and domains. 2. Machine Learning and Anomaly Detection: - Adapt ML algorithms to recognize patterns consistent with spiral dynamics. - Train algorithms using features derived from your unified wave framework to enhance detection of new physics signals. 3. Interdisciplinary Applications: - Explore applications in diverse fields such as telecommunications, medical imaging, and environmental science by applying the unified wave principles. Summary: The unified wave framework reinterprets wave behaviour as coherent spiral trajectories influenced by source entanglement and environmental interactions. This approach offers a comprehensive model that bridges various scientific domains, potentially leading to significant advancements in both theoretical understanding and practical applications. The influence of measurement is determined by both the timing and position of the measurement, adding another layer of complexity and predictability to the wave dynamics.
@4:12 “The magnetic field isn’t material” Then what is it? The term ‘field’ can mean either the thing itself or the mathematical representation of it but to suppose that something immaterial can act on material things is to assert some sort of substance dualism. Maybe this is the argument? Later on, you discuss the abandonment of the mechanical ether. I’d suggest reading further into this. Although the Michelson Morley experiment failed to detect the rigid, stationary ether which had been predicted, Einstein himself subsequently acknowledged that there would need to be some sort of ether. There are countless arguments for one. Maxwell’s description of the relationship of the speed of light to the permittivity and permeability of the ‘vacuum’ is exactly analogous to that of the speed of sound to the density and elasticity of the medium through which it travels. The equations have exactly the same form. There is certainly some sort of ether whether we call is ‘spacetime’ (relativity) or ‘the field’ (quantum field theory). There is something material there. You can understand the behaviour of your magnets by referring to the same sort of model that is used to explain how gravity works under General Relativity (a theory I don’t claim to understand). If you imagined a rubber sheet like a trampoline as ‘the field’ and any solid objects as magnets, you could see that placing a magnet (an object) in the field (on the rubber sheet) would distort it. The stronger the magnet (heavier the object) the more it would distort the field. As you added successive magnets, each would distort the field further. As the number of magnets increased there would be a greater chance that one of them would slide into the depression created by another, making the depression larger and deeper. It’s easy to imagine that this could eventually lead to all of the magnets coming together in one, large depression. None of the objects would expend energy. The energy accounting would relate to the field, not the objects in it. To extend this idea further, I’d suggest that it is the medium in which morphic resonance operates and that the principle by which it acts is electromagnetic.
That's interesting. I've seen programmes about this rubber sheet construct - but surely it's meant metaphorically, to 'save the appearances' & illustrate visually the mathematical explanations mapping what experiments reveal? Aren't all visualisations of this type metaphorical? There might be several totally different ways to demonstrate what is found to happen, & imo Rupert Sheldrake's concept of fields is an alternative, immaterial one.
@@blackbird365 Certainly, there are mathematical ways to describe fields and that’s what physicists do. However, mathematics can say nothing about the nature of what it’s describing, only its behaviour. It’s also true that many physicists completely avoid the question, preferring to leave it philosophers although I think that’s a cop-out, personally. Returning to Rupert’s idea that the field is immaterial, another way to assess that proposal would be philosophically. I do think that Rupert is arguing a type of Substance Dualism as that’s often the flavour of his argument. This would involve two entirely different substances, one material, one not, which somehow interact. The question is, then, how could two substances of entirely different nature interact such that one causes effects in the other? This problem has proved so intractable that very few philosophers entertain Substance Dualism any more. It also fails as an explanation of electromagnetism, for example, on grounds of parsimony (Occam’s Razor). Why invoke two substances to explain E-M when there is a simpler model which uses only one? There are plenty of examples of real things that we cannot see by some means but which can be detected by others. Air, is such an example.
@@neilcreamer8207 Goodness, you're quite right - thank you so much for this crystal clear piece! 🙏 Are you a philosophy teacher? (The poor american chap was struggling with his stammer & countless longwinded parentheses that occluded his meaning.) Re your //1: Yes, I see that maths can only quantitively describe observed behaviour & can not in itself claim any metaphysical implications. //2: I've been reading & listening to RS for decades but never noticed that yes, indeed his basic position is dualistic. I'm shocked that I never noticed that before! //3: so we're back to the old problem of how the material & immaterial interact; like the 'hard problem'. I don't go along with Occam's Razor though. It's an untestable assertion that can't be justified imo. Why can't proliferation & multiplicity be adequate & useful & encompass more phenomena than some over-simplified explanation that omits peripheral things in a wider context? The latter might lead the way to more discoveries & re-thinkings that advance our understanding, if we don't always aim for a simple soundbite / formula. To me, Occam's Razor is just a matter of aesthetic taste, rather than having any philosophical justification. After all, Nature is astonishingly prolific & bountiful & produces many things out of apparent 'nothingness' ... hardly parsimonious!
@@blackbird365 Thank you for your kind remarks. I’m neither a teacher nor have any formal education in philosophy. I agree that Occam’s Razor might be a purely aesthetic consideration. Alternatively, it might come from humans not being able to process complex problems and preferring to address simple ones. This is probably what led to the reductive approach that has served scientific thought so well. There clearly is complexity in nature, though, and the comparatively new study of complexity, along with the advent of computer technology, has opened up several new fields of study. One thing we have learned from people like John Conway and Stephen Wolfram is that complex ‘life-like’ behaviour can emerge from a small set of principles. In some cases, it seems that once a complex system is up and running it just continues to become increasingly complex and diverse. In fact, if you look at what occurs in the living world that is pretty much what seems to be happening all the time as what we call evolution. Maybe what we call life was inevitable? Maybe if there is any substance at all to Nature it produces its complexity not out of ‘nothing’ but out of ‘something’ imperceptible and a few simple rules?
The magnetic field is a flow. It is push and pull, a circuit. Demagnetized iron has many tiny magnetic fields that cancel each other out, so that the whole does not exhibit magnetism.
Magnets are made by forcing the atoms into certain positions. Perhaps the bar magnets tend to form larger structures, for the atoms to stay in the forced position a bit more easily?
'"...without the fog of mathematics that normally occludes all discussion and prevents all thought on the subject..." I am dying to know more about this statement. As someone who cried her way through Algebra II and only with independent help from the teacher passed with a C, my worst-ever grade in high school, I'm now delving (independent research for a book) into things like systems view science, subquantum kinetics, chaos theory, etc, and I keep getting this feeling that their instant resorting to math is detaching me, and them, from the subject of study somehow and I don't understand what is going on. But I can't understand math (from algebra up) or even what it's good for in science (besides predicting and engineering) to see why I feel like it's taking me away from the subject I'm trying to learn about. I don't understand why they see something and then before doing anything, they start playing with numbers and equations. I don't know what they are doing, and I often don't understand how they connect their math to the reality I'm observing, and often it doesn't seem to be an accurate reflection. ENTROPY is a really good example of this. What I see in entropy, in short, is a natural energetic process returning to its state of balance (not dying, just going back to its default state of peace and rest and waiting for its next "assignment" so-to-speak), and for them, it's all about math and probabilities...
Faraday stopped after algebra. Geometry is useful, such as Euclid. It's a clue that infinity, which has a mathematical symbol, is never seen in mathematical formula. Likewise, eternity has no place in any science. It's more important to observe reality, and reflect on that just as mirrors reflect, and to reflect ruminatively as well.
I loved watching this discussion between two people I respect, admire, and learn from - but they seem to dance around, yet not address the key question: whether one calls it "soul" or "field", is there anything, intelligent, deliberate, premeditated, or personal about it? (i.e. what is quaintly referred to as “God”)
I posted a short video about the 2nd chapter of Genisis, where the garden of eden is described as a place with rivers winding through veins of gold and onyx, with incense plants abounding. I was shocked at the reception. People had no problem and great interest in Adam and Eve existing as spirits only, interactions of electromagnetic fields casuaed by water flowing between conductors and semiconductors. I could share the video its less than a minute.
One idea to explain the physical universe is that it is a creation from a fraction of our nonphysical mind- the ego. Matter cant be explained graphicly, it fails with a shell, the shell needs to exist of something and there we go again. The only possibility is a nonphysical energy- sheldrakes fields. It must be playful, not even, densified at spots, creating the smallest particles, from "nothing". In this way big bang is possible, with a field of energy. And without the fields, the physical universe must dissolve. And with option nr 1, the physical universe must dissolve with the end of ego. Any game is better than no game- is a suggestion i read. And i think we should just accepting this approach. Dont get to serious about what happens in our lifes, you are creating it on another level- look on it- if you cant beat it-join it! Listen to James Mahu. He's explaining our reality with this "ego idea"
That tendency to return to the Root in matter is literally its uroboros fate and origins as well. Matter is frozen/fallen/imprisoned light, and we are experiencing its zest to become Light in the form of our souls, to become photonic, i.e., timeless and weightless, again. Matter is the actual "self-expression" and "self-exploration" of light, and the whole story of the cosmos is the journey of light to itself, the Light. As de Broglie found out, light is the most refined form of matter! then What's going on? A passage between photonic epoch to photonic epoch. All is Light, exploring IT-self.
If the magnetic field “pulls”, would this mean the electric field “pushes”? One organizes and compresses and aligns, the other disorganizes and expands and scatters.
Were the first magnets meteorites? Would this imply there is somthing "unearthly" about magnets? That in flyinf though space, they necessarily had to form magnetic fields? What are the polar fields of an asteroid parallel or perpendicular to in relation to motion. I recall something about meteors and magnets
A magnet can stick for, conceivably, hundreds of years because it would take more energy and information over a shorter period to remove and displace it than it does to let it persist in the condition it was already set. The same is true of why matter persists and yet an induced charge does not, though both are fundamentally fields. Unless the energy rate thresholds are overcome to an extent which changes the dynamic the universe is fine to toil away at the natural methods in the decay and diffusion of things as they sit.
Still, the only scientist who knows what a field actually IS is Dewey Larson. It is _Time Squared over Space._ Larson's Reciprocal Systems Theory of Space and Time is THE KEY to Sheldrake's theory. A proper understanding of the nature of space and time, and beginning from a correct reference frame, is essential.
The cartographers became so obsessed with representation that they built a map of great precision, not realizing that representation and reality must have a distinction. Over many generations they became so good at representation that the map covered the entire territory. In time, all distinctions were lost until the map became the territory. Representation and reality blended into a boundless hyper-real where few distinctions could be made and no boundary located. The creature's creation became the territory of sensory distinctions in the precession of the hyper-real. Lucidity was lost in a sea of meaning where the sensual sought out pleasure for pleasure's sake. All activity concerned itself with increasing levels of illusion, the illusion of pleasure. All activity blurred into one great orgasmic rush of pleasure where distinction disappeared.
There is no simulation without coherent information and all coherent information in a simulation should be recorded. If a zero point of a field represents the information within a field, virtual particles can be imagined as the collectors of this information and/or a means to control the field.
Gravity is the prime mover. Gravity causes flows in dielectric super fluid space. These flows in a dielectric fluid create charge. Flows in a dielectric cause charge separation. Charge and QFT are artifacts.
I think your comment represents something that might make a lot of sense. But the poetry of Maxwell has created such a powerful hold over academic imagination that such considerations are dismissed out of hand. These folks do not understand why people like Nikola Tesla criticized the work of people like Einstein and Maxwell. Wireless electromagnetic waves do not exist in the real world. They are mathematical illusions. Does a static electric field follow the same inverse cube law that a magnetic field does? Does light? Magnetic fields cannot exist where there is no boundary. They do not seem to understand how magnetism works. Rowland's charged disc experiment is something these people never talk about.
In electromagnetism, energy density is derived from the fields, and since energy and matter are interchangeable, matter derives from fields. Does this make fields non-material? Not really.
At the centre of a magnet there is no repulsion or attraction. If you cut a magnet in half along that line you do not have two poles but two new magnets. Magnetism is not a feature of the material itself but a pressure perturbation that is acted upon it. The centre is zero point, repulsion (magnetism) is a loss of energy that can only go so far and is tethered to the centre. This gives rise to a torus shape and anti torus or hour glass shape (hyperboloid). Think about how water goes goes down the plug hole.
It seems to me that the only possible explanation is the field interactions with virtual particles. I guess if we could see magnetism, it would look like fluid dynamics in action. Maybe this explains why fluids and gases move with the same geometric patterns. There's a geometric interaction with virtual particles, within a field. Most likely a spiral because this represents the gathering of coherent information over time, in the form of a cone or vortex. This is significant because a cone is linear in the lengths of its side but it's non-linear in its volume. This explains the temporal differences between Einstein's co-ordinate time and proper time. Coordinate time is the linear progression of the sides of the cone and proper time is the volumetric progression. But it has to be a spiral to maintain coherence from source.
It seems to me, that destiny and freewilll are interelated, and parallel maybe that, also gravity and the electric force are interelated. Is conciousness the boundary or flux between these, a coalescance ? Love
It seems that humans can only interact with plants thru the emotional, with care, since the plant culture is underground and the human culture is above ground and contained in the gut, where the GI tract interface is both inside and outside the body, and life and creativity are between objects. When I look at a plant I see the energy the plant doesn't use and I see the form which adapts to the morphic/emotional/psyche availability. It's like I see a hole in reality that I fill in with my energy. With English language, perhaps the adverbs and adjectives are the being set and verbs and nouns as placeholders of moving "material". It's about how relative the moving is, since everything apparently moves. It's about how red it is, since that is not used except for the observing by another sequestered part of the field and the creativity expressed thru that. If humans are plants, the brain is like that node of being while the body is the flower, but the brain as a node of a being that is the entirety of the human (or mammal) form existence from beginning to end, with individuals as scales on this dancing dragon in the multidimensional. Which allows humans to mimic other mammals, where they are ruminants and we aren't, but this isn't a problem until the societal efficiency of producing this tasteless gut filler ramps up and causes distress. Hierarchy borrowed from the pack to counteract the amazing (yet self defeating) power of grass, that which escapes the herd into the hierarchy spring. The dark triad from that triangle since the healthy part is missing. Machiavellian, consumerism, antagonism in a diminished mammal object, where the between objects space is diminished because the care (the excess given away by the human object, think disc or circle extended by fire, or trampoline, instead of triangle) is lost or misplaced. Thanks for the video!
How Mr Sheldrake, could one construct a 'sphere' using only daisy chains? The magnets clearly favour stacking in a vertical 'classical pillar' fashion. A tubular capillary is circular like a pipe, not like a round ball. This visual demonstration to explain the Sun, Earth or Moon is baffling.
Rupert Sheldrake deserves a Nobel prize.
You mean, for the ASMR, with the magnets on the plates? Grammy, possibly, but I don't think they give the Nobel for things like that.
Prizes are for proof.
@@null2470 He deserves recognition for his work.
@@EbbandFlow1234 he will, if somebody has taken his works seriously through scientific experimentation.
Yes! ❤
I'm a big fan of David Bentley Hart, and my favorite quotation by him is as follows - "There can be no physical explanation of existence, because anything physical is by definition something that exists, so there can be no physical cause of existence."
What if spirit is physical?
Non material physicalists would like to have a word
This quote contains corrupt logics
@@GEMSofGOD_com I think what the quote means by "physical explanation of existence" is something like "physical explanation for why there's something rather than nothing."
For the sake of argument, we can draw a distinction between "why" and "how" type explanations, with "why" referring to the metaphysical, and "how" referring to the physical.
In this context, the quote simply means something like "Why things exist at all is a metaphysical question."
@@dbz5808 I've always personally thought of "meta" in "metaphysical" in a historical sense, not a causal one. The quote sounds too pompous to be correct. When something causes physical effects, I'd say it's physical-it belongs to the physical universe, just like photons do, because they eventually get observed. With "meta" meaning pre- in causal sense, sure, there can be a framework of causes and effects, of past and future. If you make this distinction and place physics in the realm of effects, then yeah. I place physics in the testable category, and I believe in a 1-to-1 correspondence between the true mathematical model of causes and what will somehow be derived from physics without zoomed-in observations of details - simple, unambiguous.
I was reminded, listening to this fascinating conversation, of Teilhard's fundamental insight that things hold together not from below and behind but from above and ahead.
Excellent discussion. As a simple minded layman, I nevertheless find Rupert’s thinking innovative, superbly imaginative. A truly gifted, original thinker with a deep soul and so guided by a genius intuition
Totally agree...of everything floating out there...I am pulled toward his worldview most consistently.
What a pleasure to have 2 of my heroes (1 from science, Sheldrake, and from theology, DB Hart) in the same video! Please keep this most important dialog going.
I’m so glad I found you Rupert. Your discussions on morphic fields are spot on, I believe. I’ve been pretty strongly telepathic for decades but I don’t seem to have much control over it. I do notice that my telepathic understandings are enhanced while I’m in proximity of an obelisk. My strongest telepathic knowing was when I was within about 100 yards from a granite obelisk with a total height on its pedestal of about 30 feet. The amplification of my telepathy while near this obelisk is quite significant. I didn’t know anything about obelisks but after being near them, I understood them to be a type of spiritual energy amplifier. Unsurprisingly, after then studying obelisks, I found that they are designed, at least in part, for this purpose. This is why they were used as gravestones. If you experiment with any obelisks during your studies of morphic fields, I believe that you’ll find that they are a variable that can enhance the morphic field significantly.
ooh great share, makes my strong psychic life connect up meaningfully to my enduring attraction to Obelisks
@@heidiankers108 they are a mostly forgotten secret.
This is very interesting! Thanks for sharing
Great stuff, Rupert. The strongest force is attraction. ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. ‘
How the tides move is endlessly fascinating.
Beautiful poetry there. Yours?
@@HealthPoliticsAndProtein
Unfortunately not mine. Shakespeare: ‘Julius Caesar’.
I admire and love mr.Rubert Sheldrake.I mean it at all.Thanks mr.Sheldrake.
A pure reward to listen into the joyful talk of such great minds, thank you.
Brilliant and mind-opening talk Rupert and David, looking for the following 👍
This conversation is foundational to the unfolding paradigm and central to a more harmonious convergence of science and spirituality, ancient and contemporary worldviews, and anthropic and meta-anthropic unfoldings of reality.
The answer is hiding in plain sight.
Yes Rupert, I feel this is the case.
Amazing content. Hegel also talks about Aristotle's soul and form as superior to the modern versions, and you demonstrate his point with such clarity
That was one of the most consequential 35 minutes I have experienced since I don't know when.
At this point, I'm just about convinced that the morphogentic field is the soul. It explains so much, including how our resurrected bodies can still be us. Our field survives death and forms our new physical bodies into each unique person.
BIG UP, Rupert Sheldrake!!!!!!
This was a great demonstration and discussion on immaterial teleological causality. And thrilled to have the likes of RS and DBH in conversation. I’ve watched it a few times since it was shared on David’s channel. I would love to see a conversation with RS, DBH, and the Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor. That would be immense.
Thanks for the lovely contemplations!
What insightful interviews with great thinkers. Thank you so much. ❤
I was just thinking about plants as echoing memories through time etc., thanks algorithm! Had no idea this channel existed!
A fascinating questioning and consideration of possibilities over this idea of attraction, an idea that, somewhat ironically, attracts our thinking as well..
I have long puzzled over fields of attraction, including in a very very broad sense: I've had so many rather astounding "alignments"(synchronicities--sp?) in my life that seem to defy odds that I've also wondered if life EVENTS and everyday events can created eddies and whorls of a kind of attraction in space-time. Do certain occurrences wind up giving birth to a kind of CONFLUENCE FIELD that somehow acts to align together (ie bind or link together) events that have things in common across time and space, if not universally, than locally?
See, this discussion has kicked off another mental dialogue....for which I am thankful.
Formal and final cause are the greatest facts to show now.
“Fields all the way down “❤
..like turtles..
19:30 On the self repel:
0.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922).
1.[The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.]
2.Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]:
k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl).*
3.From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. By the way, in SR: I(G)=inv; this follows from the Lorentz transformations: m=m(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2) and ∆t=∆t(0)/√(1-v^2/c^2). Hence, obviously, we have I(G)=m/t=m(0)/t(0)=inv.
4.For clarity, let's draw an analogy.
In electrodynamics, a circular conductor detects the properties of two conductors with currents flowing in opposite directions, since for each section of a conductor with a current on the opposite side there is a reverse current flow.
Thus, the conductor is self-repelled by the magnetic force: F(m)=μ(0)I(e)^2, where I(e) is the electric current.
5.Then the force of inertia is: F(i)=(1/i)[I(G)^2], where I(G)=mw. That is, the expansion of the mechanical system is due to the inertial force of self-repelled (it is clear that this is not an anti-gravitational force).
6.In the case of the Universe; the gravitational current flowing along the phase trajectory: I(universe)=M(universe)H~m(pl)w(pl),
respectively, the inertial force of self-expansion: F(i)=(1/i)I(universe)^2~F(pl).
7.It is clear that this approach is also valid for bodies moving in the same direction: then the inertial force of attraction will "appear", and this is not a gravitational, and even more so, not a "dark matter" effect.
{For example, for clusters of galaxies; for stars orbiting the center of galaxies.}
8.The general formula for both cases:
dF(i)=(1/4πi)[2I(1)I(2)](dl/r), where dl is the "element of length" of the trajectory of motion of the test body: a vector modulo equal to dl and coinciding in direction with the motion-current of the body, r is the distance between the trajectories of moving bodies.
Thus, the three directions I(G), r, B(i) are perpendicular to each other in pairs: it follows that gravity/inertial (and electro/magnetic) actions are closely related to the structure of space-time and form a natural rectangular coordinate system.
9.Moreover, if "The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin); then
the gravity/inertial field is a dynamic 4-space.
--------------
*) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w.
Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n=M/2∆m: system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…).
The constant c^2 / 2w(pl) in the final formula is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction:ф(G)=-Ф(i)w.
I look forward to the second part, after dinner
A Hobbit of a response!
@heidiankers108 wouldn't that be second breakfast? 😅
This is beautiful! The magnet pieces exhibit the properties of repulsion and attraction inherently due to the internal configurations and states of their atoms and subatomic constituents. It's these configurations and states that give rise to all reactions and interactions, the direction of energy flows not withstanding.
Everything is known as the light of mutual love (the union of fields) through all and in all, the eternal harmony in the heart of nature (including humans) interconnected as one sacred truth. Hidden in plain sight for sure!
Absolutely brilliant 👏
Brilliant. Please meet with Michael Levin again to discuss this idea.
Probably wrong but Ive always envisioned the Fields 'set the Tone' and any energetic interactions within the field are inhibited by this 'tone' or resonance.
Nestled fields have nestled resonance relationships.
thanks for sharing this hear as well
Rather deep but amazing conversation 👌💯
Great topic. I believe that gravity is a Casimir effect! And the same with the other forces in physics. And the closer the distance the stronger the force, so for example the color force that binds neutrons and protons together is extremely strong. And the Casimir effect is a gradient in the vacuum energy (two plates cancel certain wavelengths).
Being based in reason always wants to break things down into sub parts. It is inherent in the nature of reason. It is spot on for some purposes but will always miss the bigger picture.
I really enjoyed this,the use of the magnets pure genius!!! Would love to see RS interviewing Bernardo Kastrup …also reminded of Husserl’s description of regional ontologies .
I've been wondering quite a lot about this lately myself. I suspect this timely reflection will be impacting a field or two.
3:25 that’s a nice sounding plate!
The magnets are drawn to each other because the impetus given to them by Rupert was TOWARDS each each other. The main direction of energy is towards attraction rather than repulsion.
I appreciate the idea of morphic fields cause nature comes with smart mechanisms and theres too many unknowns yet. I respect Dr. Sheldrake but this magnet experiment should be carefully repeated and subject to a plot distribution like any other, as instance, take the naive coin tossing experiment, which, by the way can be very biased like this one
interesting. Having tossed the pieces towards each other, the maximum of repulsed was the initial condition. So the toss is biased.
6:20 The channel Theoria Apophasis... Ken Wheeler discusses magnetism and the point of natural rest in detail, referring to philosophical points and past scientists like Walter Russell and more.
May the fields be with you.!.
Great Scott!! Do you realize your assertions make the case for astrological tenets of cosmic influence to all lower bodies and fields as well as many quite ancient and post modern mystical teachings? Of course you did. Bravo!
Gorgeous ending ! Like in Asterix and the Britons when the Brits stop fighting every day for afternoon tea.
Wow, first time listening to Mr Hart. Extremely difficult to grasp, his train of thought. His sentences have the highest literary order.
Great discussion : )
From the perspective of an external observer, the rate of non-linear 'proper time' experienced by an object moving through the universe is proportional to the volume of a cone, where the height of the cone represents constant and linear 'coordinate time' and the base radius is modulated by the Lorentz factor.
Just like the concept of relating the circumference to the longest straight line inside a circle gives order to the random number sequence, pi
Great one! ❤
Amazing. I need some time to digest this further, but it seems to me that neither attraction or repulsion are fundamental in this example. Rather, the fundamental cause would be the seeking of alignment and growth, with the two opposite forces being two sides of the same coin or field, or two methods towards the same end.
This would apply to particles, except that atoms seek stability while molecules seek growth again. And it seems that to counteract this seeking (towards an end form) requires external energy or intervention.
I have enough troubles grappling with the arrow of time, now I have arrows in all of the fields. How are we to make sense of this?
Great talk
Everything stops for tea (well dinner actually). Great discussion.
More!
Thrilled to attempt absorption of this stirring conversation between two extremely erudite & thoughtful people. Also to see how many others would agree based on SO MANY comments.
In the end, the Big Bang still can NOT be explained & so even though the many points made may compel formal adoption…hypothesizing their Top Down origins remain. And of this, I happily embrace the notion that we may never know, due to our own design or not…it’s still worth trying…but we must also focus, as much, on how might we live now based upon the current fragments we do know.
Cheers to:
@fraserreal8496 Fields all the way down
@porkylongpig5282 More!
@jan-martinulvag1953 I am the field, not the content.
@millerbiop I loved watching this discussion between two people I respect, admire, and learn from -but the key question: whether one calls it 'soul', 'field', or 'God' is there anything, intelligent, deliberate, premeditated, or personal about it?
@anotherblonde Everything stops for tea (well dinner actually). Great discussion.
Can we make a distinction between Comparative Relativity and Self-Referential Relativity Mr. Sheldrake?
you are a genius!!!
Leibniz mill example comes to mind at around 15 minutes into the video.
I am the field, not the content. There is no content. All content must return to the field, as a field.
Yes, and as I understand in my Samoan-ness - our concept of space, Va... is a constantly negotiable indeterminate field of being
@@heidiankers108 you live on the Samoa island?
The emergence of form (and telos) in physical phenomena is better discussed in precise terms of the stationary action principle than orphaned terms of forces and energy. It is, in my view, best conceptualised from feynmanns point of view in particular. It is not wrong to say that fields are a manifestation of formal order, but this discussion feels rather like hitting a nail home with the wrong end of a hammer.
Unified Wave Framework
Core Principles:
1. Entanglement with Source:
- All waves are fundamentally entangled with their source, maintaining a coherent connection that influences their propagation characteristics.
2. Coherent Spiral Trajectory:
- Waves propagate in a coherent spiral trajectory over time, determined by their source and modified by environmental interactions.
- This trajectory implies a deterministic path rather than a purely probabilistic distribution.
3. Determinants of Wave Properties:
- The frequency, speed, shape, and other properties of waves are influenced by the source characteristics (e.g., charge, spin) and their interactions with the surrounding environment.
4. Measurement Influence:
- Measurement affects the outcome by interacting with the wave's trajectory. The probability aspect lies in both the timing and position of the measurement rather than the state of the wave itself.
Implications and Applications:
1. Photon Behavior and Light Propagation:
- Explains polarisation, gravitational lensing, and other light behaviours through entanglement with the light source and spiral propagation.
- Offers new insights into optical technologies, quantum communication, and imaging systems.
2. Particle Physics and Jet Substructures:
- Anomalous jet substructures observed in high-energy physics experiments (e.g., CMS research) could be manifestations of these coherent spiral trajectories.
- Enhances machine learning models for detecting new physics by incorporating spiral dynamics features.
3. Acoustic Waves:
- Applies to sound waves, improving models for sound propagation and acoustic engineering.
4. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity:
- Bridges quantum mechanics and general relativity by reinterpreting spacetime curvature and wave behaviour through spiral dynamics.
- Provides a new perspective on unresolved theoretical issues.
5. Technological Advancements:
- Promotes advancements in various fields including optics, acoustics, quantum computing, and high-energy physics by leveraging the unified wave framework.
Research Directions:
1. Simulation and Modeling:
- Develop detailed simulations of wave propagation based on coherent spiral trajectories.
- Validate the model against empirical data across different wave types and domains.
2. Machine Learning and Anomaly Detection:
- Adapt ML algorithms to recognize patterns consistent with spiral dynamics.
- Train algorithms using features derived from your unified wave framework to enhance detection of new physics signals.
3. Interdisciplinary Applications:
- Explore applications in diverse fields such as telecommunications, medical imaging, and environmental science by applying the unified wave principles.
Summary:
The unified wave framework reinterprets wave behaviour as coherent spiral trajectories influenced by source entanglement and environmental interactions. This approach offers a comprehensive model that bridges various scientific domains, potentially leading to significant advancements in both theoretical understanding and practical applications. The influence of measurement is determined by both the timing and position of the measurement, adding another layer of complexity and predictability to the wave dynamics.
This is ultra cool 😎
@4:12 “The magnetic field isn’t material”
Then what is it? The term ‘field’ can mean either the thing itself or the mathematical representation of it but to suppose that something immaterial can act on material things is to assert some sort of substance dualism. Maybe this is the argument?
Later on, you discuss the abandonment of the mechanical ether. I’d suggest reading further into this. Although the Michelson Morley experiment failed to detect the rigid, stationary ether which had been predicted, Einstein himself subsequently acknowledged that there would need to be some sort of ether. There are countless arguments for one. Maxwell’s description of the relationship of the speed of light to the permittivity and permeability of the ‘vacuum’ is exactly analogous to that of the speed of sound to the density and elasticity of the medium through which it travels. The equations have exactly the same form.
There is certainly some sort of ether whether we call is ‘spacetime’ (relativity) or ‘the field’ (quantum field theory). There is something material there.
You can understand the behaviour of your magnets by referring to the same sort of model that is used to explain how gravity works under General Relativity (a theory I don’t claim to understand).
If you imagined a rubber sheet like a trampoline as ‘the field’ and any solid objects as magnets, you could see that placing a magnet (an object) in the field (on the rubber sheet) would distort it. The stronger the magnet (heavier the object) the more it would distort the field. As you added successive magnets, each would distort the field further. As the number of magnets increased there would be a greater chance that one of them would slide into the depression created by another, making the depression larger and deeper. It’s easy to imagine that this could eventually lead to all of the magnets coming together in one, large depression.
None of the objects would expend energy. The energy accounting would relate to the field, not the objects in it.
To extend this idea further, I’d suggest that it is the medium in which morphic resonance operates and that the principle by which it acts is electromagnetic.
That's interesting. I've seen programmes about this rubber sheet construct - but surely it's meant metaphorically, to 'save the appearances' & illustrate visually the mathematical explanations mapping what experiments reveal? Aren't all visualisations of this type metaphorical? There might be several totally different ways to demonstrate what is found to happen, & imo Rupert Sheldrake's concept of fields is an alternative, immaterial one.
@@blackbird365 Certainly, there are mathematical ways to describe fields and that’s what physicists do. However, mathematics can say nothing about the nature of what it’s describing, only its behaviour. It’s also true that many physicists completely avoid the question, preferring to leave it philosophers although I think that’s a cop-out, personally.
Returning to Rupert’s idea that the field is immaterial, another way to assess that proposal would be philosophically. I do think that Rupert is arguing a type of Substance Dualism as that’s often the flavour of his argument. This would involve two entirely different substances, one material, one not, which somehow interact.
The question is, then, how could two substances of entirely different nature interact such that one causes effects in the other? This problem has proved so intractable that very few philosophers entertain Substance Dualism any more. It also fails as an explanation of electromagnetism, for example, on grounds of parsimony (Occam’s Razor). Why invoke two substances to explain E-M when there is a simpler model which uses only one? There are plenty of examples of real things that we cannot see by some means but which can be detected by others. Air, is such an example.
@@neilcreamer8207 Goodness, you're quite right - thank you so much for this crystal clear piece! 🙏 Are you a philosophy teacher? (The poor american chap was struggling with his stammer & countless longwinded parentheses that occluded his meaning.) Re your //1: Yes, I see that maths can only quantitively describe observed behaviour & can not in itself claim any metaphysical implications. //2: I've been reading & listening to RS for decades but never noticed that yes, indeed his basic position is dualistic. I'm shocked that I never noticed that before! //3: so we're back to the old problem of how the material & immaterial interact; like the 'hard problem'.
I don't go along with Occam's Razor though. It's an untestable assertion that can't be justified imo. Why can't proliferation & multiplicity be adequate & useful & encompass more phenomena than some over-simplified explanation that omits peripheral things in a wider context? The latter might lead the way to more discoveries & re-thinkings that advance our understanding, if we don't always aim for a simple soundbite / formula. To me, Occam's Razor is just a matter of aesthetic taste, rather than having any philosophical justification. After all, Nature is astonishingly prolific & bountiful & produces many things out of apparent 'nothingness' ... hardly parsimonious!
@@blackbird365 Thank you for your kind remarks. I’m neither a teacher nor have any formal education in philosophy.
I agree that Occam’s Razor might be a purely aesthetic consideration. Alternatively, it might come from humans not being able to process complex problems and preferring to address simple ones. This is probably what led to the reductive approach that has served scientific thought so well. There clearly is complexity in nature, though, and the comparatively new study of complexity, along with the advent of computer technology, has opened up several new fields of study.
One thing we have learned from people like John Conway and Stephen Wolfram is that complex ‘life-like’ behaviour can emerge from a small set of principles. In some cases, it seems that once a complex system is up and running it just continues to become increasingly complex and diverse. In fact, if you look at what occurs in the living world that is pretty much what seems to be happening all the time as what we call evolution. Maybe what we call life was inevitable?
Maybe if there is any substance at all to Nature it produces its complexity not out of ‘nothing’ but out of ‘something’ imperceptible and a few simple rules?
The magnetic field is a flow. It is push and pull, a circuit.
Demagnetized iron has many tiny magnetic fields that cancel each other out, so that the whole does not exhibit magnetism.
Or the zero point is the attractor and virtual particles are the interactors?
Magnets are made by forcing the atoms into certain positions.
Perhaps the bar magnets tend to form larger structures, for the atoms to stay in the forced position a bit more easily?
6:32 "...It's very attractive though, isn't it?" 👌
that was a cold ending
The magnet demo is because repulsion is non terminating, whereas attraction is terminating in contact.
"The Field made me do it!"
'"...without the fog of mathematics that normally occludes all discussion and prevents all thought on the subject..." I am dying to know more about this statement.
As someone who cried her way through Algebra II and only with independent help from the teacher passed with a C, my worst-ever grade in high school, I'm now delving (independent research for a book) into things like systems view science, subquantum kinetics, chaos theory, etc, and I keep getting this feeling that their instant resorting to math is detaching me, and them, from the subject of study somehow and I don't understand what is going on. But I can't understand math (from algebra up) or even what it's good for in science (besides predicting and engineering) to see why I feel like it's taking me away from the subject I'm trying to learn about. I don't understand why they see something and then before doing anything, they start playing with numbers and equations. I don't know what they are doing, and I often don't understand how they connect their math to the reality I'm observing, and often it doesn't seem to be an accurate reflection.
ENTROPY is a really good example of this. What I see in entropy, in short, is a natural energetic process returning to its state of balance (not dying, just going back to its default state of peace and rest and waiting for its next "assignment" so-to-speak), and for them, it's all about math and probabilities...
Faraday stopped after algebra. Geometry is useful, such as Euclid. It's a clue that infinity, which has a mathematical symbol, is never seen in mathematical formula. Likewise, eternity has no place in any science. It's more important to observe reality, and reflect on that just as mirrors reflect, and to reflect ruminatively as well.
There is no promise you’ll be happy with what you find. That is the random walk with a math journey in mind. I wish you success.
I loved watching this discussion between two people I respect, admire, and learn from - but they seem to dance around, yet not address the key question: whether one calls it "soul" or "field", is there anything, intelligent, deliberate, premeditated, or personal about it? (i.e. what is quaintly referred to as “God”)
I posted a short video about the 2nd chapter of Genisis, where the garden of eden is described as a place with rivers winding through veins of gold and onyx, with incense plants abounding.
I was shocked at the reception. People had no problem and great interest in Adam and Eve existing as spirits only, interactions of electromagnetic fields casuaed by water flowing between conductors and semiconductors.
I could share the video its less than a minute.
One idea to explain the physical universe is that it is a creation from a fraction of our nonphysical mind- the ego.
Matter cant be explained graphicly, it fails with a shell, the shell needs to exist of something and there we go again.
The only possibility is a nonphysical energy- sheldrakes fields.
It must be playful, not even, densified at spots, creating the smallest particles, from "nothing".
In this way big bang is possible, with a field of energy.
And without the fields, the physical universe must dissolve.
And with option nr 1, the physical universe must dissolve with the end of ego.
Any game is better than no game- is a suggestion i read.
And i think we should just accepting this approach.
Dont get to serious about what happens in our lifes, you are creating it on another level- look on it- if you cant beat it-join it!
Listen to James Mahu. He's explaining our reality with this "ego idea"
That tendency to return to the Root in matter is literally its uroboros fate and origins as well. Matter is frozen/fallen/imprisoned light, and we are experiencing its zest to become Light in the form of our souls, to become photonic, i.e., timeless and weightless, again. Matter is the actual "self-expression" and "self-exploration" of light, and the whole story of the cosmos is the journey of light to itself, the Light. As de Broglie found out, light is the most refined form of matter! then What's going on? A passage between photonic epoch to photonic epoch. All is Light, exploring IT-self.
If the magnetic field “pulls”, would this mean the electric field “pushes”? One organizes and compresses and aligns, the other disorganizes and expands and scatters.
You left out the photonic (aether) charge field, arguably the most important and foundational field.
Were the first magnets meteorites?
Would this imply there is somthing "unearthly" about magnets? That in flyinf though space, they necessarily had to form magnetic fields? What are the polar fields of an asteroid parallel or perpendicular to in relation to motion.
I recall something about meteors and magnets
A magnet can stick for, conceivably, hundreds of years because it would take more energy and information over a shorter period to remove and displace it than it does to let it persist in the condition it was already set. The same is true of why matter persists and yet an induced charge does not, though both are fundamentally fields. Unless the energy rate thresholds are overcome to an extent which changes the dynamic the universe is fine to toil away at the natural methods in the decay and diffusion of things as they sit.
Still, the only scientist who knows what a field actually IS is Dewey Larson. It is _Time Squared over Space._
Larson's Reciprocal Systems Theory of Space and Time is THE KEY to Sheldrake's theory.
A proper understanding of the nature of space and time, and beginning from a correct reference frame, is essential.
The cartographers became so obsessed with representation that they built a map of great precision, not realizing that representation and reality must have a distinction. Over many generations they became so good at representation that the map covered the entire territory. In time, all distinctions were lost until the map became the territory. Representation and reality blended into a boundless hyper-real where few distinctions could be made and no boundary located. The creature's creation became the territory of sensory distinctions in the precession of the hyper-real. Lucidity was lost in a sea of meaning where the sensual sought out pleasure for pleasure's sake. All activity concerned itself with increasing levels of illusion, the illusion of pleasure. All activity blurred into one great orgasmic rush of pleasure where distinction disappeared.
There is no simulation without coherent information and all coherent information in a simulation should be recorded. If a zero point of a field represents the information within a field, virtual particles can be imagined as the collectors of this information and/or a means to control the field.
ye video to bahut pahle aa chuki haiii , double se post kr diyaa
@witsitgetsit would likely enjoy talking to you Mr Rupert Sheldrake.
Gravity is the prime mover.
Gravity causes flows in dielectric super fluid space. These flows in a dielectric fluid create charge. Flows in a dielectric cause charge separation.
Charge and QFT are artifacts.
I think your comment represents something that might make a lot of sense. But the poetry of Maxwell has created such a powerful hold over academic imagination that such considerations are dismissed out of hand. These folks do not understand why people like Nikola Tesla criticized the work of people like Einstein and Maxwell. Wireless electromagnetic waves do not exist in the real world. They are mathematical illusions. Does a static electric field follow the same inverse cube law that a magnetic field does? Does light? Magnetic fields cannot exist where there is no boundary. They do not seem to understand how magnetism works. Rowland's charged disc experiment is something these people never talk about.
Pip-pip and cheerio . . . sum up the Cosmos just so! 🖖🏻
It seems to me now that the only possible explanation is that virtual particles are the attracting force or at least the arrangement of it.
Even with that big mic the audio is muffled...LOL.
In electromagnetism, energy density is derived from the fields, and since energy and matter are interchangeable, matter derives from fields. Does this make fields non-material? Not really.
Einstein's theory works from the perspective that time and space is linked. As soon as you see them as separate - more will open up.
See Dr Todd Murphy "Consciousness Arises Out Of Magnetism as Intrinsic Property"
At the centre of a magnet there is no repulsion or attraction. If you cut a magnet in half along that line you do not have two poles but two new magnets. Magnetism is not a feature of the material itself but a pressure perturbation that is acted upon it. The centre is zero point, repulsion (magnetism) is a loss of energy that can only go so far and is tethered to the centre. This gives rise to a torus shape and anti torus or hour glass shape (hyperboloid). Think about how water goes goes down the plug hole.
Rupert, Joe Rogan had a interview with Terrance Howard you might find interesting. He mentioned your work during the conversation.
"The soul is the form of the body, and the body is the material of the soul." Aristotle
It seems to me that the only possible explanation is the field interactions with virtual particles. I guess if we could see magnetism, it would look like fluid dynamics in action. Maybe this explains why fluids and gases move with the same geometric patterns. There's a geometric interaction with virtual particles, within a field. Most likely a spiral because this represents the gathering of coherent information over time, in the form of a cone or vortex. This is significant because a cone is linear in the lengths of its side but it's non-linear in its volume. This explains the temporal differences between Einstein's co-ordinate time and proper time. Coordinate time is the linear progression of the sides of the cone and proper time is the volumetric progression. But it has to be a spiral to maintain coherence from source.
It seems to me, that destiny and freewilll are interelated,
and parallel maybe that, also gravity and the electric force are interelated.
Is conciousness the boundary or flux between these, a coalescance ? Love
It seems that humans can only interact with plants thru the emotional, with care, since the plant culture is underground and the human culture is above ground and contained in the gut, where the GI tract interface is both inside and outside the body, and life and creativity are between objects.
When I look at a plant I see the energy the plant doesn't use and I see the form which adapts to the morphic/emotional/psyche availability. It's like I see a hole in reality that I fill in with my energy. With English language, perhaps the adverbs and adjectives are the being set and verbs and nouns as placeholders of moving "material". It's about how relative the moving is, since everything apparently moves. It's about how red it is, since that is not used except for the observing by another sequestered part of the field and the creativity expressed thru that.
If humans are plants, the brain is like that node of being while the body is the flower, but the brain as a node of a being that is the entirety of the human (or mammal) form existence from beginning to end, with individuals as scales on this dancing dragon in the multidimensional. Which allows humans to mimic other mammals, where they are ruminants and we aren't, but this isn't a problem until the societal efficiency of producing this tasteless gut filler ramps up and causes distress. Hierarchy borrowed from the pack to counteract the amazing (yet self defeating) power of grass, that which escapes the herd into the hierarchy spring. The dark triad from that triangle since the healthy part is missing. Machiavellian, consumerism, antagonism in a diminished mammal object, where the between objects space is diminished because the care (the excess given away by the human object, think disc or circle extended by fire, or trampoline, instead of triangle) is lost or misplaced.
Thanks for the video!
Magnet attracted to magnet, sticking together is better then separate, more strength. symbiosis magnified?
How Mr Sheldrake, could one construct a 'sphere' using only daisy chains? The magnets clearly favour stacking in a vertical 'classical pillar' fashion. A tubular capillary is circular like a pipe, not like a round ball. This visual demonstration to explain the Sun, Earth or Moon is baffling.
Gravity is very much like buoyancy.
From Kierkegaard's journal: "God does not exist; He is eternal. God does not think; He creates."
There’s definitely a financial field keeping me out of Hampstead lol
Perhaps the long sought,dark matter and dark energy are actually fields