. 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception

[Andro]

Thread Intro:

This thread has been created as a host for all further debates and dissertations surrounding various 'one matter' (& related) controversies and possible misunderstandings, so as to avoid serially hijacking other threads.

 

[Dragon's Tail]

Thank you Andro!

To kick this off on topic (not to argue, just as food for thought), lots of compounds in sea water. Water + salts + dissolved gasses + many many processes, biologic/thermal/etc. IF I were going to start with one matter, or consider a good matter to start concocting the solvent, I would start here. I tinker with water, and there's tons to learn from it, but since my operations are chymical/spagyric 99.998% of the time, right now it's just speculation. I'm not so sure that "the stone" can be procured just from sea water, or any alchemical reconstruction of it, but it's a baseline, I think, for speculation and enlightenment that will provide clues as to "nature's method," which remember is NOT our current understanding, but that which is directly observable and speculated on. Many ancient cultures speculated differently than modern science on the formation of rocks, crystals, and metals.

 

[Andro]

Dragon's Tail, thanks for kick-starting this...

Elsewhere, I have posed the question "what is matter". Is it stuff we find in a natural state? In an artificially refined state? Chemically manufactured?

Also, all matter can be broken down into components, such as elements of the periodic table variety (if we use this paradigm). Elements can be further broken down to atoms, electrons, etc...

So, within the accepted scientific model (although I've never actually seen an electron ) what is matter, ultimately?

And does alchemy ultimately come down to chemical reactions between different "matters" that the academia hasn't discovered? Because, IMO, if there is no "x-factor" (secret/hidden component) involved in Alchemy, then it may be essentially no different at all from chemistry or "chymistry"

Perhaps there is something fundamental that ALL matter has in common (in its composition)? Some Alchemy researchers suggest/speculate that what Alchemists termed "Universal Spirit" may be a sort of "electron cloud". Or perhaps there is a more "occult" (= hidden) aspect to the composition of matter, something that quite a few researchers have addressed in their own unique ways.

What should be regarded as "one matter" in alchemy, regardless if our position is to seek this "one matter" OR to avoid it at any cost?

 

[Florius Frammel]

I came to the assumtion recently that maybe there indeed is a link between mind and matter. The sages often underline similar statements. Some might say however, that if it is so, then why did they not speak openly in their recipies. Because you would never get the results if you don't know how to make an influence on matter with your mind and therefore the encrypting of texts dealing with making the stone would seem pretty useless.

Even modern science (which unfortunately is often rejected here) is nowadays dealing with this mind-matter link. You can for example look up here for some information concerning this subject http://www.consciousness-app.com/. They even seem to have developed an app for your mobiles to research on this topic on your own.
Not all scientists agree with the interpretation of most of the results of their experiments, but there seems to be a small but significant effect. On the other hand this might be explained with errors in the setup of the experiment.

Some scientists -for example the german psychologist and physician Walter von Lucadou even believe that so called supernatural events can be eliminated when trying to examine them empirically. As a councelor for people who experience or think they experience paranormal activities (for example "poltergeist" phenomenas) he gives the advice to write down the exact time and space on which the events occur. This way lots of those activities seem to stop. It is interesting and of cource not emprically provable if this mind-matter interactions (which Lucadou thinks are the reasons for most of these phenomenas) are somehow "afraid" of empirical research methods. Of course you can't say something about the obvious comments of critics on this topic either.

 

[Dragon's Tail]

I think part of it comes from our misunderstanding of nuclear physics in the modern age. We can predict radioactive decay, for example, but the mechanism that causes it (and the WAY it carries itself out) is left to statistics and nature. The mainstream group acknowledges statistics like some kind of governing force that acts on the quantum scale, but there are plenty who disagree.

And I'm convinced that there are more than a handful of mistakes/representations in our understanding of chemistry. There's still much to learn about the little things in life. I have my own views/theories on gods, spirits, etc, and how they can "interact" with the world around us. Even how our souls interact at a distance and with our bodies, But the cause-effect relationships are quite fuzzy.

These holes in science aren't hard to find. Just find a baffled scientist saying "this shouldn't be." They are on the verge of discovery but fail to see that there's a larger world outside of their paradigm. Lot's of scientists said it shouldn't be true that the speed of light can be calculated from known constants and outside of any frame of reference, but that turned out to be quite true. There was no problem with the Maxwell equations, only our understanding of them, because until relativity, we assumed that a velocity necessitated a frame of reference, and that Newton's laws applied in every frame of reference.

Newton was awesome, but he couldn't explain the procession of Mercury. There's always more to be discovered, and what we find to be fascinating transmutations might some day be understood as a special kind of chemical reaction, once we sufficiently change our frame of reference.

 

[Florius Frammel]

By the way, I'm sure that some of you might have heard or read about the Kervran experiments which for me seem to be pretty well made in an emprical sense. What I can not find is a work that actually has results speaking against his data and interpretation. Most people just say it is impossible and that's it. If anyone has a source please let me know.

 

[JDP]

Dragon's Tail, thanks for kick-starting this...

Elsewhere, I have posed the question "what is matter". Is it stuff we find in a natural state? In an artificially refined state? Chemically manufactured?

Who knows. Does it really "matter"? It exists. Period.

Also, all matter can be broken down into components, such as elements of the periodic table variety (if we use this paradigm). Elements can be further broken down to atoms, electrons, etc...

So, within the accepted scientific model (although I've never actually seen an electron ) what is matter, ultimately?

Those are the notions and ideas of physics. According to them, matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

And does alchemy ultimately come down to chemical reactions between different "matters" that the academia hasn't discovered? Because, IMO, if there is no "x-factor" (secret/hidden component) involved in Alchemy, then it may be essentially no different at all from chemistry or "chymistry"

We can easily reverse this arbitrary pronouncement: And do "chymistry" and chemistry ultimately come down to "debased" alchemical reactions between different "matters" that the alchemists themselves gave a wide berth to since they knew they were ineffective for the purpose of making the Stone, their one and only objective? In such a case, "chymistry" and chemistry would be just the "leftovers" of what the alchemists rejected or ignored.

Note regarding "chymistry", though: unlike chemistry, this discipline managed to find its own ways of accomplishing transmutations. So this prompts the also very important question: what distinguishes it from ordinary chemistry, which still believes that transmutation through any reactions between any substances is "impossible"? What "supernatural" element does "chymistry" supposedly need to distinguish it from chemistry, then? If you have been successful at replicating some "chymical" transmutations you know well that the answer is: NONE. I did not need any "Divine Revelations/Gifts/Permissions", or special spoon-bending Jedi-like psychic super-powers, or bizarre "magic" rituals, or mysterious unseen "universal somethings" to succeed in replicating some of these "chymical" processes that can produce small amounts of gold and silver. It's just a matter of discovering the right substances, operations and conditions to accomplish the goal (and thankfully some "chymists" have been more open and generous than others, describing some of these processes in practically full detail, with little or no attempts at misleading, so the subject is not as difficult to investigate as alchemy, where virtually all its "masters", even the more generous and clear ones, write in more or less imprecise/vague/ambiguous/misleading terms regarding what matters to use to make the Stone.) The large majority of reactions are useless and leave the metals involved in them quite intact and just like they were before the reactions took place. But a comparative minority of them do work and alter a portion of the metals involved. This is what distinguishes "chymistry" from "chemistry". I don't expect alchemy to be any different, the difference being that the results of its techniques are quite quantitatively more spectacular than those of "chymistry" (while the majority of "chymical" processes can only turn relatively small fractions of certain metals into gold & silver, even the more mediocre results of alchemy produce substances that can turn at least several times their own weight in gold & silver.)

What should be regarded as "one matter" in alchemy, regardless if our position is to seek this "one matter" OR to avoid it at any cost?

Let me clarify again that when I criticize the "one matter only" claim I am referring to the QUANTITATIVE context in which this claim appears in many alchemical texts, not so much the theoretical/speculative musings of most alchemists regarding the alleged unity of all matter. The type of misleading alchemists I am referring to are the ones who purposefully want their readers to believe that all you really need to make the Stone is literally "one matter only", meaning ONE SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ONLY. They don't mean "matter" here in a metaphysical or theoretical sense, but as a single specific substance with its own peculiar characteristics/properties, like say, antimony, or the leaves of a tree, or a piece of old moldy cheese.

 

[Florius Frammel]

I got your point, JDP.
Can you name one/some good sources/texts of chymists with which you can produce small quantities of transmutated silver or gold?

 

[JDP]

Thread Intro:

This thread has been created as a host for all further debates and dissertations surrounding various 'one matter' (& related) controversies and possible misunderstandings, so as to avoid serially hijacking other threads.

It has become impossible to build up exchanges involving work with "one matter" (& related) without them being hijacked with variations on the same theme, over and over (and over) again. A few times here and there is OK, but this has become a serial thing, systemically derailing multiple threads.

This will have to stop now, one way or another.

If people wish to discuss their approach and/or their work with 'One Matter" as a foundation, they should be able to do so without constant interruption.

If so inclined, all further dissertations and debates on this matter(!) can be done here from now on: 'One Matter' - Discerning Truth from Deception

This decision is incomprehensible in a thread that in fact deals directly with the issue at hand: the Stone is supposedly made from "one matter only". But is it really "one matter only" as some want to claim? Trying to censor and marginalize the opposing view to a specific separate thread does nothing but further emphasize that those who promote the "one matter" claim have hardly any arguments to defend their beliefs from more critical scrutiny. Sounds like the form of fascist-like forum censorship that was promoted by that "Zoas" guy, with supposed appeals against "hijacking" to try to justify it. But can discussion of the validity of any given claim be seen as "hijacking" if it happens in a thread that in fact deals with the subject being discussed??? That's what discussion forums are for in the first place. It would qualify as "hijacking" if the thread somehow started to deal with other topics than the one being discussed. But that's not what was going on in the "One, Two, Three" thread. The purpose of that thread is obviously to promote the claim that from "one matter only" you can make the Stone.

 

[Awani]

...is it really "one matter only" as some want to claim?

Can gay people have a thread about a gay issue in peace, without homophobic redneck KKK people butting in every five minutes to say homosexuality is EVIL?

If someone wants to talk about "one matter only" then it is fine to raise the issue that this is wrong... but again, and again, and again, and again... well that is not the same thing. Such things call for a new thread... some people want to discuss "one matter only", because it is TRUTH for them. You are not the Truth Police.

Sounds like the form of fascist-like forum censorship that was promoted by that "Zoas" guy.

Zoas is gone.

But you are right regarding fascism. This ain't really a democracy, even if it seems like it. (1)

That is all I am going to say about that. The rest I leave in the hands of the God(s).

_________________________________________

(1) it kind of is a democracy amongst the dictators themselves

 

[JDP]

I got your point, JDP.
Can you name one/some good sources/texts of chymists with which you can produce small quantities of transmutated silver or gold?

The author of the rather mistitled "Alchymia Denudata" has written some plain truths, so has "Sincerus Renatus" in some of his books that deal with "particulars". Glauber, Becher and Kunckel also have written some truths rather plainly. Kellner sometimes points to processes that do give positive results (some of Kellner's works were published anonymously, but you can easily recognize his style once you get familiar with the works he openly published under his name.) But all of the older "chymists" have unfortunately also infested their works with lots of lies, empty boasts and false processes (just look at Becher's massive "Chymischer Glücks-Hafen", for example. Around 3/4, if not actually more, of this gigantic collection of "particulars" are false.) It's what makes investigating "chymistry" difficult because it forces the researcher to have to sift through tons of nonsense in order to stumble upon a comparative few worthy things. That takes time and money to do. But if you examine the works by some of the later "chymists", like Juncker, Creiling, Henckel, von Justi, Rouelle, etc., they help clear up some of the nonsense and false claims and more directly point to some of the worthy things to start investigating.

 

[JDP]

Can gay people have a thread about a gay issue in peace, without homophobic redneck KKK people butting in every five minutes to say homosexuality is EVIL?

This is not a very good comparison, though. We are not talking about subjective things like "evil" vs "good", but about EMPIRICALLY probable vs improbable, as well as what exactly did this or that alchemist actually say or mean or imply regarding the subject.

If someone wants to talk about "one matter only" then it is fine to raise the issue that this is wrong... but again, and again, and again, and again... well that is not the same thing. Such things call for a new thread... some people want to discuss "one matter only", because it is TRUTH for them. You are not the Truth Police.

I would agree with this if this was going on in other threads, the ones that have hardly much to do with the subject, but what's wrong with the threads where this is in fact the subject being discussed, or appertains closely to it??? Also, "truth" is NOT subjective when we are dealing with EMPIRICAL FACTS. These are the same for all. That's why the comparison with "good" vs "evil" is not very good. That is more subjective.

 

[Awani]

Empirical Facts and Alchemy is, to a scientist, a joke. Pseudo-science cannot be fact. You are interested in mumbo-jumbo according to 90 % of the Western World.

However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn, has argued that these methods [meaning Empirical Evidence] are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently, it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data. - source

There is really no such thing as Empirical Fact. There is such a thing as Empirical Evidence, and the reason the term "evidence" is important is because "evidence" can be thrown out of court when NEW evidence is brought forth.

Case closed.

 

[JDP]

Empirical Facts and Alchemy is, to a scientist, a joke. Pseudo-science cannot be fact. You are interested in mumbo-jumbo according to 90 % of the Western World.



There is really no such thing as Empirical Fact. There is such a thing as Empirical Evidence, and the reason the term "evidence" is important is because "evidence" can be thrown out of court when NEW evidence is brought forth.

Case closed.

Makes one wonder why did you bother to make an "Alchemy Forums" in the first place if you think it is all mumbo-jumbo and lies.

The quotation about Khun is valid as far as it goes into the realm of mixing preconceived notions (i.e. theories) with the observable empirical facts. However, when truly considered by a truly independent observer that does not a priori subscribe to any theory, empirical facts stand by themselves. Does Khun really have any possible valid argument against the reality of gravity, for example? Nope, he doesn't. That gravity is very real and exists is INDEPENDENT of what one thinks is causing it.

Yes, NEW EVIDENCE can do that TO THEORIES, but that does not invalidate the previously observed facts that those theories were built upon, though. Let me bring the "phlogiston" theory as an example: 18th century chemists were convinced of the reality of this "thing", and they tried to back it up by such OBSERVABLE phenomena as combustion and calcination. But then came Lavoisier armed with a whole set of NEW ACCUMULATED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE regarding the composition of the atmosphere and totally invalidated the THEORY of "phlogiston", but it DID NOT INVALIDATE the combustion and calcination that the "phlogistonists" were observing over and over again, he just gave these EMPIRICAL FACTS a more satisfactory explanation. The "phlogistonists" just MISINTERPRETED the same empirical evidence that Lavoisier himself used in his investigations, but Lavoisier also had the added advantage over his predecessors that he had EVEN MORE empirical evidence at his disposal to more correctly assess the issue and give it a more satisfactory explanation.

 

[Awani]

Makes one wonder why did you bother to make an "Alchemy Forums" in the first place if you think it is all mumbo-jumbo and lies.

I was saying that the people who INVENTED the concept of Empirical Evidence, the rational scientific fact based community... those people think you are a crack pot.

 

[JDP]

I was saying that the people who INVENTED the concept of Empirical Evidence, the rational scientific fact based community... those people think you are a crack pot.

Who says they "invented" it? Observation of empirical facts goes back to prehistoric times, since man has been around. What may change is the way of interpreting them, but the facts remain the same.

 

[Awani]

Observation of empirical facts goes back to prehistoric times, since man has been around.

No one can know for certain, but since it is my main field of study I would place a large bet on the "fact" that prehistoric times shared opinions closer to mine than yours... in the sense that they "believed" and "saw" a lot of paranormal things that cannot have any other empirical evidence than the experience of the subject itself. Science is good for making tooth paste... pretty much ends there IMO.

 

[JDP]

No one can know for certain, but since it is my main field of study I would place a large bet on the "fact" that prehistoric times shared opinions closer to mine than yours... in the sense that they "believed" and "saw" a lot of paranormal things that cannot have any other empirical evidence than the experience of the subject itself. Science is good for making tooth paste... pretty much ends there IMO.

Maybe in regards to "opinions", like when they probably thought that naturally occurring fire was some sort of "Divine Gift" (but eventually figured out that they could make it too, and there was no need for some "supernatural" cause in starting a fire; watch the 1981 film Quest for Fire for an entertaining take on this), but when it comes to just observing naked facts and not trying to meddle with the always uncertain issue of "interpreting" what is causing those facts (like when they learnt that falling down a cliff invariably means certain death, for example; no questions asked, they just accepted it as a fact corroborated by repeated experience) they were closer to my points of view than to yours.

 

[Awani]

...certain death...

Certain? He he...

 

[JDP]

Certain? He he...

Would you care to put it to the test? Find the nearest cliff and plunge in...

 

[Andro]

‘I fell off the Cliffs of Moher and lived to tell the tale’

Certainty is an abstract and unproven concept. It is also not empirically provable, since not all possibilities (which are infinite) can be taken into consideration, unless one is able to dedicate all eternity to exhaust all of them

"Highly probable" would be a more appropriate term than "certain" - and certainly so for die-hard empiricists


One might argue that at least physical death is a certainty for everyone, but, again, one cannot study EVERYONE from all of time, thus an OPEN empirical mind should also account for margins of error.

Declaring "certainty" is shaky ground for an empiricist.

 

[JDP]

‘I fell off the Cliffs of Moher and lived to tell the tale’

Certainty is an abstract and unproven concept. It is also not empirically provable, since not all possibilities (which are infinite) can be taken into consideration, unless one is able to dedicate all eternity to exhaust all of them

"Highly probable" would be a more appropriate term than "certain" - and certainly so for die-hard empiricists


One might argue that at least physical death is a certainty for everyone, but, again, one cannot study EVERYONE from all of time, thus an OPEN empirical mind should also account for margins of error.

Declaring "certainty" is shaky ground for an empiricist.

Freak accidents do happen every now and then. One American air gunner in WW2 was unbelievably lucky to survive a 20,000 foot fall from a downed B-17 bomber! (look up Alan Magee, one of the luckiest men ever!) But under normal/ordinary conditions, falling off of a cliff will kill you. Take that as a fact.

 

[Andro]

under normal/ordinary conditions, falling off of a cliff will kill you. Take that as a fact.

You're the one who said "certain death". I posted what I did to challenge the "certainty" claim, not the high statistical probability of dying.

There is NO certainty (only statistical odds, be they high or low) and there are no predictions that can possibly be "certain facts" (because they haven't happened yet), just like there are NO "normal/ordinary" conditions.

You're being surprisingly vague as an empiricist when it suits you...

So please stop cheating by inserting into your equations factors that are vague and open to interpretation, such as "normal/ordinary conditions" (unless you can empirically define what they are)...

Provide empirically measurable PARAMETERS of such conditions!

Provide clear parameters that we can actually insert into the probability equation, and then, and only then, IF the result is 100% (unlikely), I might take you seriously!

BUT, if you predict "certainty" instead of calculated odds (and consider your predictions to be "facts") - you're not an empiricist, you're a believer and a self-proclaimed prophet - and your "empirical" debates are no more than religious wars!

Attaching the term FACT to events that have not happened yet, categorizes your approach to such debates as irrational and, if anything, more "mystically" inclined.

Replace "fact" with "highly probable", and you're back in the land of empirical reasoning.

----------------------------------------------------------

 

[JDP]

You're the one who said "certain death". I posted what I did to challenge the "certainty" claim, not the high statistical probability of dying.

There is NO certainty (only statistical odds, be they high or low) and there are no predictions that can possibly be "certain facts" (because they haven't happened yet), just like there are NO "normal/ordinary" conditions.

You're being surprisingly vague as an empiricist when it suits you...

So please stop cheating by inserting into your equations factors that are vague and open to interpretation, such as "normal/ordinary conditions" (unless you can empirically define what they are)...

Provide empirically measurable PARAMETERS of such conditions!

Provide clear parameters that we can actually insert into the probability equation, and then, and only then, IF the result is 100% (unlikely), I might take you seriously!

BUT, if you predict "certainty" instead of calculated odds (and consider your predictions to be "facts") - you're not an empiricist, you're a believer and a self-proclaimed prophet - and your "empirical" debates are no more than religious wars!

Attaching the term FACT to events that have not happened yet, categorizes your approach to such debates as irrational and, if anything, more "mystically" inclined.

Replace "fact" with "highly probable", and you're back in the land of empirical reasoning.

----------------------------------------------------------

It goes without saying that falling down from a cliff or an airplane where there is nothing along your falling path that might gradually slow down your fall you will die. Those are the "normal/ordinary" conditions. Now, if you fall off of a cliff/plane where there is something along your descending path that might slow down your fall, then the conditions would be met by which you might survive such an event. But this falls under the realm of "coincidence". The fact that such freakish events of incredible good luck only happen rarely should tell you that they are not the normal/ordinary conditions but the exceptions.

 

[Andro]

Regardless, referring as "fact" to something that has not occurred yet is acting like a prophet, not an empiricist. An empiricist would speak in terms of statistical odds, not of certainty.

It goes without saying that falling down from a cliff or an airplane where there is nothing along your falling path that might gradually slow down your fall you will die. Those are the "normal/ordinary" conditions.

Still, we've made some progress. You have defined the parameter referred to as "normal/ordinary circumstances", although by using the term "nothing" in the definition - which is an abstract, UN-provable concept. Define "nothing" and then we can progress some more.