Tom Torrance talked about how significant the discovery of fields is to our understanding of the universe. It would be interesting to see if his expression of this correlates in any way to what RS is expressing.
I've also never been super convinced by morphic fields as a theory, but between his work exposing the fault lines in contemporary science (the replicability crisis, publication bias, methodological problems in desiging and reporting experiments, etc.) and in popularizing "heretical" research that follows all the rules but arrives at the "wrong" conclusions, I'd say Sheldrake's the greatest living enemy of scientism, and I respect him for that.
Not to mention (and correct me if I'm wrong), Sheldrake has always put it forward as a theory, as something to be tested as a possible consideration. I've never gotten the impression that he's dogmatic about it. It would be interesting to see his ideas taken seriously enough in the mainstream to be seriously refuted or affirmed.
And he is quite a brave man. For a scientist to face accusations of pseudoscience (which has happened to him) is the equivalent of a Catholic priest being charged with heresy.
I wrote this over at the YouTube I just wanted to add to it that from what I've read of fields in modern Physics models is that they often act like wholes presiding over and ordering giving structure to the particles that they govern
It's great to see 2 people who've I've followed for years, espically about a topic as intresting as field theory , viewing it as form I think is a very intresting way to aproach it. There's a Neoplatonist Ken Wheeler who goes by Theoria Apophasis who often makes intresting reccommendations in reguard to Aether field theory and monistic metaphsyics
I know many Physists gave Enstein some flax for relativity lacking refrence of the Aether and special relativity lacking refrence to gravity later filled in by general relativity , Many Phycists today often avoid strict definations of ''infomation , force, space, field or energy'' and get upset when enginers lean more towards the older view of fields along the lines of Tesla, who disliked relativity. Enstein was asked if he stood on the shoulders of Newton and he relayed ''no, On Maxwells"
He also stated
''Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.''-Einstein On Ether and Relativity on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden.
I also want to let you know as you do that all our hearts are with you and his after Roland's passing
Rupert Sheldrake is always a joy to listen to. Thanks for posting, David!
Tom Torrance talked about how significant the discovery of fields is to our understanding of the universe. It would be interesting to see if his expression of this correlates in any way to what RS is expressing.
Not sure what I think of morphic fields, but Sheldrake's taste in bookshelves is impeccable.
I've also never been super convinced by morphic fields as a theory, but between his work exposing the fault lines in contemporary science (the replicability crisis, publication bias, methodological problems in desiging and reporting experiments, etc.) and in popularizing "heretical" research that follows all the rules but arrives at the "wrong" conclusions, I'd say Sheldrake's the greatest living enemy of scientism, and I respect him for that.
Not to mention (and correct me if I'm wrong), Sheldrake has always put it forward as a theory, as something to be tested as a possible consideration. I've never gotten the impression that he's dogmatic about it. It would be interesting to see his ideas taken seriously enough in the mainstream to be seriously refuted or affirmed.
And he is quite a brave man. For a scientist to face accusations of pseudoscience (which has happened to him) is the equivalent of a Catholic priest being charged with heresy.
Can’t help but invoke the logoi as the explanation for all ‘fields’, from the beginning.
I wrote this over at the YouTube I just wanted to add to it that from what I've read of fields in modern Physics models is that they often act like wholes presiding over and ordering giving structure to the particles that they govern
It's great to see 2 people who've I've followed for years, espically about a topic as intresting as field theory , viewing it as form I think is a very intresting way to aproach it. There's a Neoplatonist Ken Wheeler who goes by Theoria Apophasis who often makes intresting reccommendations in reguard to Aether field theory and monistic metaphsyics
I know many Physists gave Enstein some flax for relativity lacking refrence of the Aether and special relativity lacking refrence to gravity later filled in by general relativity , Many Phycists today often avoid strict definations of ''infomation , force, space, field or energy'' and get upset when enginers lean more towards the older view of fields along the lines of Tesla, who disliked relativity. Enstein was asked if he stood on the shoulders of Newton and he relayed ''no, On Maxwells"
He also stated
''Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.''-Einstein On Ether and Relativity on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden.
I also want to let you know as you do that all our hearts are with you and his after Roland's passing
Thanks for posting this. Wish I could have been a fly on the wall for the dinner conversation as well. Unless you’re good at swatting flies.