Nifflas' Support Forum
Released Games => The Great Work => Topic started by: PONTO on March 15, 2011, 17:59:06
-
I must admit I find the idea of alchemy ridiculous, which makes me curious as to how someone can devote his life to such a goal. It surely is a nice theme for a game in a fantasy setting like this one, though.
-
Which makes me curious as to how someone can devote his life to such a goal.
To me, that's why I find a documentary like this interesting. I've met the alchemist it's about twice, he's a really social guy and very intelligent. The documentary is about him and his choices, as well as the act of devoting a lot of time to something that is strange in most people's eyes.
-
I must admit I find the idea of alchemy ridiculous. Which makes me curious as to how someone can devote his life to such a goal.
Personally, I have the opposite view, almost. I find it ridiculous that some people think that alchemy is "stupid". While it's certainly not a good life choice for everyone, and won't work for most (if not all), it's still a good form of science. In my mind, it's a combination of science and magic. I also HATE how one of the most famous alchemists ever, Nicholas Flamel, has been put off as "just another Harry Potter character".
-
Well, I don't believe you can turn lead into gold using any alchemical knowledge. However, it's also a fact that alchemy is a predecessor to modern chemistry, and that it were the alchemists that in their attempts to create gold came up with many other non-transmutation processes that actually work, even if it's for all the wrong reasons and their spiritual explanations didn't make sense.
In other words, to me this is more complex than just "Are they right? Y/N"
-
Well, I don't believe you can turn lead into gold using any alchemical knowledge. However, it's also a fact that alchemy is a predecessor to modern chemistry, and that it were the alchemists that in their attempts to create gold came up with many other non-transmutation processes that actually work, even if it's for all the wrong reasons and their spiritual explanations didn't make sense.
In other words, to me this is more complex than just "Are they right? Y/N"
Aqua Regina :P
Created to be the first step in the idea.
I've heard many great scientists and philosophers like Newton and Galileo were alchemists to some degree, though I don't know the validity of it.
-
It is very much a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies) that Newton was into alchemy. During his time, there was not a very clear distinction between stuff like alchemy and science anyway. He will appear in the game by the way.
-
It is very much a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies) that Newton was into alchemy. During his time, there was not a very clear distinction between stuff like alchemy and science anyway. He will appear in the game by the way.
And now I am dedicating my time to producing random facts that induce spoilers.
:D
-
Trying to find the Philosopher's Stone today by an alchemist approach is like saying you want to devote your life to go to Mars and then traveling around aimlessly by foot while reading century-old books and totally ignoring the current knowledge of the universe. No matter how hard you try or how much faith you have, you won't get there.
-
I'm not saying you're wrong. By using your example, this documentary is all about the traveling around by foot reading century-old books, not about if you'll get to Mars. Why does that have to matter so much? It's an interesting documentary about an interesting person, devoting his life to something that makes no sense in most people's eyes. That is the entire point.
Even my point about the alchemists coming up with working non-transmutation processes is not because I try to state "maybe it's possible", because I really don't. However, we're not living in a world where you have to be right for your choices to take you somewhere interesting. Think microwave oven, the post-it note, Västerbottensost, or anything else that was originally created partially by accident. I mean, hypothetically - devote your life to studying alchemy and you might end up having knowledge enough to teach history at an university. That's a win to me. As I see it, we're fragile creatures lost in time and space, we can only see a few steps ahead of our decisions and can never be sure where life will take us. Our wrong decisions can take us to the right places, and things that are right and carefully planned can go horribly wrong. If you want to devote your life to something impossible, why not go for it and enjoy the ride?
I'll personally be happier if I die knowing that I did something I enjoyed, than if I die knowing I managed to stay objective and right through my entire life.
-
Beautifully put.
-
I die knowing that I did something I enjoyed, than if I die knowing I managed to stay objective and right through my entire life.
On the other hand, who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Your making it sound like if you're different from the rest of civilization, you're wrong. It's not, you're just.. different. After all, everyone has their own morale code.
Trying to find the Philosopher's Stone today by an alchemist approach is like saying you want to devote your life to go to Mars and then traveling around aimlessly by foot while reading century-old books and totally ignoring the current knowledge of the universe. No matter how hard you try or how much faith you have, you won't get there.
Current knowledge. What current knowledge. We THINK we know of other galaxies, but there's no TRUE proof besides eyesites. What if they're just mirages? Who's to say there's no wormholes?
-
On the other hand, who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Your making it sound like if you're different from the rest of civilization, you're wrong. It's not, you're just.. different. After all, everyone has their own morale code.
I was more thinking that there are facts, logic and objective truths. I mean, a object like a rock or a flower can objectively exist even if there is no one there to observe or label it, and though different people describe mathematics differently, it's not subjective that one plus one equals two. It's also either objectively possible or not possible to create gold through alchemical methods.
I mean, to a scientist, learning scientific facts and enjoying work probably go very hand in hand. What I intended to say though is that I'm not a scientist. When I meet an alchemist who want to try to create gold or just a person who belong to a religion I don't believe in, I personally find it more interesting to attempt to see the world from their angle, than to establish who's right. In this particular case, I think people who either go "you can not create gold with alchemy" or "maybe you can" when they read about this documentary are somewhat missing the point of it. If it'd be a propagandistic film that would try to get everyone into alchemy, then I can see how that question will become more important.
There's absolutely nothing in what I said where I even try to hint I'm any different from the rest of civilization. I have no idea where you got that idea.
-
Trying to find the Philosopher's Stone today by an alchemist approach is like saying you want to devote your life to go to Mars and then traveling around aimlessly by foot while reading century-old books and totally ignoring the current knowledge of the universe. No matter how hard you try or how much faith you have, you won't get there.
Current knowledge. What current knowledge. We THINK we know of other galaxies, but there's no TRUE proof besides eyesites. What if they're just mirages? Who's to say there's no wormholes?
So will you just dismiss all of science? Of course there is no PROOF, as in a mathematical proof. We can be wrong and often are. But there is no denying that even with all those mistakes we are getting closer to something real. Science works by gathering evidence and the ultimate testament to how truthful the postulates that are arrived at are is engineering, in which that knowledge is put to test by building something useful.
With that said, though, I find that Nifflas' latest posts are really food for thought. I need to reflect on that. Thanks. :)
-
On the other hand, who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Your making it sound like if you're different from the rest of civilization, you're wrong. It's not, you're just.. different. After all, everyone has their own morale code.
There's absolutely nothing in what I said where I even try to hint I'm any different from the rest of civilization. I have no idea where you got that idea.
I didn't think you were; I was refering to PONTO's example of what he thought the idea of modern alchemists finding/making a Philosopher's Stone. I thought he was ridiculing the whole thing about modern alchemists.
Trying to find the Philosopher's Stone today by an alchemist approach is like saying you want to devote your life to go to Mars and then traveling around aimlessly by foot while reading century-old books and totally ignoring the current knowledge of the universe. No matter how hard you try or how much faith you have, you won't get there.
Current knowledge. What current knowledge. We THINK we know of other galaxies, but there's no TRUE proof besides eyesites. What if they're just mirages? Who's to say there's no wormholes?
So will you just dismiss all of science? Of course there is no PROOF, as in a mathematical proof. We can be wrong and often are. But there is no denying that even with all those mistakes we are getting closer to something real.
I'm not dismissing science as a whole, I'm dismissing Astromony, or at least beyond our own galaxy. In my mind, we should learn more of EARTH, as in deep oceans and in land, and less of outer space. That to say, NASA and other space programs aren't a waste of time and money, but the governments need to spend less on both.
Science works by gathering evidence and the ultimate testament to how truthful the postulates that are arrived at are is engineering, in which that knowledge is put to test by building something useful.
With that said, though, I find that Nifflas' latest posts are really food for thought. I need to reflect on that. Thanks. :)
I agree fully on the importance of science and on the last sentance. Also, I broke the date for the quote.
-
I didn't think you were; I was refering to PONTO's example of what he thought the idea of modern alchemists finding/making a Philosopher's Stone. I thought he was ridiculing the whole thing about modern alchemists.
That is because I indeed find it ridiculous. Just as I do religion, by the way. There is no easy way to say that. However, I think I backed up my stance properly.
I'm not dismissing science as a whole, I'm dismissing Astrology, or at least beyond our own galaxy. In my mind, we should learn more of EARTH, as in deep oceans and in land, and less of outer space. That to say, NASA and other space programs aren't a waste of time and money, but the governments need to spend less on both.
Well, dismissing astronomy based on the fact that everything might just be mirages can be used to dismiss every other field of science, because in the very end, there is always reliance on our own senses. To say that all astronomy that is done regarding objects beyond our galaxy is somehow invalid sounds very arbitrary to me and I would guess neither of us know enough on the subject to be able to dismiss their methods as invalid.
As to whether we should be studying the oceans or the space, that is a different point with absolutely no relationship to the validity of astronomy. (By the way, you used the word "astrology" on your post, which has a completely different meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) and is not science.)
-
(By the way, you used the word "astrology" on your post, which has a completely different meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) and is not science.)
Fixed
...to say, NASA and other space programs aren't a waste of time and money, but the governments need to spend less on both.
Well, dismissing astronomy based on the fact that everything might just be mirages can be used to dismiss every other field of science, because in the very end, there is always reliance on our own senses. To say that all astronomy that is done regarding objects beyond our galaxy is somehow invalid sounds very arbitrary to me and I would guess neither of us know enough on the subject to be able to dismiss their methods as invalid.
I suppose. On the other hand, what DO we know about the universe, compared to Earth? We know very limited in both, but I personally think that we've gotten more progress researching Earth itself. We need to focus on just one of them, and as study on Earth would def. finish before study on the universe would, we should focus on that.
-
(By the way, you used the word "astrology" on your post, which has a completely different meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) and is not science.)
Fixed
You fixed it to "astromony". :P
...to say, NASA and other space programs aren't a waste of time and money, but the governments need to spend less on both.
Well, dismissing astronomy based on the fact that everything might just be mirages can be used to dismiss every other field of science, because in the very end, there is always reliance on our own senses. To say that all astronomy that is done regarding objects beyond our galaxy is somehow invalid sounds very arbitrary to me and I would guess neither of us know enough on the subject to be able to dismiss their methods as invalid.
I suppose. On the other hand, what DO we know about the universe, compared to Earth? We know very limited in both, but I personally think that we've gotten more progress researching Earth itself. We need to focus on just one of them, and as study on Earth would def. finish before study on the universe would, we should focus on that.
It's not like we can separate both entirely. Exploring and understanding the universe is often a way to understand our own planet. For example, studying black holes is one of the ways in which we can study many things about the fundamental laws, since the conditions are so extreme. Not to mention monitoring asteroids for potential collision courses with the Earth. Miss Paula, our physicist of service could surely provide a lot more examples. In the end, though, and in my opinion most importantly, we can't just dismiss a branch of knowledge just because there are other priorities or problems to solve. Knowledge is, to me, an end in itself, and often, solutions to our worse problems lie in the most unexpected of places.
-
Miss Paula, our physicist of service
I downgraded to "media technician" or something like that a while ago. ;)
To still add my voice to this interesting discussion: In my eyes it doesn't even matter that much if "we know very little about the universe beyond our earth" or if it's necessary to know more about it compared to learning more about what's close at hand. That sounds almost like an argument against the specialisation of science. "What DO we know about viruses compared to the locations of human organs?"
I'm not sure I'm conveying my point very well... X)
Just like --physicists and astronomers and marine biologists etc all have their own valid reasons to continue research. Just because one field or way of observing it might be easier to fathom for non-members of that scientific field than another doesn't mean it has more justification. Also saying "we should focus" doesn't really make sense, since it's not like resources are being withheld from research for completely other fields than the one you say we shouldn't focus on. I think. Also I doubt astronomers are very useful at marine biology. ;)
oh yeah, and I split this discussion off, obviously.
-
This discussion confuses me...
I might as well add my point of view about what I think you guys are discussing;
I never ever say that something is impossible* , because nothing in the universe is certain. Neither science nor religion nor anything else ever can say that something is either 100% right or 100% wrong, as there will always things that they don't know, or failed to consider. Take this example: it is entirely possible that tommorow, when walking down the street, you will find a bag of diamonds just lying in the pavement. While the chances of this happening are really really slim, there are still sequences of actions or circumstances that, however unlikely they are to occur, are entirely possible. Because of this, it means that you can never say with certainty that anything is right or wrong.
This means that it is entirely possible, even if the odds are tiny, that there is a bunch of dudes somewhere that have/will discover(ed) how to turn stuff into gold. and if this is true, the last thing I want to do is make them angry.
*unless it actually is a logical impossibility, like division by zero.
It took half an hour to type this, if it turns out to be unrelated I will raeg.
-
*unless it actually is a logical impossibility, like division by zero.
(http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/1/b/6/c/b6c07f30-8cc6-012b-9973-f65add1a2c33.jpg)
I have this calculator, and in the right circumstances, it can divide by zero. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
/offtopic
=|=
-
well, this discussion is not directly about that certain things are impossible or at least deemed impossible by some and not by others, but about if science has more ultimate truth and worth above story-believing. and if people who ignore science should be judged. Simplifiedly said. kind of?
Also, it's not just mathematical things that are definitely falsifiable. When fundamental physical laws prevent a low-worth metal from turning to a nobler one, you cannot go and say "it could be possible, although it may not be likely". Since physics can rule out the existance of circumstances where it could happen, it's not unlikely, but actually very well impossible to occur.
argh, longwinded sentences! I should practice the science of expressing and explaining my opinion and view concisely. :huh:
-
But you see, even the laws of physics are not necessarily correct. There might be some completely obscure law of physics that allows such a thing to occur, that we have yet to discover. I'm not saying it's true, in fact, it is probably not, but it would certainly not be the first time that something has happened that was previously been thought to be impossible.
Plus, I'm pretty sure that turning a low-grade metal into gold is not prohibited by the laws of physics anyway. Just get some extra protons and neutrons, and find some way of sticking them together, and you have gold. Although you now have to worry about it being extremely radioactive because you couldn't find any spare electrons.
Well meh, I'm fine with other opinions anyway, so I don't really know what the point of this post was.
Now, for cake and sleep.
-
I'm quite sure it's possible to make gold out of iron, assuming you aren't afraid of lethal doses of nuclear radiation!
-
I'll just drop this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_noble_metals#Gold
And say, good answers, Nifflas. I would also like to know more about how the game is representative of Christer Böke.
-
The issue about alchemy vs science should also be of one's attitude towards approaching either subject.
If one approaches alchemy with the intent of becoming rich by buying lead in bulk and then somehow transmute them into gold, they are wasting their time. If alchemists could do this, they would have done it by now. It would be mundane process by now, or would so if it somehow appeared.
However, if one approaches alchemy out of curiosity, and/or because they find the spirituality interesting and engaging, then that's their choice to follow and investigate this spirituality. That is their choice, arguably their human right, to believe these things and live their life with these beliefs. As long as they are not harming others, not making claims that can be proven to be false or forcing others to their beliefs, then they have the right to do this.
If one wants to do alchemy to learn how our ancestors thought and believed the world around them, that is a historical interest and may have historical value. If one does it to be a member of an "alchemy club", that has as much value as any arbitrarily-made social club.
As for science...
But you see, even the laws of physics are not necessarily correct.
Because no scientific theory is meant to be 100%, absolutely correct. Scientific theories are meant to describe something's behavior to a limited extent. If you want to describe behavior outside the limits of the previous theory, you need either a different theory or one that includes the previous one.
For example, Newton-level physics describe how gravity works, but not why gravity works (to explain why gravity works would require approach, one that tries to brake down the nature of matter). As long as we are interested in describing something in context how something's gravity effects things, Newton-level physics will work. However, if we go to phenomenon that either either too small (the behavior of atoms at a sub-atomic level) or too large (the behavior of light), we need to change or expand the theory to accommodate those behaviors.
Great theories explained things that were not understood at the time. Quantum theory explained the photoelectric effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect) and made predictions that were tested and turned out to be true (many computer chips and components of those components are based on quantum theory). The same idea is true of Einstein's relativity, because it predicted that a clock's energy state influence it's speed. We know that prediction worked because GPSs work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky4RgRvVDoA).
No scientists in their right mind goes out trying to prove something absolutely, irrevocably right or wrong. They set out what is reasonably right, what can be falsified, what can be measured. What modern science does is trying to be the least wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) it can be.
We do not know absolutely that the galaxies we see are real places. But we can detect light-emitting things within them, which Spectroscopy reveals to be be suns. We use spectroscopy in a wide manner to detect how matter and objects show photonic radiation, frequently with things here on Earth. All our observations reveal that all these glowing objects are stars that are like our sun. We have no reason to believe that these objects do not have mass, do not have a have gravity, that these objects are less real than the objects close to Earth, etc.
And that sort of brings an edge to a discussion in the idea of "science vs alchemy".
That alchemists discovered many chemical compounds and phenomenons does not excuse that their theory does not work, there does not seem to be a powder that can turn lead into gold by heating. Matter seems to be conserved in all chemical reactions (and only change in nuclear reactions), rather than to spontaneously come or go away in a transmutation. Earth, water and air appear to be composed of various elements that can be seperated or recombined at will. Fire does not appear to be an element, fire is merely a chemical process (plasma does not count).
In other words, if one wants to explore how the universe works as best one can do, modern science offers far more than alchemy. The products of modern science, made and predicted by modern scientific theories, are all around us: electronics, medicine, motorization, etc. The products of an industrialization comes hand-in-hand with modern scientific work. It is merely that to an outside observer to the processes that they appear unrelated, because closer examination shows that they are merely indirect. Like the GPS example before, the evidence and predictions of modern scientific theories are abundant. They are, because they were built that way even before their inception.
That is my view anyway.
I also HATE how one of the most famous alchemists ever, Nicholas Flamel, has been put off as "just another Harry Potter character".
Why? Alchemists already know the true(er) meaning of the person behind that name, they already know how he is a great alchemist because alchemists would study his works. Alchemists already value him.
To non-alchemists, his name is mostly meaningless anyway, just another historical footnote that is transcended into a fictional world. And the thing is, it's just that his name was dropped: the person himself didn't show up in the books, or if they did, they did not do so in a significant matter (at least, I can't remember him appearing in the book). So it's not like Rowling made a caricature out of him.