Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Results 281 to 282 of 282

Thread: EM's P.S. Thread

  1. #281
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,601
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But water can be tricky, it can have many things dissolved in it, even gases.
    IMO it would be much more constructive to actually perform the experiment rather than debating it online. The universe is a tricky place

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    To me it seems like some substances undergo unusual alterations if submitted to the right procedures, while the same substances submitted to more common/vulgar procedures will not undergo said alterations.
    So are you saying that, to you, alchemy is fundamentally no different from school chemistry (same laws/principles), if only the "right" substances and procedures are employed?

  2. #282
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    IMO it would be much more constructive to actually perform the experiment rather than debating it online. The universe is a tricky place
    Why? People have distilled and "digested" common water in flasks many times to see "what happens". What exactly did they find that can possibly be labelled "alchemical", though? I don't see it. Boyle thought some of the water turned into "earth", but others who repeated such procedures with common water did not find any such thing (a more likely explanation is that Boyle's glass vessel was not as well-made as he thought, and the water ended up dissolving some of the alkaline components of the glass and letting some of the silica free, which Boyle misinterpreted as some of the water turning into "earth".)

    So are you saying that, to you, alchemy is fundamentally no different from school chemistry (same laws/principles),
    How could that be? If that was the case, chemists would have reached similar conclusions as those of the alchemists or the chymists and would accept transmutation. The only thing they all have in common is that they tinker with the behavior of substances in contact with each other. That's where the similarities begin and end.

    if only the "right" substances and procedures are employed?
    But hitting on the right substances and procedures is what makes the difference between these disciplines. What else do you realistically expected the difference would be? A "Divine Gift"? A "universal something"? Really? If that is so, then why the constant preoccupation by all alchemists (even the most explicit, clear and generous ones) with trying to not too clearly reveal the substances used in making the Stone? If the "Divine Gift" is the cause, then no such constant preoccupation should be expected. Let "God" allow the "chosen ones" to succeed while all others trying to follow the EXACT SAME PROCESSES ON THE EXACT SAME SUBSTANCES would inexplicably keep on failing. Not only would this strange fact reveal the reality of alchemy to the world, but, even more importantly, it would prove also the reality of some "supernatural" Will or Intelligence controlling the universe. And if the cause is this "universal something" found everywhere, then the preoccupation with not revealing what substances to use would be quite pointless too, as pretty much anything should work one way or another. And I know what your counterargument will be here, namely: "but some substances work better than others", but then you would be largely agreeing with me that the correct materials are very important for this difference between alchemy & chemistry. The difference is that I attribute this "correctness" to the substances themselves, their properties and how they react with one another to generate the alchemical byproducts, while you attribute it to this "universal thing" that supposedly preexists in the substances, and not to the substances themselves. But I ask you again: how can you prove that this "something" preexists in those substances? What possible "test" can you perform to know this? I can easily prove to you if any given substance contains, say, iron, or lead, or gold, in it. There's whole batteries of "tests" (both chemical and physical) that can show this. But how can you possibly prove the existence of this ill-defined "universal something" that they supposedly already contain??? It sounds like ONE BIG ASSUMPTION without anything tangible to back it up.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts