similarities Townsend Brown/ Tesla

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

I can not be the only person who has noticed that Townsend Brown and Nikola Tesla operated on an extremely intuitive level ... where other scientists of their time relied on step by step rationality ... these two geniuses seemed to leap to a rapid understanding of the principles that interested them. Then they seemed to spend the rest of their lives .... after that flash of inspiration .... trying to get people around them to understand what it was that they "saw".... Of course the problem is .... they were somehow in tune with the universe .... and the people around them were .....not. Anyone care to join me in a discussion of "intuition" and "rationality" .... or any other topic regarding Townsend Brown, his life and work. Elizabeth.

[budowa_cepa]

I agree with that.
__________
Create Instant Buzz about your website

[Chris Knight]

Intuition and Rationality, or One of the Things I like Best about the Universe.

I love science, especially physics. Some people's minds lock into painting, or poetry, or whatnot, and everyone's mind seems to be ideally suited for a certain type of pursuit.

But in my mind, physics deals with the cogs and wheels of the universe, and the reason I love it is because its laws and functions are based on a logical structure. I may not always understand it, but I know it is logical.

Therefore, if I have a problem I'm working on, I don't necessarily have to go from point A through point B to get to point C. If know that I am at point A, and I know I want to be at point C, sometimes I can jump directly to point C. I may not understand the logic that got me there, or how I got there, but since I know that the universe is based on logic, that gives me a foundation to travel on. Ergo, intuition.

Maybe I could jump from point A to point D if I were really in tune. I have always thought that Brown happened to have one of those minds that was really in tune with the logic of the universe - an innate understanding of the laws governing it. Perhaps he didn't realize how he knew how to figure out the things he did. Perhaps he just "knew" how things worked.

Andrew

[Paul S.]

But in my mind, physics deals with the cogs and wheels of the universe, and the reason I love it is because its laws and functions are based on a logical structure. I may not always understand it, but I know it is logical.

The problem with that, Andrew/Chris, is that "logic" itself is a fluid concept. What seems "logical" to us today is based on the bedrock of the belief systems that inform our view of the world/universe; if there is anything that the history of science pretty well demonstrates, it is that that the paradigms of bedrock shifts every coupla/few hundred years.

Where once the bedrock of scientific belief was that of the fixed and immutable universe of Newtonian space, that "logical" foundation was eclipsed by Einstein's twisted version of the "space-time continuum." And that logical bedrock is challenged even further by the truly weird world of quantum mechanics.

So while I may be tempted to agree with you at first blush about the unshakable merit of the "logic" of science, I must also caution that the very concept of "logic" itself is... well.... illogical.

At times it seems to me that the only thing in the Universe that is truly "logical" is double entry bookkeeping, were every credit must have it's equal and opposite debit. No wonder there are so many accountants in the world.

--PS

[Chris Knight]

Perhaps my semantics are a bit off.

How about, “The Universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting
for your wits to grow sharper.â€

[Victoria Steele]

Hello Paul, Andrew ... anybody else .... I liked that string of thought ... but sometimes even the best "Scientific method" as Paul says is based on what we crrently accept as fact and that is constantly changing .... as it should.

Paul Dirac used a lengthy mathematical analysis to develop a new equation to describe high speed atomic matter. Some of his equations were workable and gained immediate acceptance. HOWEVER ..... there were still things that still made no sense ..... and that is .... a problem...His solutions correctly described the behavior of ORDINARY ELECTRONS ..... but for each of these solutions there cropped up another solution which DIDN'T CORRESPOND TO ANYTHING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

He tried to predict and explain these exceptions when he said "In mass and spin they would be identical to ordinary electrons, but whereas all electrons carry negative electic charge the new mystery particles would have a positive charge .... and other properties. such as their spin would also be reversed, making the new particles a sort of MIRROR image of electrons........

Well for those of you who are INTO it ....that was the work that forged the way into the discovery of the positron ... and earned him a Nobel Prize for that brilliant discovery. ......... So my point, roundabout is ... where did he get that ... out of the way, off the wall inspiration .... it was not ... going from point A to B .... the answer came from somewhere else. From where? Victoria

[Paul S.]

So my point, roundabout is ... where did he get that ... out of the way, off the wall inspiration .... it was not ... going from point A to B .... the answer came from somewhere else. From where? Victoria

Interesting that you would mention Dirac... I don't know a whole lot about him but I am familiar with the concept of the "Dirac Sea" another name for the Quantum Foam, and it's interesting to see contemporary cosmologists like Brian Green bend over backward to say that's nothing like an "ether"

Anyway, Victoria, I think that what you're describing is what Einstein meant when he said something to the effect that "my discoveries were not the product of my rational mind." I'm not doing the quote justice, but you get the idea. "Logic" can be a great mental box that keeps us from imagining what else might be possible.

Poor Spock...

--PS

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Hi Paul.... Yes poor Spock .... but even Spock learned eventually that pure logic still misses something.

And perhaps this is where this discussion is going. As we go forward ... we can not depend on logic alone .... because we need more than that to create the whole picture .... we have to look at "intuition" in a new and more respectful way ..... the exact opposite of "logical" behavior is "intuitive behavior" .... but does that mean the second is inferior to the first. Everyone has heard the saying "womens intuition" .... an exercise in trying to discount in a patronizing way ... phenomenon that has never been really explained. Einstein himself said that he did not get to his discoveries by the use of his rational mind .... but the opposite of rational is not "irrational" because there was nothing "irrational" about the end result of his work ..... it was pure ... it was elegant ... and he himself said that he got there by Not using logic .... which leaves .... Intuition.

All that granted ... we are still back to the question .... what gives intuition its power? Nikolai Kozyrev called it the "Divine Conciousness". What do you all think it is ? Elizabeth

[Paul S.]

Hi Paul.... Yes poor Spock .... but even Spock learned eventually that pure logic still misses something.

Yeah, that was the episode where Spock got to make it with Mariette Hartley... because he'd been transported through a time-portal to the time when Vulcan's had emotions. Then Kirk made him come back and leave Mariette behind. Kirk got his when he was portalled into the future and became Denny Crane on "Boston Legal." --PS

[Trickfox]

There is only one way that I know of to perform "ground breaking" research and I'm positive Brown and Tesla used the "intuative method" which was somewhat different that the traditional research methods.

In traditional research science there has allways been an long established procedure which is usually prompted by the "problem solving" approach.
It starts with the "problem". In other words, someone decides that there is a problem which needs solving.

To solve the problem you must find and carefully read everything that everyone else has written on the subject that you are researching. Then you have to see if there are differences in any of the symetrical points of views in those areas where there appears to be divergences in the data.

In "ground breaking" research the "problem" usually does not even exist.
It's the "dream" or the "vision" which prompts the research. In some cases it becomes an "obsession". I submit that both Tesla and Brown were proponents of this "intuative vision" based approach.

It's the "little voice in your mind" which keeps telling you "what if I decided to do things this way". These intuative thoughts usually result in the development of NEW INVENTIONS.

The question is: If we contend that time loops and multiverses (multi-universes) exist and that we are simply following destiny, then could it be that "intuative ground breaking research" is simply the result of a specific path in "reverse entropy". This would confirm "causality" as a natural method which assumes a specific "time line" which "in itself" is being controlled by a a civilization which has a more advanced consciousness and is thus controlling it's own past in real time.

Suppose I invented a giant molecular position recorder which is capable of storing the instantaneous position and momentum of all elementary particals within a specified spherical diameter. If someone's existence within this area was being recorded then stored in a retreivable fashion (like an enormous archive), then someone in a "future" time period is then capable of "replaying" events which occured in the present; -is the person who's life was archived capable of understanding that his time loop (in the present) is nothing more than a recorded event which is destined to be replayed in the future?

There is only one scientific curiosity which seems to indicate that this may be exacvtly what's going on, and it's called "déja-vu". Now supposing déja-vu is the real phenomena which prompts intuative ground breaking research.

How's that for a Godël type strange loop?

[Mark Culpepper]

Trickfox,

I found your novel way of looking at all of this extremely refreshing.

Forgive me though ... there are some things I am not too familiar with ... I knew that Kurt Godel was a math genius and I have faint ideas that he had something to do with computers and artificial intelligence. The phrase "Godel loop" leaves me at a bit of a loss because I am not familiar with that field. Can you help me with some of your terms? Reverse entropy?

And getting back to the connections that we have been talking about here ... would the man named Beau Kitselman have understood this? I read somewhere in the comments section that he was a high level math genius .... and I believe that Paul said he was Browns partner somehow.
Perhaps you can help me understand what role he might have played in Browns research?

Re reading your post now .... Maybe I should just find a quiet corner where I can sit and think for awhile so that the next time I respond I might be able to answer your observations with more clarity. Great questions! Mark

[Trickfox]

Mark
I'm not really sure I understand everything that comes out of my own head sometimes.
I THINK I understand after reading over and over again what someone else is trying to point out in first order logic. I end up asking others (who are recognised experts) if specific issues that I'm describing about first order logic is understood in the same fashion as everyone else allready understands it.
In most cases I end up with the same answer "yes and no". It's very frustrating.

Take for instance the term "Godël loop" or "Strange loop". It's a bit like a mobius strip in logical statements. Here is an example:

Which one of the following statements is true?

The next thing I write is NOT true; The last thing I wrote was a lie.

I believe this paradox is refered to as; the "self referencing statement".

I also believe Godël is the person who defined this relationship in mathematical logic.

Can anyone else who is "educated" confirm that I really understand this?

Now, the term "reverse entropy" is something that I thought I had invented myself. It turns out that others have used it too and I believe they are using it to describe the same issues that I have tried to describe.

Let me quote another "educated" individual by the name of Jordan Pollack
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/hotline/hpollack.htm
He states:
"Life is a process, far from equilibrium, which wastes energy and creates structures - a local reversal of entropy. How can any system act to reverse entropy when it seems to violate the second law(of thermodynamics)? The answer is that the system is open; -its wasting energy from outside".

Trickfox

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Everybody .... what a group we have going here .... and I was afraid I was going to be the only one in this pool. How wonderful this is!

On Tesla and Brown .... Tesla is quoted as saying " that nature leads" and his advice was to "Follow, follow soaring!

And that is the impression that following Townsend Browns work has given me ... the answers are all there ... all we have to do is see them. Ha! Easier said than done, right! I appreciate this discussion group so much though .... THANK YOU for joining us!

And to others ... really ... jump on in here! ... all thoughts are appreciated! If we are in fact drawing from another well .... somewhere else .... we are going to need alot of buckets! Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

I agree with that.
__________
Create Instant Buzz about your website

I agree with budowa_cepa

Go ahead and click on his signature

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mark
I'm not really sure I understand everything that comes out of my own head sometimes.
..... The answer is that the system is open; -its wasting energy from outside".

Trickfox

Trickfox ... what a wonderful reply!

Has to be REALLY thought about ....and what is really strange ... is this ..... I have a response for you .... even though I am not entirely sure point to point what it is that you just said. Figure that.

Townsend Brown was extraordinarily interested in a phenomena called "Ball Lightning" .... read up on it .... those of you who are interested enough to be reading this .... its one of the linking factors in his work and in Teslas .... but I digress .....

Ball lighting breaks laws of physics, as I understand. It continues to float around ..... sometimes terrifying people ... I read somewhere that an incident on a on a submarine occurred when a discharge from their large on board batteries created a "ball of lightning" which nonchalantly wandered down the passageways ... One crew member made a sort of ridiculous statement that it was wandering "as if it was looking for something." (He was upset so don't take his words seriously.) I just meant to impart the idea that this ball was in no great rush .... when ... if following the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM...IT SHOULD HAVE DISCHARGED. AND RELATIVELY QUICKLY ... DISAPPEARED. bUT Noooooooo ... Ball lightning does not do that ... and very important quantum physicists now are saying that Ball lightning IS DRAWING FROM ANOTHER SOURCE .... FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION.

Townsend Brown used to point to the workings of Nature and then would pontedly remind his daughter that we could learn what the true secrets were if we just watched. .......So it would not be UNNATURAL for you to be drawing intelligent thoughts from elsewhere .... just as ball lightning draws its power ... from elsewhere.

I have to think more on your other comments. Back to you soon. Thank you so much Trickfox ...Others out there? Weigh in?

Elizabeth