How is it that something can exist?

@fakable About the first question, if you have 'stuff' in the universe, you can make more complex forms of matter with it. So for example helium atoms combined with various of other atoms, to make a bigger thing that is called a molecule.
When matter is not bound in a molecule, it has a lot of energy.. When these particles bind together into a molecule, a lot of this energy becomes inaccessible for the molecule. Gravity basically draws other matter to itself, because is has a lack of access to its own energy due to being bound with other particles into a molecule.. It is how gravity comes into existance.. and it also does explain why splitting of matter releases so much energy.. the energy put into the molecule, to become a molecule, was locked during the agglutination of the particles.. 🙂

Regarding the second question. All science we know today, originated from Alchemy. And Alchemy originated from classical Hermetics. Astronomy, Astrology, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology.. all originated from Alchemy. Note that Astrology was more a communication practice than an actual science.. heavily deformed over the centuries.. Anyways, there are plenty of writings about it you can find, in general one has to take into account that the dark ages where less consistent. So borders did not exist unless it was a natural border, otherwise territories faded into one another. Laws where often unwritten or very local with maybe the exception of the Church in the more developed parts of the medival world, but still quite flexible to todays standards.. same for dialects, building styles, and other forms of knowledge.. Early science was de facto a local science. The way people wrote stuff down, was due to many reasons made hidden.. But, for most people the most noticible is the sheer inconsistency that various of treatises and manuscripts had compared to one another.. Then all the changes in the late 19th century happened and people blew up the original concepts into.. more entertaining ones.. (depending on who you ask of course me not appreciating some of the new age stuff)

If looking at the formulae of Energy according to Alchemic ways, we do describe it through polarity. We do not reason through the "absolute" definition, with exception for the Hermetic Identity cause it is hermetically sealed, but through the effects of energy we can observe. In a matter of fact, all Hermetics and Alchemic texts all do deal with observation, reasoning, and so forth.. Most of the actual knowledge is traditionally carried over Mouth to Ear, most books about our craft are false and also highly deformed. The primary way for us to transmit knowledge is through talking, and having people figure out clues and life lessons, this often does coccur in form of a Hierophant/Alchemist relationship, like pupil/teacher, but with unparalleled freedom for personal choice and over a way longer period of time. Also take note on that transmission through writing sometimes does happen to skip generations, due to a loss or inaccessibility of a book, though vocal transmission rarely does.. unless a population seases to exist that is, but these are throughout history quite rare to cause knowledge to sease being passed on, often due to invasion or natural disaster it may occur.

Usually when I teach people to become Alchemists in the traditional sense of the word, it takes years. Personally what I would like to do mention, is that if you have questions you can always DM me, and secondly, the Heritiage I am part of does deal without exception with that what can be proven (scientifc), though we also use deduction from reasoning for the more floaty parts, though still able to be bound into science (Alchemy does not deal with ghosts and forces unknown to nature) Most people these days offer their services for money, and weird mystery schools with fancy curriculum, but this is not the way of Alchemy.. those people are neither Alchemists or Hermeticists, but 'enthusiasts'.. One who can make the Art of Arts whole to ones own self will be set up for life.. and achieve a skillset others can only dream of.. In the most literal sense of the word.. all of it.. 😋

In regard to classical works, though not really usable..:
http://gnosis.org/library/alch.htm

If looking through these books, you may notice the sheer amount of perspective mentionsin these texts.. Also quick note most if not all of these texts are either Greek, Roman, or "new age", and thus not very reliable..
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/tcbmstry.html
http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/TGH-v2/th202.html
I hope this will explain why I choose Ear to Mouth transmission over textual ones.. It is genuinely pointless to use text for Alchemy.. True understanding originates not from repeating the mouth expressed in texts, but from opening eyes to perspective, that can but has not to be from text, then you will See.. 😅

@fakable I did not speak of gravity having properties; other than observable properties that is, I expressed gravity being the expression of an inaccesibility of matter. The effect of gravity, comes forth by the interactivity of matter.. it is a representation of energy connectivity.. like I said before. 🙂

@Ukiyo
about the concept of energy

as far as i understood in the texts familiar to you there is no definition of the concept of "energy" consistent with modern scientific theories.

or am i wrong?

@Ukiyo

about gravity

[quote]gravity being the expression of the inaccessibility of matter[/quote]

yes, but matter is a form of energy

if you are talking about a single system, then "inaccessibility of matter" is impossible.

the only possible case is when this matter is outside the system

but this is wrong because in this case the laws and constants inside the system must dynamically change

@fakable I think my words are not very easy to read because my writing style might be to blame, but never mind me saying that about myself of course! 😋 My concept of energy is 100% the same as modern science. Also, if modern science can correct any theory of hermetics/alchemy, we always adopt to it. 😁 The bit that is different from modern science is that hermetics & alchemy do not use modern research, we use irreducible principles to reason. So we lean into the philosophy of it not being able to be denied to prove something is correct. 🙂 We tend to express energy as an observation of absolute principles; that cannot (it should be at least) be claimed false. Where as modern science tends to also observe not from our hermetic principles, but from theories and experiments, and then use that to also state it cannot be claimed false unless proven otherwise.

Because alchemy and hermetics where there at the beginning of science, the cradle of science if you will, the philosophy of how science is conducted, is different, yet fairly similar in many ways. 🤍 The concept of energy, in Alchemy, is part of a dense network of continuums, spectrums of observation, absolute relativity of two extremes, and it fits in completely with science as many know and love it, though the way the conclusions are made, are different. Not the outcome. 😋 In regard to how this is being used, I can state that the alchemic and hermetic ways of reasoning have more philosophical flexibility to interact with concepts that are abstract, and this has advantages if wanting to reason about abstract things. Please do note that abstraction I am talking about are only about real concepts and principles, though abstract.. such as causality, cognition, relativity, and reasoning outside of understanding yet withing the laws that are being observed..

@fakable Okey, ehrm.. if you have a nuclear power plant.. you can get more energy out through splitting it, than if you did not perform the reaction and used the matter in a more conventional way, right? That is what I mean by inaccesibility. It is not accessible by the matter, unless it is being split. If I should name it differently, feel free to give it another name. 😁 Also, if you know of methods to produce equal amounts of energy with molecules, through not splitting or fusing.. I would love to learn.. so far as I know it is not possible in modern science to duplicate the energy output of nuclear fusion or nuclear splitting, without using nuclear fusion or nuclear splitting, and get the same amount of energy out of it. Also, I do like to reverence to nuclear fusion turning out more energy than one put in, a breakthrough from 2022.. 😏

@fakable "inaccessibility of energy", not "inaccesibility of matter" 😅

@Ukiyo

[quote] I don't think my words are very easy to read[/quote]

i am not at all intimidated by your writing style.

to skip water and catch gold bullion

when they're there

@fakable I am not trying to.. I actually am simplifying my writings. Also, I write literal. I do not play mind games.. please do take all my words literal. If I do not mean my words literal, I capitalize my words or use high commas. I have also written this out in my introduciton post I think, or made mentions of it elsewhere.. anyways.. please do not feel offended by my writing style, it is not my intention, I am just very direct. 😔

@Ukiyo

[quote]"inaccessibility of energy", not "inaccesibility of matter"
[/quote]

it's the same thing
the form of energy is different

@fakable Hmm.. you got me there! 😅 If you want to go to that depth then I indeed do mean inaccesibility of matter. I often tend to split the concepts since I often reason that way, but I fully stand behind matter being energy.. 😋 If you share a different opinion than mine, in regard to accesibility, that is allright.. your choice. 🙃

@Ukiyo

[quote]please do not feel offended by my writing style,
[/quote]

i don't care how you express your thoughts.
i care about the value of your thoughts.

@fakable I hope you found some. I think you do care about how I express my thoughts, else reasoning would also be not being cared about, the two are related in many ways. But maybe I look at it from a different angle and you mean something different with caring about my thoughts. Anyways, if you have any other question, please do not hesitate to let me know! <3

@Ukiyo

my choice?

would a dialogue be useful if in the description of the subject matter of the dialogue the participants in the dialogue had a choice in interpreting the understanding of the basic terms used in the discussion...

@fakable You always have a choice.