Talk:Classical element/Archive 1

A number of additional sections have been added to this article fairly recently:

Many ancient philosophies used a set of archetypal classical elements to explain patterns in nature. These naturally-occurring fundamentals are actually more accurate in being classical states of matter than "elements" as they are defined in modern science. Most notably the four Greek classical elements earth, water, air, and fire correspond approximately with the four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. The fifth Greek classical element "idea" ("quintessence" in Latin; "aether" in Hindu theory; "void" in Japanese theory) corresponds approximately with the non-matter (non-material world) of cyberspace, mathematics, algorithms, and computer programs that run in analog as well as digital computers, often referred to in information theory as a state of low entropy. Regardless of whether their material embodiment is mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, optical, electric, or otherwise^[1], a computer program can be thought of as made of the fifth state of matter even if the computer itself is made of solid matter ("earth"). In the Plato/Aristotle sense, the mind is made of idea (non-matter), whereas the brain in which the mind "runs" is part of the material world (matter).

In neo-Paganism, it is believed that all living things have a smaller piece of nature inside them. Of course the two elements not seen in other cultures represent Parts of the Human Soul. Light of course represents the purity of the human soul While Dark represents the tainted parts. In most beliefs neither can exist without the other and Good and Evil exist in all things.

But beyond that the idea is that one may only find peace at mind after understanding the elements outside ones "self". Along with that it is a belief that the "Divine Presence" in this world is female because of the fact that when a woman is pregnant all elements can be found within her.

Do these interpretations of this concept really relate that well to the notion of classical elements? Where the first mention at least has citations, is it really appropriate to introduce an article primarily discussing classical ideas with a mention of conceptions within modern science? 24.24.90.148 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I second this complaint; seriously, outside of one isolated paper on how some musical instruments can be considered "ethereal," where does the idea that computer science represents the Fifth Element come from? 74.236.79.85 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All the 'Idea' and musical intrument stuff appears to be either WP:OR or not notable enough for inclusion. Ashmoo (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The tabular overview shows up overlapping with the Classical Elements template. Im using Firefox though and perhaps it shows up normally on other browsers. I propose that the tabular overview be removed since having both of them doesn't really serve any purpose. Showers 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I for one actually loved the idea and contribution of the Tabular Overview and prefer we have both. It further expanded and featured more elements (along with other philosophies and systems that are not mentioned in the article) and better organized them and their properties as where the Classical Elemental template only simply lists the overall elemental concepts of the major philosophies. Dark Sorcerer666 9:31, 1 December 2007(UTC)

All the elements in the table were all found in the article. It didn't add anything new except a way of organizing them into categories. Something that comes dangerously close to original research in my mind. If you prefer the table then we should get rid of the template instead. Having both serves no purpose. Showers 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, I do see your point. You are correct in that the Classical Elements template does feature the elements as directly discussed in the article within their respective philosophic culture, however there were in fact others as well as whole other philosophies and concepts that were included in the Tabular Overview that were not mentioned at all with in the context of the article itself that were also worth noting; concepts such as I-Ching, the Planetary Natures as well as the featuring of the other elements of the Chakra system that were included in the Hindu/Buddhist column. If what you are saying is to be the case than it would be more logical to exchange the Classical Element template for the Tabular Overview for its broader diversity and organization. Dark Sorcerer666 5:40, 4 December 2007(UTC)

I put the table back and removed the template. Showers (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Augh. This needs a lot of cleanup - I've done some, but I strongly suspect that this table is currently oversimplifying a number of traditions, or making connections where they don't exist. Right now, all it's really pointing out is that earth, air and fire are pretty universal - this would probably be easier to point out in prose than in text.

I've removed another section, BTW - which linked the four fundamental forces with four classical elements - on the basis that it made purely subjective connections like "gravity is like ripples, so it's like water". This is the sort of pseudoscientific waffle that this article needs to avoid. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

when i added neo paganism 6 months ago it compared the elements to the body and the body to the earth, it however did not talk about people in this set of religions like they were a cadre of witches. Deanostrodamus the Mystical (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is kinda biased - it links to seperate articles for Indian/Chinese/Japanese etc elements, but no seperate article for the Greek elements. As far as I can tell this is the article for the greek elements. To make things clearer this article should be split into two groups, one specifically talking about the Greek element system and another that describes all of them on equal terms.--86.142.171.82 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion below. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this:

"Idea" is the preferred modern term, and lends itself well to the idea that algorithms, software, or other similar "cyberspace" processes be categorized as belonging to the fifth element. In other words, just as the mind belongs to Idea, even though the brain is a mixture of solid ("Earth") and liquid ("Water"), software also belongs to Idea even though the hardware it runs on, i.e. silicon chips, etc., is made from solid ("Earth") matter.[2] The fifth Classical Element (Idea) may be further sub-divided into living and non-living. For example, the mind is an example of a living form of Idea whereas computer software is an example of non-living Idea.

really belong here? wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like WP:OR to me. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole Classical elements in sound and music section seems like WP:OR or at least the views of a tiny minority. Could someone detail who actually believes or proposed this view of music classification, so we can determine its notability? Ashmoo (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on some other material I have seen floating on the net, it doesn't seem to be entirely WP:OR, but notability is dubious. What bothers me, is not whether it passes the litmus test for notability (I have a fairly liberal stance on what should be included in WP), but that if it is included it needs to be defined in the proper context, and this article really isn't it. These newer constructs don't belong here simply because they have a loose inspiration from the "Classical Elements." From what I've seen it's a bizarre construct, with geophone/gaiaphone corresponding to seismic sensors, hydrophone corresponding to water, microphone corresponding to air, and ionophone corresponding to fire (er, plasma). Note the first thing is that these transducers don't all measure the same thing. An ionophone typically does not measure sound in plasma. In fact one might ask, isn't a microphone a microphone, so that all sound recorders are microphones? In a sense else, a hydrophone *is* a microphone with the design detail that its pickup is better impedance matched to water. A geophone is not strictly speaking a sound recording device.

The merit of such a correspondence is dubious to me in any regard, since this does not build a sound/music taxonomy with much extensibility or generality.

I'm removing it from here. 74.74.214.84 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any connection between the two? I mean, the elements seem to correspond with the states of matter (Earth/Solid, Water/Liquid, Air/Gas, Fire/Plasma), but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading something that gave a similar correspondence: Earth = Matter, Fire = Energy, Air = Space, Water = Time. I believe it was some Wiccan/Neo-Pagan literature but I forget what exactly, possibly Starhawk. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the correspondence, especially that of associating fire with plasma. Whereas you can make some loosely valid connections with three of them, i.e. Water is a Liquid (as long as it isn't :-), Air is a gas (well the mixture of gas state compounds), Earth is a Solid (in many cases, yes), but fire (as it is defined in this context) is not an example of ionization in any sort. I really think the associations are all weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.214.84 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, the ancients could hardly have known about plasma as a state of matter, so if there is an equation, it's probably coincidental and/or unintentional. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there was an advanced civilization or advanced information available in the past. Faro0485 (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though the associations are all strong, not weak. Perhaps fire = plasma takes an expert or a look at that other wikipedia article to determine but it seems obvious the ancients were talking about the states of matter when they talked about the elements, but that thinking of what are states of matter as elements must have greatly complicated their way of thinking, just as the complications for the sun and planet rotations around the earth must have been a bit involved. Liquid, solid, and gas are no-brainers so obviously that is what the ancients are taking about, but it shouldn't come as a surprise they got it all confused by making them elements instead of states of matter, after the basic facts were established because after all they were living in ancient, not modern times. What is surprising is the close correspondence the basic three to five elements have with our modern system of states. Fire, for example seems to correspond with plasma, and the fifth element corresponds directly, down to fairly recently used terminology, with the inexplicable, immaterial forces of nature of magnetism and gravity.Mac (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the question is even asked about the relation to the states of matter, let alone that it is questioned. Only such a strong connection could result in so many ancient civilizations independently coming up with the same basic theory of elements. It also seems clear to me that Fire basically corresponds to what we would now call Energy. Where the ancients would say that Wood contained a mixture of Earth and Fire, we would say that it just contains latent energy. When the wood is burned, the Fire / Energy is released from the wood, and it becomes something else. 135.196.124.77 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This article, or rather the series of articles about classical elemental systems, seems to be (presumably unintentionally) biased. What I mean by this is that having the Greek system discussed only in the main article and then having all others split off into their own articles puts it on an unequal footing with the other systems. It implies that either a) the Greek system is the "generic" or "default" version of the system and that all others are merely exotic variations or abberations, which is obviously bias, or that b) the Greek system is not interesting or notable enough to get it's own article, which is a different kind of bias. Either way there seems to be a problem. IMO this article should refer to all the systems equally, then we can have a seperate article for the Greek system specifically. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that this article should really focus on the Greek elements, per the dictionary definition of classical: "of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals". --Itub (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be a new article at Element (philosophy) that refers to the concept as a whole, without singling out any one version. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new template suggesting that the page be split, for the reasons given above. --86.135.218.10 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a new article made for the philosophical elements, and this one is renamed "Greek elements" or somesuch, the Romans and their ideas should probably be merged into it, since the Greeks had so much influence on their culture. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What if we just cut the Greek section out, put a trimmed-down version and a link on this page, and then made the Greek section an article in and of itself? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of a Greek article, why is it that the alchemical symbols are used in the Greek section? I don't think this makes sense at all, because these symbols were not created by the Greeks but much later; their inclusion in this section carries the implication however that the Greeks DID make them. A separate section on the elements in alchemy might be more appropriate; in there the alchemic elements could also be covered. I'll leave it up to others to take these suggestions into consideration, however. 205.241.141.168 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously! This is inherantly biased. It's like calling the Greek version classical/universal, and the Japanese/Chinese ones as "versions"! Shame on whoever did this! I'm moving the page in 10 days to "The Five Elements" if there's no response. MotherFatherChild (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This article does not mention the geometric associations made by Plato and Empedocles with the classical elements. A quick google search produced this site which explains said associations. Perhaps someone could augment the page to include geometric shapes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HylianElf (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, I've tried to do my research on this, and I got ziltch. Any sources? Haftorang 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haftorang (talk • contribs)

Could somebody clarify whether there actually is a genuine link between the Chinese five phases and the Greek elements, or between many of the other examples of "elements" in this article? The word "element" means something completely different in many of these examples, and I have serious questions about any article that purports that they can be discussed together. DDSaeger (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the "Lemurian" elements are refering to in the side bar? I clicked on the the link to Lemuria, which offered no explanation on its relation to this subject.--PointTheFinger (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They're nonsense someone added to the template a few months ago. Gone. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wu Xing was traditionally translated as Five Elements, but it is chiefly an ancient mnemonic device for systems with 5 stages; hence it behaves less like the elements. So I wanted to just simply remove "Classical elements in China" section and merge into the Wu Xing article. But I was reminded by Chris that I can't just simply remove. I want to tell that Wu Xing are not the elements and I want to do something right, so can anyone point out what should be done? Thank you. 百家姓之四 Matthew 討論 Discussion 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

百家姓之四, I appreciate your good faith edits, but you are weakening the meaning of the text in English. Post what you would like the section to say, right here on the talk page first. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps something like:

===Wu Xing in China===

Main article: Wu Xing

In many traditional Chinese theory field, matters and its developmental movement stage can be classified into the Wu Xing. They are Tree, Fire, Earth, Metal and Water. Note that the Wu Xing are chiefly an ancient mnemonic device for systems with 5 stages, rather than the notion of different kinds of material. For further information, see Wu Xing.

Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's good, let me tweak the English and come back to this soon. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1-Light 2-Fier 3-Wind 4-Water 5-Earth

Light is the first element of the world as the beginning of the world is light Cannot leave without light for long time Reference Scientific - Religion (Jewish - Christian - Islamic) As the first construction of the world begin with light —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihabelrifai (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why this article demarcates the so-called "philosophical" elements from the chemical elements of modern science... I can't think of any justification for not including a section on the 'modern' elements in this article. The Milesian philosophers, for example, posited their elemental substances for the exact same reasons modern scientists did: to explain the world in terms of its component parts.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why, is that modern science (or rather the modern philosophers) measures its progress by the distance from the Aristotelian physics system, which regarded the aggregation states of matter plus fire and a fifth hypothetical quintessence as pure elements that couldn't be reduced. The elements of modern science cannot be tracked backwards, because there exist no heritage from the classical elements directly towards the modern elements. We may imagine that f.ex. "earth" was splitup into "X" and "Y", then "X" into "X1" and "X2" and them "X1" into "iron" and "nickel", but such a continuity doesn't exist. Instead the classical elements were suddenly dismissed as invalid, and the scientists (lead by Robert Boyle) started to ask: "but what are the elements, really?". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(I hate to quote Wikipedia, but I just woke up and I'm feeling lazy.) There certainly is a continuity between the elements conceptualized by the Greeks and the modern elements. This article gives the impression that the Greeks had a more or less monolithic system; that one might be able to reject Greek elements by rejecting that the elements water, earth, air, fire and aether are scientific fact. But try scrolling through the philosophers who were members of the Milesian school. The Greeks took these men to have founded the theory of elements, but none of them endorsed all five of the Aristotelian elements, and a few posited their own in turn. Is there a similar discontinuity between them and Aristotle? It doesn't seem so, and on similar grounds there doesn't seem to be a discontinuity between the elements of Ancient Greece and those of Robert Boyle and his 'modern' science, eh?

Robert Boyle is cited as having "advanced towards the [...] view of elements as the undecomposable constituents of material bodies." This is precisely the view of elements held by the Ancient Greeks (e.g., Plato in the Timeaus)! I'd like us to add a little section with a redirect to the modern article "elements," or something similar. (p.s. I just edited that sentence at the Robert Boyle article to the extent that you'll only be able to find the latter part of it.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I fucked around with the article a bit. Let me know what you think.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the edit history. For a little while, there was a language problem with scientism, (but an honest oversight I think). Looks like Heyitspeter found all of it. Well done.

Outside the European/Middle Eastern context, there's no basis for evaluating science theories against "classic elements", (or vice versa). Also, States of matter can't be the de facto "scientific" version of "modern classical elements". Aristotle's elements modeled aspects of Gravity, Motion, Astronomy, Cosmology, Time… The names fire, air, water, earth and aether reveal as much about elements as charm, strange, top and bottom do about quarks.

There's no discontinuity, "the elements of modern science" can absolutely be traced back through history; as a rough example: Fire←Phlogiston←Oxygen,Hydrogen… Clearly that would be beyond the scope of this article, but starting with Gerber and his formulation of Aristotle's elements, we could fill in some of the missing people, substances and theories. The alchemist/scientists like Boyle and Newton had some really interesting theories about transmutation.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The modern element system occurs without a "demarkation line", which is a little misleading. The misnamed section Modern classic element system that I renamed to Classic vs. modern systems has quite some justification and can remain, but the great conceptual distance between the old element system and the new must be clarified. In The Sceptical Chymist from 1661, by Robert Boyle, the classical element system was denied, the infinite continuity theory of Aristotle was replaced with atomism, and from there on, up to a little after 1800 all classical elements were removed from the list of elements. This presents a gigantic paradigm shift in the world view – actually one of the very few greatest shift in the history of humankind. This demarkation line must be clearly treated in the text.

We can nowadays easily and intuitively understand what kind of phenomenons the alleged elements of Aristotle were — the states of matter — but we don't regard them as elements. The question is when the chemists understood what they were really, if the foundation of this understanding was created by Boyle also? Anyone who knows? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(See above.) Denial of Aristotle's elemental system =/= discontinuity with ancient elemental theory. Proof by reductio: Milesian school.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I should chime in about the history of science tracing back to "medieval, Islamic and Greek models" (in the draft I did for the lead). I'm not very familiar with medieval philosophy/alchemy/history of science but I'm happy to help fill out that section?

My impression is that there were a number of gigantic paradigm shifts. Phlogiston comes to mind as a sort of proto-scientific theory (contemporary with Boyle) supplanting classic Fire and later supplanted by Lavoisier's theory of Oxygen combustion. Really, the paradigm shifts haven't stopped coming and I imagine they're always gigantic in some respect. I don't know that its feasible to clarify all the great conceptual leaps in an article of this scope (especially if chemistry developments aren't the only focus). I think its important to specify concepts as distinct (in a moderate voice) when they're from different times and places; assuming they typically are, in fact, reasonably distinct while having some similarities (that's what makes it so interesting).

Here's a JSTOR page on the much overlooked pursuits of Boyle the Alchemist. He's in good company with Francis Bacon (Novum Organum), and Isaac Newton, ("Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians").

Unless it was allegedly for a science article, just from the framing I'd tend to disagree with: we can nowadays easily and intuitively understand what kind of phenomena the alleged elements of Aristotle were… I think it goes without saying Aristotle and his peers easily and intuitively understood their own worldview, while a modern person's ability to intuit that would be subjective, at best. I think its fair to say phases of matter was the inspiration at some point, but modern science provides no insight into the ancient theory: how is Water not primarily wet? And how does Liquid exist, per se, in gray coded base-4 interactions? —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

i need a page thet will help me more so this i think needs more info on here thanks _KENN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.171.70 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary should be rewrite the lead to:

• not say, in science, they're patterns that aren't chemicals, natural substances or chemical mixtures; (the "technical difference" is a bit too confusing in contrast to philosophical concepts; this isn't the lead for the science article)
• say the opposite of what it said about the wu xing; (that it is a chemical etc./not a pattern)
• and include phases of matter; (which I thought should go in the lead too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Elf 1735 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

These are the elements developed by some Hindi and Tibetan monks. They believe in ten true elements that have kept balance throughout the universe's existence. The elements each have a different description and role in nature. The elements are divided into groups of two. There are originals, which are the original aspects like Earth, Water, Wind, and Fire. Then there are the ancients: Light and Dark. And the End and Begin: Life and Death. And the two universal aspects: Time and Space.

I already brought this up in Talk:Chemical elements, but have noticed the same statements made here. I'll re-state:

In the section on "Ancient classic element systems" it states that the term "element" was originally used to refer to states of matter. It goes on to list the relevant elements and their associated states of matter: solid/earth, liquid/water, gas/air, and plasma/fire. I don't believe that this is accurate. The original Classical elements were devised in ancient times (roughly Hellenistic era), but plasma wasn't discovered until the 19th century. The connection is tenuous. Also, this section makes connections between the "aether" and space, Idea, Void which needs backing up. (It sounds like new-age hokum to me.) I think the first part of this section should be changed or removed completely. --Danshil (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite plausible that the names originated from natural observations of phases of matter (clearly not plasma, except the sun and stars) however, the philosophical theories weren't equivalent to phases of matter. Once aether was no longer needed for celestial mechanics, the name was reused, sometimes in connection with odic force (and in modern western occultism as spirit) but most recently in science as the luminiferous aether. Of course, that would take some work to develop and cite properly.

I changed Chemical element#History as well. In that article, I took out the global statement saying "they're all the same" because they're only similar due to everyone living on the same planet observing the same phenomena. There actually were theoretical differences. This article is able to compare and contrast the various theories but that would be TMI for the science article where Greek philosophy is the proper basis for comparison. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maat = Logos?
• Nu (mythology)= "water" of Thales?
• Shu (Egyptian deity) = "air"
• Tefnut = "the moisture of the sky"
• Geb = "Earth"
• Nut (goddess) = "Sky" / Böri (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This was added recently, can it be developed and sourced? —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In Christianity

• EARTH=Joseph (In part from the Egyptian name PTAH: Rissen Land. But also his trade TEKTON: Iron, Wood, Stone - I.W.S.),
• WATER=Mary (From the Greek MARE and Hebrew IAM e.i. Water. Bible name MAR-IAM) and
• FIRE=Jesu (Son aka SUN).

Lightning is commonly named as a classical element, notably in many modern video games. Perhaps a mention in this article? Robo37 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the recent changes, I salvaged a few edits... from Imorthodox23. (I thought most of the edits to the various other classical element articles were constructive). There are reasons the elements are given in various orders... (godai, Aristotle, etc.) And the elimination of serial commas is a hard sell (based of preference and consistency?) Quotes shouldn't be changed. If changes are made, then square brackets are used to indicate what's been changed.

Thanks—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not rename the subsection classical elements of India and then place Hindu and Buddhist elements and the seven chakras directly underneath it.

Like this?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only does this reflect the annoying Hindu habit of expressing their religious and philosophical ideas as if they were objectively real -- fine when talking to other Hindus, not so fine for Wikipedia's NPOV policy -- but it's laden with undefined technical terms in Sanskrit that convey no information whatsoever to anyone other than a Hindu who already understands it.

Bad enough when this kind of nonsense crops up in Hindu-related articles. Can we please not have it inflicted on us elsewhere? 192.91.172.42 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course they express their "religious and philosophical ideas as if they were objectively real" as would anyone. NPOV doesn't suggest they should be presented as "nonsense" anymore than it would privilege some "objectively real" ontology. While it's little more than a table of correspondences, at the very least it satisfies WP:ATTRIBUTE by repeatedly using "According to"… quite helpfully indicating what might be sourced to the Rigveda, and where the WP:OR begins. I'll move it here in case anyone can cite what "mastery of Vedic meditation and an analysis of Vedic hymns" would make clear.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, not anyone would. Not here, anyway. Christians, for instance, aren't allowed to get away with inserting their religious beliefs into random articles as if they were absolute truths. Nor should they. I have to believe you deliberately misread my comment (posted from another machine), one annoying, disingenuous tactic by the obtuse that was among the factors that drove me from editing Wikipedia some years ago. The "nonsense" isn't the beliefs themselves; it's their mode of representation. Yes, it says "according to". It also says that certain matters are revealed by meditation, and takes knowledge of Brahma's attributes as a given. And then there's the typesetting, giving non-neutral emphases to their conclusions as if they were important lessons to be absorbed. No, no one else gets away with this kind of thing. 74.220.76.54 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PANCHAMAHABHUTAS ACCORDING TO BRAHMAJNANA:

According to Rigveda 1.10.90-15 Purusha is the seat of seven hidden weapons and seven kinds of energies.

According to Manu Smriti 1.19 Purusha is made of seven Purushas. According to 1.20 the nature of these seven Perishable Purushas is determined by their position in the Purusha and the nature of each is a modification of the nature of the preceedring Purusha. It is not mentioned any where who these seven Purushas are and their position within the Purusha. However, mastery of Vedic meditation and an analysis of Vedic hymns would make it clear that they are the following.

1. Shunya/ Dreaming force/ Indra

2. Vayu/ Illusory force/ Shakti

3. Agni/ Voluntary force/ Brahma

4. Jala/ Semi voluntary force/ Vishnu

5. Earth/ Involuntary force/ Shiva

6. Status altering force/ Shani

7. Compulsive force/ Yama

Vishnu's association with water is well known. Also, Brahma originates from his navel. Brahma's association with the hip/ genital region too is well known. Shiva has to be associated with chest because he is part of Trimurti and thus must lie next to Vishnu.

Thus, Panchamahabhutas refer to the first five of the seven basic forces our life is made of.

What was Aristotle thinking here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.124.77 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that seem like the weirdest thing. (It would kind of makes sense in a humid climate). Warm moist air was thought to spontaneously give rise to life.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, how on Earth (no pun intended) is Air wetter than water. If it were that way, we wouldn't be able to breathe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.40 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are five classical elements: Water, Fire, Earth, Air and Quintessence. Quintessence is Energy. You need that in life too. Also how is Air wetter than water? There shouldn't be two characteristics, only one. Water is wet, Fire is hot, Earth is dry, Air is cold, Quintessence is all. Quintessence is also electricity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.40 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article includes aether but the Empedoclean/terrestrial elements are four in number, and while Aristotle's celestial element was all energia and no dunamis, it was not “energy”. If they're still discussing your list of characteristics in two and a half millenia, they should put it in the article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Alchemical elements has one source and very little unique content.
—Sowlos (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Might as well serve as an introduction or after thoughts to the List of alchemical substances article. Ernobe (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Most redirects probably have titles good for related and sub-topics of their respective articles. That's not the issue; the issue is whether they have content to justify separate articles.

I'd be more than happy to withdraw the merge suggestion if someone fills it with unique, and sourced, content relevant to an article named Alchemical elements, otherwise it should be merged.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much sense to the article either. It appears to be sourced from material in Ouspenskys' A New Model of the Universe. Why not merge it there? Ernobe (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going based on the title. Perhaps the content would be better merged elsewhere, but Alchemical elements should redirect here.
—Sowlos (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: this article does (or did) have a section on Alchemy... which would be an appropriate merge target. The inclusion of sulfur etc is not classical however. Regarding the list, substances are conceptually distinct from elements.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: Elements in alchemy = the aristotle/empedocles system with no special differences. Content of alchemy section in this article re: sulphur is the tria prima (no article exists... Should be a different topic.)Content in the alchemical elements article ain't classical. Support moving it elsewhere if it's about a single text as suggested above.Car Henkel (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done — Merged what I could; deleted most of the OR.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

see the link.--2.187.107.80 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely a Bruce Willis action film isn't something to use as a reference for a philosophy/faith article. What is the reasoning behind this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp3hybrid (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

God willed to express himself into multiple forms and play a game of Maya.

My Explaination for Law of Gravitation

So, he created a vessel called sky and filled it with ether ( a mixture of akashic elements, like electron and magnetic particles, and blew his shabad (sound energy) through a opening in sky vessel, resulting in formation of various sizes of bubbles(in reality these are the nucleus of atoms),which were filled with akashic particles moving at light speed inside the bubbles. the bubbles are made of such film material ,which can not be penetrated by akashic elements, and so are pressurized by these akashic element , which are moving in straight lines,from all sides, but when this movement is obstructed by other bubbles, a pressure imbalance results , This pressure imbalance thus creats obstruction from one side on a bubble resulting in its attraction towards that bubble, this attraction in large quantity manifests itself as gravitational force, We can mathematically prove this ( GMm/r2)because this pressure difference is a function of sum of areas of the obstruction, and the sum of areas of the attracted bubble.and thus we can logically say that mass is nothing but the area of nucleus of an atom, through which this akashic element can’t pass.Thus proving ancient theory that akashic element is holing all other elements, by creation of gravitation force. Breaking and joining of bubbles(nucleus) to form new size of bubbles under force or high temperature results in release of internal energy of bubbles according to change in volume of (nucleus) bubbles , thus occurring, which may be called fission and fusion nuclear reactions. proving E=mc2 ,mass energy conversion equation of Einstein.

My Explaination for Magnetism

There are magnetic paricles of very small size ,in ether, In magnets, the elements align in straight lines to form tunnels( larger than size of magnetic akashic particles0, through which akashic magnetic particles can easily pass, Passing of mgt through tunnel near north pole results in creation of vaccum or low pressure of mgt near north pole resulting in forced flow of nearby mgt to fill the vaccum thus created ,manifesting in attraction for iron and magnetic materials, Thus magnets acts as pump for mgt creating a field from south pole to north pole. My Theory of Electromagnetism There are magnetic and electronic particles in space. The oscillation(interchange) of energy between these two results in electromagnetic waves. My Explaination for action and reaction and conservation of momentum The solids consists of nucleus bubbles and their fields, when a collision occurs the bubbles are pressurized to form elliptical shapes in place of spherical normal, when the force is removed they try to recoil to their natural shape(as in a spring), resuling in release of stored energy like in a spring recoiling in opposite direction. This is the reason that every action will have equal and opposite reaction.

the collision resulted in various atoms filled with different energy level.   These different atoms with varying energy levels(fire element) combined with each other and with others to create atoms and compounds with varying attractive and repulsive forces amongst each other resulting in manifestation of solid, liquid and gaseous substances. Solids (prithvi Tatva) formed  the shell or the structure or boundaries for the liquid (jal Tatwa) and gases(Vayu Tatwa) to entrap inside. Solids manifest  a temporary immortality in this mortal world.

The creation is a dance of attractive and repulsive forces and, motion between matters and electromagnetic waves, the interaction between higher energy state particles and lower stage particles, results in transfer of energy and destabilization of existing systems. Solids structures are always being attacked by fluids, which are freer to move, and are energized by sun and other radiating stars and heat entrapped inside the shell of earth. And there is difference in energy received at different level in space and time, so there is difference in energy levels and fluids move from higher energy levels to lower ones. And fluids are cutting the solids; always try to keep changing the structure of solids. So Elements are always attacking each other, and the equilibrium of forces keeps changing resulting in regular creation of new shapes of solid structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.51.101 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)