Thread: The Flower of Life

No.

Naw.

I think I found a new informational pattern contained within the flower! I need the help of an expert Sacred Geometer to fully interpret it though..?

Can you guys provide a little more information on why you disagree, rather than "No"?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think I found a new informational pattern contained within the flower! I need the help of an expert Sacred Geometer to fully interpret it though..?

I was going to write a fairly long paragraph on this, but I think that image fully makes my point for me.

b12, it's an interesting idea. It's just that the video sounds like some really intelligent person with a psychotic form of bipolar disorder talking.

That video is my favorite on this subject. It is one of many; it's just the one I chose because it puts it in a simple format. Google or Youtube "Flower of Life" and see what comes up.

"The Flower of Life" is a topic that's been covered by many different sources over a long period of time. If you disagree with it, that's your prerogative, though I'd like to hear why.

Flower of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vortex math man

Originally Posted by b12

That video is my favorite on this subject. It is one of many; it's just the one I chose because it puts it in a simple format. Google or Youtube "Flower of Life" and see what comes up.

"The Flower of Life" is a topic that's been covered by many different sources over a long period of time. If you disagree with it, that's your prerogative, though I'd like to hear why.

Flower of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not the distinct video style. It's the concept talked about in it. The concept just seems like a big wad of loose associations that comes with bizarre conclusions about the fundamental nature of the universe. Like Xei showed, the detailed nature of the image allows a lot of room for finding images. I think that explains a lot. The way the design is related to Genesis is especially ridiculous. He's simply associating numbers with other numbers. It's something to the effect of, "As you go out, there are this many. If you go out more, there are this many. Wow, Genesis talks about that first number of days and then talks about that second number of days! Something is going on here!" WTF? They're numbers! Relating the outline of the outer circle to the outer layer of a cell might be even more absurd. Circles and numbers are very common, and smaller images can be found all over detailed images.

Still, I am glad I am somewhat educated on the issue now. I like knowing what popular beliefs are out there.

The flower of life is a geometric pattern that is related to everything in the universe.

On ted.com theres a video of a particle scientist who uses geometry in his research. The geometry he used is described in the flower of life. Im at work - cant find it now - but Ive posted it on these forums like three times already and everyone just turns a blinds eye. You can't just stare at the flower of life and assume you understand it or the people who decided how important this geometry was. They found this geometry important because within it they discovered all other geometries inherent in nature. Its also important to remember that flower of life gives us natures first pattern which is 3d and fractals in and out of itself.

In short sacred geometry is a geometry that describes how nature is sctructured and how everything is connected

Originally Posted by b12

Can you guys provide a little more information on why you disagree, rather than "No"?

That's a very reasonable response; I'm glad you asked.

But the real question isn't really why we disagree, but why you agree.

Almost all of the claims made in the video have no evidence behind them (the rest of them are simply totally absurd like still believing in Aristotle's 5 elements). Try to prove, or even give an explanation of how you would begin to demonstrate, any of the claims. You can't; they're not falsifiable so therefore they're meaningless. I could just as well claim that there was some 'aether' which permeates all of space and time without interacting with it physically, and which contains 'all of mathematics', and which is therefore responsible for all of physics. There's a famous phrase for this in the philosophy of science: "not even wrong". It's beyond being incorrect: it doesn't even mean anything. There's no way of demonstrating its veracity or otherwise. And what can you actually predict using either my theory, or the theory of 'Sacred Geometry'? Apparently it explains the entire universe, so give a single successful prediction that this theory can be used to make, which was then tested and found to be true. An example of this working is Einstein's theory of space and time called 'general relativity'. This is proper knowledge, because it made solid claims, such as the claim that light would be bent around stars. This was tested and found to be true. General relativity is now essential for the functioning of GPS satellites. Another potent question: which technologies rely on Sacred Geometry?

Although my BS image is ostensibly just biting satire, if you think about it, it actually contains pretty much contains all of the reasons that Sacred Geometry is rubbish. The video claims as evidence the (almost definitely fabricated) assertion that you can somehow see all of the periodic table of elements within this figure. But how do you know that that means that the figure tells you about reality? The only way you knew about the elements in the first place, was not through the epistemological system of Sacred Geometry, but through the epistemological system of the scientific method. For every true statement you can somehow embody in the figure, you can embody a million other totally stupid statements, including patently false statements, and even including the statement that the figure itself is a load of BS. On what basis, for what reason, do you discard these bad statements, and keep the correct ones? Because you already knew they were true. The figure can only be made to show what you already know, which clearly demonstrates that it is meaningless.

I watched all those Spirit Science videos not long ago, I think they're nice as a mythology. There's lots of bunk claims in there that made me groan, like saltation being mentioned in the one about evolution. But overall I enjoyed them, very imaginative.