Light and Matter (Origins)

by dhw, Friday, May 23, 2014, 16:40 (3835 days ago) @ David Turell

dhW: Thank you again, but I would like to take this back to our original agreement that the first cause is energy. According to you, first cause energy (your Universal Intelligence known as God) consciously created the only matter that is known to us, which is our universe. But if energy and matter are interchangeable, how can one claim that God is energy ... not matter ... which created matter? -DAVID: The only thing that existed in eternity was/is energy. The atheist scientists (Krauss, Stenger as examples) want it to be a virtual quantum space so a 'quantum perturbation' can create the universe. I am proposing a pure energy form in no space. Can I prove that. No. Krauss-Stenger space [/i[i]]exists in our universe, and we cannnot really know what existed before. -I agree that we can't know what existed before, but if you claim it was "pure energy" and not matter, you will have to drop the claim that energy and matter are "interchangeable".-dhw: And since the only intelligence we know is that which appears to "emerge" from matter, why claim that there is a different form of immaterial intelligence that consists solely of energy, even though matter and energy are interchangeable?-DAVID: Since the only conscious mentation we know is ours and it is created by energy expenditure in the brain, I am assuming a disembodied conscousness make up entirely of energy.-Which consciousness are you referring to here ... ours, or your god's? I thought you believed our consciousness was a phenomenon that emerges from interaction between the physical components of the brain, i.e. from the energy produced by matter. Your assumption of disembodied consciousness made up entirely of energy is the reason why I have questioned whether you can say energy and matter are interchangeable. You now seem to be saying they are not interchangeable.
 
dhw: And my final question for today: if energy and matter are interchangeable, is your statement "energy is really all there is" any more valid than the statement "matter is really all there is?"
 
DAVID: Because you are ignoring the physical laws which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed in this universe. We live in all the energy that is or can be. Matter is a form of energy. Energy underlies and is the basis for everything. When we use matter to form energy, as with wood, all we do is oxidize the carbon to CO2 and feel the warmth of what we transformed in th fire. The CO2 then is used in photosynthesis in leaves to make bigger trees to start the cycle again. Matter is never all that is. Solid Matter is a form of energy. You are correct in the sense that what we call 'particles' are a form of matter, so we must be careful in our definitions. But those particles are really jittering waves in a field per quantum theory, and they seem to exist at a differint level of our reality, per Kastner.-Then matter and energy are not interchangeable. Alternatively, we can argue that matter constantly changes into different forms, as in your wood example, in which solid matter becomes gaseous matter which becomes solid matter in a constant process of material transformation. Since nobody understands quantum "reality", can we really argue that it is not material? -Please remember that I'm trying to understand the implications of the statement that energy and matter are interchangeable ... a statement that you have previously explained and defended. Do you still think it's true?