Light and Matter (Origins)

by dhw, Saturday, May 31, 2014, 12:48 (3827 days ago) @ GateKeeper

GATEKEEPER: thank you for your honesty. Believe the one you know first. But I am not backing off my post. When we reach this level it is very important to be "precise". 
"pure energy". we cannot go outside of the standard model to describe anything like "pure energy" before our universe. David will have to talk directly to me about that. But please, believe him. [...]
I will not draw any conclusions for you ... I will help you understand the data first ... then draw your conclusions. that is important to me.-I need to give you some background here. As you will have gathered, I am not a scientist, and the ins and outs of physics are way beyond me. My personal quest is a philosophical one, the culmination of which would be the answer to the question: Is there a God, and if so, what might it/he/she be like? There are many different approaches to this. Clearly science plays an enormous role here, but I'm only able to understand the conclusions that scientists draw from their findings, and if they disagree among themselves, I can only assume that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. And so what is important to me is not the data but the conclusions, which I can then measure against other conclusions and against my own observations of the world as I know it.-This particular discussion was sparked by an article reporting on a forthcoming experiment, in which scientists will attempt to prove that matter can be made from "pure" light/energy. This came as a shock to me. For years I have accepted the idea that matter was energy, and David and I have agreed that the First Cause has to be energy, in which case it stands to reason that energy created matter. David insists that first cause energy has always been conscious, and that is the point at which I am able to discuss the subject with him on level terms. But the article suggests that energy creating matter is only a theory ... and that throws into question the whole concept of energy as first cause. This is why I keep asking whether there is such a thing as "pure" energy, and whether we know of any form of energy that is not produced through matter. So far I have not had a satisfactory answer. But if you and David both assure me that I have misunderstood the purpose of this experiment, and pure energy does exist and does create matter, I will accept it (unless another scientist steps in and says you are wrong). For me the purpose is not to try and understand quantum theory ... I'm afraid I'll never be able to get my head round waving and probability etc.! ... but to use scientists' conclusions to form an overall picture. If scientists disagree, the lack of consensus is a clear reflection on the value of their findings in relation to the questions I'm trying to get answers to. And so what would help me most would be to know your conclusions and, in layman's language, your reasons for reaching them. You won't need me to tell you that there is a gulf between science itself and the philosophical conclusions people draw from their scientific knowledge. The gulf is the area I inhabit.
 
There's more background for you in my response under "Innovation and Speciation: pre-planning".-(Apologies in advance, but I shan't be able to post any responses until tomorrow.)