God and Energy (The nature of a \'Creator\')
I'm opening a new thread, because I'd like to explore the implications of the "pure light" experiment in relation to the God theory and later panpsychism. First, though, I'll respond to David's last post: dhw: (under "Light and Matter: another view"): ...the question remains whether the building blocks of matter are themselves material or, as you claim, "pure energy". DAVID: The current theory is that they are pure energy. Electrons, photons, and the plasma I mentioned previously and now identified Quark-gluon plasma are all elementary energy particles. Note there are others. Please carefully read the article I've referred several times about the elementary energy particles:-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-appar...-Note the masses are in GeV's, energy measurements.-STRASSLER: Over the past 115 years, physicists have discovered that pretty much everything material, including rocks and rain, sun and sunshine, ocean waves and radio waves, can be described in terms of particles (and their corresponding fields.) Experiments have uncovered a large handful of types of particles that appear so far to be elementary (i.e., not made from yet more elementary things.) The full complexity of our daily world is constructed from just a few of these. The rest of the particles are evanescent, decaying away so quickly that we don't encounter them in normal circumstances. But they may hold the keys to secrets of the universe that continue to elude us at the moment. [...]-•	I've drawn heavier particles at the top, the lighter particles at the bottom. (I do this because massless is as low as a particle can go, but particles can have an arbitrarily high mass; in short, there's a hard floor below, but above, the sky's the limit.) •	Instead of masses I've given the equivalent mass-energies (E = m c-squared) which is what particle physicists typically use. (Keeping track of energy, which is never lost or gained, is easier than keeping track of mass, which can change in some processes, such as decays.) -It's a pity Strassler doesn't call them elementary energy particles, as you do (does energy decay?), and I wish I could find a general consensus on the existence of "pure energy". Strassler says he's using energy measurements because energy is easier to track than mass, which is not the same as saying the particles themselves are "pure energy", let alone that "pure energy" creates matter. But if that is the current theory, so be it. It's now clear to me, however, why the experiment is so important: "pure energy" creating matter is a theory and not a fact ... which is what I wanted to know. (A brief digression: in the posts that followed Strassler's article was a fascinating observation from a 14-year-old girl named Marie: "It is said that when a particle meets its anti-particle they annihilate each other, transforming into energy. However, when our universe was created, matter somewhat 'overtook' antimatter." It appears that this is one of the many unexplained mysteries that physicists are grappling with.) dhw: Earlier, in response to a blog which you recommended as "the whole outline of our universe's history", I asked in all seriousness if your God was a "metastable false vacuum which deliberately transformed its virtual particles into a vacuum bubble". You didn't answer. Now perhaps I should ask if he is a QGP.-DAVID: I didn't answer, because an answer is knowingly impossible: I have no serious answer to your un-serious question. No one can know if an eternal intelligence has a recognizable form or structure.-My reason for starting this discussion was the range of implications arising from the "pure light" experiment. Structure is one of them. See below.-dhw: I'm not trying to make a point ... I'm seeking clarification, because the process is so central to the first cause energy concept, whether that first cause is conscious or not. DAVID: Whether first cause is conscious energy or not cannot be proven by any experiment testing the current theories. Recognizing by current fully established findings that elementary energy particles coalesced to make matter is fully established, except in your mind, is the current discussion issue.-It has always been your contention that First Cause is self-aware energy, which created all the matter of the universe. I've gone along with energy as First Cause, but not necessarily self-aware. If energy does not create matter, then of course the whole theory will have to be rethought. Meanwhile, let's adopt your theory, and assume that "pure energy" (your God) consciously created matter. In that case, all the processes you're outlining have to be those used by your God to create the universe, and he has to BE all the so-called pure energy particles you refer to, unless you're saying his pure energy is different from that which he used to form our universe. I don't know why you should see it as a problem, since it fits in perfectly well with your panentheism. But instead you say: "No one can know if an eternal intelligence has a recognizable form or structure." How can you separate your first cause intelligence from your first cause energy? I'll wait for your response before going any further.
God and Energy
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, June 04, 2014, 16:17 (3824 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It's a pity Strassler doesn't call them elementary energy particles, as you do (does energy decay?), and I wish I could find a general consensus on the existence of "pure energy". ..... It's now clear to me, however, why the experiment is so important: "pure energy" creating matter is a theory and not a fact ... which is what I wanted to know.-To clear your mind, go back to the last century when "atom smashers" pounded matter and found the particles Strassler describes. By theory they had to be there and they were, but the strange variety and the families could not be predicted, simply discovered. Why they are like they are and grouped the way they are is unknown. They simply ARE. And they are energy particles. E=mc^2 is the formula that tells you that. Matter contains as much energy as mass times the square of the speed of light!-> dhw: It has always been your contention that First Cause is self-aware energy, which created all the matter of the universe. I've gone along with energy as First Cause, but not necessarily self-aware.-A reasonable difference knowing your agnosticism ->dhw: Meanwhile, let's adopt your theory, and assume that "pure energy" (your God) consciously created matter. In that case, all the processes you're outlining have to be those used by your God to create the universe, and he has to BE all the so-called pure energy particles you refer to, unless you're saying his pure energy is different from that which he used to form our universe. I don't know why you should see it as a problem, since it fits in perfectly well with your panentheism. But instead you say: "No one can know if an eternal intelligence has a recognizable form or structure." How can you separate your first cause intelligence from your first cause energy? I'll wait for your response before going any further.-I've left your whole thought. Simply we think differently. You always seek exactitide. I accept an always existing energy as a first cause, and I think it must be intelligent because of the complexities that we see created by it. And I stop there. I cannot imagine how it works, and I don't worry about it. Simply, slopilly organized energy couldn't possibly create what we have. There was probably some type of quantum energy organization we don't understand, just as we don't understand consciousness. That is my challenge to you. Explain consciousness. You are asking me a question at the same level.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, June 04, 2014, 16:49 (3824 days ago) @ David Turell
no no no david you are not seeing what he is asking.-Do i get royalties on your next book?
God and Energy
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 04, 2014, 18:22 (3823 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: no no no david you are not seeing what he is asking. > > Do i get royalties on your next book?-I think I have answered properly from my viewpoint. What is your interpretation of what he is asking?-I didn't write the book for royalties, and if I recoup my expenses all will be given thereafter to charity.
God and Energy
dhw: Meanwhile, let's adopt your theory, and assume that "pure energy" (your God) consciously created matter. In that case, all the processes you're outlining have to be those used by your God to create the universe, and he has to BE all the so-called pure energy particles you refer to, unless you're saying his pure energy is different from that which he used to form our universe. I don't know why you should see it as a problem, since it fits in perfectly well with your panentheism. But instead you say: "No one can know if an eternal intelligence has a recognizable form or structure." How can you separate your first cause intelligence from your first cause energy? I'll wait for your response before going any further.-DAVID: I've left your whole thought. Simply we think differently. You always seek exactitide. I accept an always existing energy as a first cause, and I think it must be intelligent because of the complexities that we see created by it. And I stop there. I cannot imagine how it works, and I don't worry about it. Simply, slopilly organized energy couldn't possibly create what we have. There was probably some type of quantum energy organization we don't understand, just as we don't understand consciousness. That is my challenge to you. Explain consciousness. You are asking me a question at the same level.-In order to make headway in this discussion, I began by accepting your basic premise: an always existing and intelligent energy as first cause. I'm not asking you how it works, because you've been telling me how it worked when it made the universe. And I'm not focusing now on the unanswerable problem of consciousness, though it will arise later. I'm merely pointing out that if God is pure energy, and he used pure energy to make matter, then the particles of energy he used must have been himself, and all the processes you have been referring to as the current theories (such as virtual particles being transformed into a vacuum bubble) must have been the way your God used himself to create the matter we know. What else could he have used, since according to your scenario nothing else existed? I still don't know why this thought bothers you ... unless it's a reluctance to think of divinity in terms of gluons, quarks and plasma.
God and Energy
by BBella , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 16:58 (3823 days ago) @ dhw
I'm merely pointing out that if God is pure energy, and he used pure energy to make matter, then the particles of energy he used must have been himself, and all the processes you have been referring to as the current theories (such as virtual particles being transformed into a vacuum bubble) must have been the way your God used himself to create the matter we know. What else could he have used, since according to your scenario nothing else existed? I still don't know why this thought bothers you ... unless it's a reluctance to think of divinity in terms of gluons, quarks and plasma.-I can't see how David could have a problem with your scenario since this is what he has pretty much said since the beginning; God is within and without all that is. Which would seem to mean to me he is saying "All" that is IS God, that which we can see and that which we can't. And of course man calls each thing we find a name, just as God said for "Adam" to do in the scriptures. So even though man may name their findings quarks, gluons and particles, trees, bees etc., as David has said all along, all that IS, is really God. Right, David?
God and Energy
by David Turell , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 18:39 (3822 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: I can't see how David could have a problem with your scenario since this is what he has pretty much said since the beginning; God is within and without all that is. Which would seem to mean to me he is saying "All" that is IS God, that which we can see and that which we can't. And of course man calls each thing we find a name, just as God said for "Adam" to do in the scriptures. So even though man may name their findings quarks, gluons and particles, trees, bees etc., as David has said all along, all that IS, is really God. Right, David?-Right. Combined through the quantum layer of reality. By the way "Adam" in ancient Hebrew simply means 'a man'.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 17:23 (3822 days ago) @ dhw
On headway. it is not useful to link to the first sentence. It is describing a trait that is unknown. Everything else after that is a problem. -So ... meanwhile ... you guys have: -"pure energy" is unknown + "consciousness" is unknown = ???-So we have a conclusion "yes" or "no" based on an unknowns? In order to make headway you have to modify your conclusions. They are not valid when based on unknowns. Two important ones at that.-You guys seem to be in an endless loop to me. I base that on the number posts. Which is known.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 18:43 (3822 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: You guys seem to be in an endless loop to me. I base that on the number posts. Which is known.-I think dhw's summary fits the discussion. There is no logical way around the conclusion that energy has always existed. There is no way to get something from an absolute nothing. And false vacuums with quantum perturbations is not a true nothing.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 20:03 (3822 days ago) @ David Turell
I am more of a "something" before the BB for sure. And yes, he can close the discussion by saying "if ....". -But it seems to me the first sentence has a problem in that it is an unknown trait being a hinge point. Secondly the miss use of the term "pure energy" leads to some confusion. These two things used in, or basis of, a conclusion can cause some difficulty. I think I see it in all the threads.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 21:29 (3822 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: I am more of a "something" before the BB for sure. And yes, he can close the discussion by saying "if ....". > > But it seems to me the first sentence has a problem in that it is an unknown trait being a hinge point. Secondly the miss use of the term "pure energy" leads to some confusion. These two things used in, or basis of, a conclusion can cause some difficulty. I think I see it in all the threads.-Please quote a portion of what you have reference to, please, for a better understanding of your point.-The only thing that can be reasonably assumed is that energy in some quantum form pre-existed the BB
God and Energy
May I plead with you again, GK, to reproduce that part of the preceding post which you are commenting on. Otherwise, it's difficult for us all to know what you're referring to.-Gatekeeper: On headway. it is not useful to link to the first sentence. It is describing a trait that is unknown. Everything else after that is a problem. So ... meanwhile ... you guys have: "pure energy" is unknown + "consciousness" is unknown = ??? So we have a conclusion "yes" or "no" based on an unknowns? In order to make headway you have to modify your conclusions. They are not valid when based on unknowns. Two important ones at that. You guys seem to be in an endless loop to me. I base that on the number posts. Which is known.-It is certainly an endless loop, because none of us can ever know the truth. But you have misunderstood the basis of this discussion, which is not unknown + unknown = conclusion. It's if x and y are true, then z is true. All hypothetical. It should be clear to you that I'm an agnostic precisely because I can't draw any conclusions. But what I can do is discuss the nature and implications of other people's conclusions, which is why for the moment I'm building on David's belief that all the matter in the universe has sprung from pure energy (x), and that God is pure intelligent energy (y). If we put the two theories together, we have the scenario that BBella has vividly summarized for us. This has ramifications which I would like to follow, but the argument has to proceed a step at a time, and will also include other theories.-Again as an agnostic I fully accept your point that you cannot base conclusions on unknowns ... but theists and atheists alike do precisely that. You have told us that you yourself are a believer, so you must have done it too! Won't you stick to your philosophical principles and join me on the fence? Or at least tell us why you have drawn your theistic conclusions?
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Friday, June 06, 2014, 16:58 (3822 days ago) @ dhw
> > Again as an agnostic I fully accept your point that you cannot base conclusions on unknowns ... but theists and atheists alike do precisely that. You have told us that you yourself are a believer, so you must have done it too! Won't you stick to your philosophical principles and join me on the fence? Or at least tell us why you have drawn your theistic conclusions? >>-I will try. how is this ref?- Yes they do, don't they.-I am not a theist. We just don't know enough for that stance yet. For me, the truth lies in between theist and atheist. I choose to state both have parts of it right. Instead of "they are wrong". -I use rom's monist and the pluralist view to state that we are part of a larger life form. And every new discovery gets it one step closer to fact. If space itself is a "thing". well then ... It must be alive because we are. -I am not really a good "if-then" guy. When the "if's" have no constraints it confuses me.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Friday, June 06, 2014, 19:54 (3821 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: I am not really a good "if-then" guy. When the "if's" have no constraints it confuses me.-Fair enough. You are an agnostic. I think the if-and-when-and-then evidence is enough for me
God and Energy
GATEKEEPER: I am not a theist. We just don't know enough for that stance yet. For me, the truth lies in between theist and atheist. I choose to state both have parts of it right. Instead of "they are wrong".-Then as David has pointed out, you are an agnostic. Welcome to my fence. However, while I would certainly not say anyone is wrong, I would hesitate to state both have parts of it right. The best I could do would be to say I think some arguments seem more likely than others. GATEKEEPER: I use rom's monist and the pluralist view to state that we are part of a larger life form. And every new discovery gets it one step closer to fact. If space itself is a "thing". well then ... It must be alive because we are. I am not really a good "if-then" guy. When the "if's" have no constraints it confuses me.-Despite not being a good "if-then" guy, you write: "If space itself is a "thing", well then....It must be alive because we are." In looking for ultimate truths, we can't help being "if-then" guys, because whatever we come up with can only be some kind of hypothesis. I don't think the one I'm developing in my discussion with David will be any more confusing than your own!
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 12:03 (3821 days ago) @ dhw
GATEKEEPER: I am not a theist. We just don't know enough for that stance yet. For me, the truth lies in between theist and atheist. I choose to state both have parts of it right. Instead of "they are wrong". > > Then as David has pointed out, you are an agnostic. Welcome to my fence. However, while I would certainly not say anyone is wrong, I would hesitate to state both have parts of it right. The best I could do would be to say I think some arguments seem more likely than others. > > GATEKEEPER: I use rom's monist and the pluralist view to state that we are part of a larger life form. And every new discovery gets it one step closer to fact. If space itself is a "thing". well then ... It must be alive because we are. > I am not really a good "if-then" guy. When the "if's" have no constraints it confuses me. > > Despite not being a good "if-then" guy, you write: "If space itself is a "thing", well then....It must be alive because we are." In looking for ultimate truths, we can't help being "if-then" guys, because whatever we come up with can only be some kind of hypothesis. I don't think the one I'm developing in my discussion with David will be any more confusing than your own! >>-This is right on all accounts. When I say "I am not good at ..." that doesn't mean I can't. And I said "if space is something ...". "space" being measured by NASA is a very stable constraint. It limits the starting "if".-When I say "right", "proof", and "fact" they are used in the context of 'more/less likely" too.-Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right .
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 15:46 (3821 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right-Thank you for this description of yourself. And I agree with you, humans describing God are out of their depth.
God and Energy
GATEKEEPER: Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right.-Not sure about the sock image, since there's something solid at the end of the quest (ugh maybe scented too). Not sure about the description of you either, since both your daughter and your brother have direct experience of you. But I do like the "child" image. We're all trying to understand something that we simply do not have the ability, the tools, or the range of perception and experience to understand. It's clear from the six and a half years in which we've been discussing these issues that ALL stances are confusing (which is why I remain agnostic). But we don't stop, and we learn a great deal on the way. And we sometimes have fun too.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 15:33 (3820 days ago) @ dhw
GATEKEEPER: Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right. > > Not sure about the sock image, since there's something solid at the end of the quest (ugh maybe scented too). Not sure about the description of you either, since both your daughter and your brother have direct experience of you. But I do like the "child" image. We're all trying to understand something that we simply do not have the ability, the tools, or the range of perception and experience to understand. It's clear from the six and a half years in which we've been discussing these issues that ALL stances are confusing (which is why I remain agnostic). But we don't stop, and we learn a great deal on the way. And we sometimes have fun too.->>-agreed, over all that is.-I would, as David is, argue we do have tangle evidence. But many chose not "look". I feel many times it is the presenter's slant that obscures the view. And it is the "listener's" pre conceptions too. For me, I don't really care if yes, or no, only that the conclusion is reasonable or not. -as the fundie claims "no-nothing" does not fit any observation. I do not engage in David's style of presenting, but even it makes that claim less probable than the "there is something" claim to me. That's convergent.-Where I disagree with you is that I state ... the "daddy" and the "brother" do not exist. This statement can be taken to any level of philosophy. These levels are convergent, thus "more reasonable" to me. -If my brother tries to show you "me", do you see his "me"? Can he describe me before you meet me? Does that description help (or hurt) your final view of me? Is that "view" the real me?-For you. where do "I" exist? Where does your friend "exist"? Thats the starting point. It is not, as some would claim, the "end". only the begining of the end. lol ... my pop was with 82nd on 6/6/1944.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 16:38 (3820 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: my pop was with 82nd on 6/6/1944.-Since you are here, I assume he survived.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 16:47 (3820 days ago) @ David Turell
I keep forgetting to quote srry -to david-- lol-My brother says he still aint sure. -My sisters would ask "how much of him survived?"
God and Energy
GATEKEEPER: Where I disagree with you is that I state...the "daddy" and the "brother" do not exist. This statement can be taken to any level of philosophy. These levels are convergent, thus "more reasonable" to me."-I assume you are referring to my statement that both your daughter and your brother have direct experience of you (whereas we do not have direct experience of God). Again, it would be helpful if you would put the quote and your comment next to each other instead of reproducing the whole of the previous post in one block. Thank you.-You go on to say:"If my brother tries to show you "me", do you see his "me"? ...Is that "view" the real me?" Of course the answer to both questions is no, because nobody knows the "real" you or me. We don't even know ourselves, because we cannot possibly undergo every experience that would reveal every potential of the "real me". But that doesn't mean we don't exist, or even that the characteristics we think we know are unreal. The very fact that you and I are exchanging views is sufficient evidence for me to assume that you do exist, even if I don't "know" you. The same cannot be said of God. It's true that some people see evidence of his existence in life itself (and some even claim to experience God directly), but that evidence doesn't have the apparent objectivity of an exchange of ideas that can be viewed and confirmed by thousands of observers. Consensus is the nearest we can get to objectivity, and it then comes down to subjective degrees of conviction.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 17:39 (3818 days ago) @ dhw
GATEKEEPER: Where I disagree with you is that I state...the "daddy" and the "brother" do not exist. This statement can be taken to any level of philosophy. These levels are convergent, thus "more reasonable" to me." > > I assume you are referring to my statement that both your daughter and your brother have direct experience of you (whereas we do not have direct experience of God). Again, it would be helpful if you would put the quote and your comment next to each other instead of reproducing the whole of the previous post in one block. Thank you. > > You go on to say:"If my brother tries to show you "me", do you see his "me"? ...Is that "view" the real me?" Of course the answer to both questions is no, because nobody knows the "real" you or me. We don't even know ourselves, because we cannot possibly undergo every experience that would reveal every potential of the "real me". But that doesn't mean we don't exist, or even that the characteristics we think we know are unreal. The very fact that you and I are exchanging views is sufficient evidence for me to assume that you do exist, even if I don't "know" you. The same cannot be said of God. It's true that some people see evidence of his existence in life itself (and some even claim to experience God directly), but that evidence doesn't have the apparent objectivity of an exchange of ideas that can be viewed and confirmed by thousands of observers. Consensus is the nearest we can get to objectivity, and it then comes down to subjective degrees of conviction.-subjective as "taste". and just as limited.- I agree. too bad it's the loudmouth that stops this exchange. both scientist and priest that have agenda's. The rest of don't really care about "being right". we only want to learn and grow. At least that is my experience in dealing with many people through my career.-i think the problem is processing the data in a usable format. But then again we let politicians kill our kids too, so what do I know.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 18:35 (3822 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In order to make headway in this discussion, I began by accepting your basic premise: an always existing and intelligent energy as first cause....I'm merely pointing out that if God is pure energy, and he used pure energy to make matter, then the particles of energy he used must have been himself, and all the processes you have been referring to as the current theories (such as virtual particles being transformed into a vacuum bubble) must have been the way your God used himself to create the matter we know. What else could he have used, since according to your scenario nothing else existed? -Your proposal is fine with me as long as the description remains as superficial as you have outlined. What I found troubling is your inferential asking for a more precise mechanism for God and how He might be organized. I would go so far as to say: quantum energy particles acting as a consciousness is God. Since we do not understand, and may never understand the quantum level of reality that works just fine.
God and Energy
dhw: I'm merely pointing out that if God is pure energy, and he used pure energy to make matter, then the particles of energy he used must have been himself, and all the processes you have been referring to as the current theories (such as virtual particles being transformed into a vacuum bubble) must have been the way your God used himself to create the matter we now know. What else could he have used, since according to your scenario nothing else existed? I still don't know why this thought bothers you ... unless it's a reluctance to think of divinity in terms of gluons, quarks and plasma.-DAVID: Your proposal is fine with me so long as the description remains as superficial as you have outlined. What I found troubling is your inferential asking for a precise mechanism for God and how he might be organized. I would go so far as to say: quantum energy particles acting as a consciousness is God. Since we do not understand, and may never understand the quantum level of reality that works fine.-I don't recall asking for a precise mechanism etc., but thank you for this, which enables me to move to the next step. Please remember that I am, for the sake of argument, accepting your thesis that God is quantum energy particles acting consciously, and that "pure energy" creates matter. As BBella has put it so succinctly, your panentheism is the belief that your God "is within and without all that is". This means that conscious quantum energy particles are within all matter, which is a form of panpsychism that we'll return to in due course. The implications of this are huge, but again we must proceed one gentle step at a time. Are you still in agreement, and if not, why not? -(A note to Gatekeeper: I am developing a hypothesis, not stating facts.)
God and Energy
by David Turell , Friday, June 06, 2014, 16:31 (3822 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: ... Please remember that I am, for the sake of argument, accepting your thesis that God is quantum energy particles acting consciously, and that "pure energy" creates matter. As BBella has put it so succinctly, your panentheism is the belief that your God "is within and without all that is". This means that conscious quantum energy particles are within all matter, which is a form of panpsychism that we'll return to in due course....Are you still in agreement, and if not, why not? -This state of agreement is just fine. Remember I dismiss the Bible's descriptions of God as man made. And I arrived a long time ago at panentheism as the best fit. Let's contionue.
God and Energy
dhw: ... Please remember that I am, for the sake of argument, accepting your thesis that God is quantum energy particles acting consciously, and that "pure energy" creates matter. As BBella has put it so succinctly, your panentheism is the belief that your God "is within and without all that is". This means that conscious quantum energy particles are within all matter, which is a form of panpsychism that we'll return to in due course....Are you still in agreement, and if not, why not? -DAVID: This state of agreement is just fine. Remember I dismiss the Bible's descriptions of God as man made. And I arrived a long time ago at panentheism as the best fit. Let's continue.-I'd like first to substitute "intelligent" for "conscious" in order to avoid the problems we had before in equating consciousnessness with self-consciousness. If intelligent quantum energy particles are within all matter, then it would seem pretty absurd to argue that matter of whatever kind is devoid of intelligence. And it seems to me that there wouldn't be much point in particles being intelligent if they didn't use their intelligence. So if it's true that energy creates matter, it's not unreasonable to assume that this creation takes place through intelligent quantum energy particles working together. This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence. We can't prove it, but I hope you and others will agree that humans seem to have a greater degree of intelligence than chimps than earthworms than dandelions than rocks than grains of sand. If God's quantum energy particles are within all that is, why this apparent wide range of intelligence? In your post of 5 June at 18.35, regarding God's use of his own particles to create matter, you wrote: "Since we do not understand, and may never understand the quantum level of reality that works just fine." Sooner or later we will always come up against the same barrier: we don't know how or why things work the way they do. Perhaps your answer here would simply be that your God wanted it this way. However, there are alternative hypotheses which I will come to later, though you may well have worked them out already. What we now have, then, are particles of intelligent energy that link together and form various kinds of matter. In an on-going process, these different kinds also link together, and so the most elementary matter evolves greater complexity as the different particles of energy combine their different intelligences. The parallel is to be seen in all forms of life, which through evolution develop ever greater levels of complexity ... each one brought about by the quantum energy particles combining their different intelligences, in this case from within organic cells.-Again I'll break off in case you have any objections so far.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 15:21 (3821 days ago) @ dhw
Off topic but a return to a previous discussion. this is the current version of the standard model:- "Current thinking holds that right after the Big Bang that formed the universe, only energy existed, but as the universe cooled, matter and antimatter were produced in equal parts."-http://www.livescience.com/46166-no-majorana-neutrinos-found.html?cmpid=557683
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 15:35 (3821 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: So if it's true that energy creates matter, it's not unreasonable to assume that this creation takes place through intelligent quantum energy particles working together.-Quite a jump in logic. A single particle joins with another and then another and now we have a matter particle. It doesn't require intelligence at this basic level. > > dhw: This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence. We can't prove it, but I hope you and others will agree that humans seem to have a greater degree of intelligence than chimps than earthworms than dandelions than rocks than grains of sand.- Another logic leap: I agree that living matter has differing degrees of intelligence based on brain complexity, but inorganic matter does not have intelligence- > dhw: The parallel is to be seen in all forms of life, which through evolution develop ever greater levels of complexity ... each one brought about by the quantum energy particles combining their different intelligences, in this case from within organic cells.-You have come back to Earth in a sense. At least you are discussing organic matter. Evolution shows a persistent increase in complexity. In some way quantum particle may play a role, if we only understood QM better. We do see evidence of quantum processes here and there (photosynthesis). > > dhw:Again I'll break off in case you have any objections so far.-Registered throughout.
God and Energy
by romansh 
, Saturday, June 07, 2014, 17:52 (3820 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, June 07, 2014, 18:20
dhw: This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence. We can't prove it, but I hope you and others will agree that humans seem to have a greater degree of intelligence than chimps than earthworms than dandelions than rocks than grains of sand. > > David: Another logic leap: I agree that living matter has differing degrees of intelligence based on brain complexity, but inorganic matter does not have intelligence-Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence.-Does a chemist in a university chemistry department have more intelligence than the department itself. Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours. An ant and its colony?-Our intelligence and consciousness our are personal little gods. Now it would appear these things are ultimately caused by electron exchange (a chemist's view) and no doubt a whole bunch of underlying fundamental physics. -This underlying physics I am far from ready to call god.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 19:09 (3820 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom: Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence.-Don't you experience your own consciousness? > > Rom: Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours.-Is intelligence behaviour? It doesn't follow.- > > Rom; Our intelligence and consciousness our are personal little gods. Now it would appear these things are ultimately caused by electron exchange (a chemist's view) and no doubt a whole bunch of underlying fundamental physics.-Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel.
God and Energy
by romansh , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 22:06 (3820 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Rom: Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence. > > Don't you experience your own consciousness?-Yes and no ... most of the time no, and when yes it is more like a fresh memory. > > > Rom: Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours. > > Is intelligence behaviour? It doesn't follow. Try exhibiting intelligence without a behaviour. > > > > Rom; Our intelligence and consciousness our are personal little gods. Now it would appear these things are ultimately caused by electron exchange (a chemist's view) and no doubt a whole bunch of underlying fundamental physics. > > Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel. It is only in your strange world of science that requires proof. I would be more worried if Nagel had suggested there is no disproof.-I can find corroborating evidence for my position though, strong magnetic fields close to my brain can affect my perception of consciousness.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 23:00 (3820 days ago) @ romansh
ROM: Try exhibiting intelligence without a behaviour.-You are using a broader definition of behaviour than I am. I will deliver a lecture with my own mannerisms if that is what you mean. > > > > Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel. > ROM: It is only in your strange world of science that requires proof. I would be more worried if Nagel had suggested there is no disproof.-My world is not strange, but compared to your approach, we are different. > > Rom: I can find corroborating evidence for my position though, strong magnetic fields close to my brain can affect my perception of consciousness.-No argument. Magnetism certainly affects the neuron network. We know that consciousness utilizes the brain, but that still does not answer how consciousness arises, again per Nagel.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 23:43 (3820 days ago) @ David Turell
ROM: Try exhibiting intelligence without a behaviour. > > You are using a broader definition of behaviour than I am. I will deliver a lecture with my own mannerisms if that is what you mean. > > > > > > Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel. > > ROM: It is only in your strange world of science that requires proof. I would be more worried if Nagel had suggested there is no disproof. > > My world is not strange, but compared to your approach, we are different. > > > > Rom: I can find corroborating evidence for my position though, strong magnetic fields close to my brain can affect my perception of consciousness. > > No argument. Magnetism certainly affects the neuron network. We know that consciousness utilizes the brain, but that still does not answer how consciousness arises, again per Nagel.-for me. Just because I do not know how it arises doesn't have to mean it was there before. In fact, I would only use what we do know to predict what it may or may not be.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 02:45 (3820 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: for me. Just because I do not know how it arises doesn't have to mean it was there before. In fact, I would only use what we do know to predict what it may or may not be.-My point is that we humans are the only organisms with a full compliment of consciousness. We don't know 'how' it appeared and when we ask 'why' we get into discussions of religions and God.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 19:47 (3820 days ago) @ romansh
> > > > > > Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence. > > Does a chemist in a university chemistry department have more intelligence than the department itself. Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours. An ant and its colony? > > > This underlying physics I am far from ready to call god.-yeppers,-I was watching talk about the formulas being "out of time" because they exist in all times. What he neglected to point out is that a formula without any variables is quite meaningless. But add just one, one little "fixed" number and the whole thing comes to life. -Also, some people forget that the formulas are based on the interactions. Not the other way around.-Yes, the combined "working knowledge" of the colony is larger than the ant's. Just like the combined working knowledge of the human race is larger than mine. This is very simple to show.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 14:56 (3823 days ago) @ dhw
I will ask you this DHW.-Did your parents create you? could they have done so "unknowingly"?-After the deed, did your mom make you? how much control did she have? total? -did you create your "hair"-Your brain always thinks. When did that start? Does the brain ever stop thinking?-I ask you this because the pure energy stuff is meaningless until you have a base set of axioms. Also, to claim any "facts" other than "it looks like" is meaningless too.
God and Energy
GATEKEEPER: I will ask you this DHW. Did your parents create you? could they have done so "unknowingly"? After the deed, did your mom make you? how much control did she have? total? did you create your "hair" Your brain always thinks. When did that start? Does the brain ever stop thinking? I ask you this because the pure energy stuff is meaningless until you have a base set of axioms. Also, to claim any "facts" other than "it looks like" is meaningless too.-I assume you're referring to my three questions about David's theories concerning "pure energy" and God, but it would be helpful if you would reproduce the reference yourself. Please note that I'm the one who has queried the term "pure energy". Your questions are fun, so I'll answer them in the same spirit, though I'm not sure of their relevance,-My parents created me. They could have done so unknowingly if they didn't know the facts of life, but I'm pretty sure they did, and I'm pretty sure they wanted children as well as sex with each other. After the deed my mom would have been aware she was pregnant but would have had only partial control of her pregnancy (e.g. diet, seeking medical advice when necessary, not doing anything to endanger the safe arrival of dear little me). Nature did the rest. I did not create my hair. Nature created it, but I confess to the fact that I lost it. I assume that my brain started working while I was in the womb, but I can't remember when, and I don't know where you draw the line between the brain working and my thinking consciously. -All of these answers are qualified by ifs and buts, so you might say your questions are meaningless without more precise definition of your terms. Just to clarify, then, may I take it that you need David's definition of "pure energy" and his "base set of axioms" before you accept his claim that electrons, photons and quark-gluon plasma are pure energy that can create matter? -"To claim any "facts" other than "it looks like" is meaningless too." Agreed. When it comes to the origin of the universe, life and consciousness, we only have theories: e.g. a superintelligence some people call God, or a few billion strokes of luck. David has a theory about God being first cause, "pure", intelligent energy, and he has drawn my attention to the latest theories about the universe being the product of "pure energy". At the moment I'm trying to explore the implications of the two theories when combined. We still shan't get to any "facts", but if we all agreed on "it looks like", we would have made amazing progress!
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Friday, June 06, 2014, 14:45 (3822 days ago) @ dhw
You brought the "oom" in "boom stick"-This is exactly what I mean. - Using photons as "pure energy" will not answer the question either. A "photon" is a "photon". So what you would have shown is that you "converted" a "photon" into "Matter". Errr, this is done all the time in nature. Turning a "photon" into a usable "thought" ... that is real cool ... and you are doing it in your brain right now.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Friday, June 06, 2014, 19:51 (3821 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: Using photons as "pure energy" will not answer the question either. A "photon" is a "photon". So what you would have shown is that you "converted" a "photon" into "Matter". Errr, this is done all the time in nature. Turning a "photon" into a usable "thought" ... that is real cool ... and you are doing it in your brain right now.-Good point. Back to consciousness which doesn't use photons as far as we know. But photosynthesis does, by quantum mechanisms.
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Friday, June 06, 2014, 20:29 (3821 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK: Using photons as "pure energy" will not answer the question either. A "photon" is a "photon". So what you would have shown is that you "converted" a "photon" into "Matter". Errr, this is done all the time in nature. Turning a "photon" into a usable "thought" ... that is real cool ... and you are doing it in your brain right now. > > Good point. Back to consciousness which doesn't use photons as far as we know. But photosynthesis does, by quantum mechanisms. >>-I must admit, this is out of my area. The brain doesn't make use of electrons changing energy levels? How about in the axioms? Or to release neuron transmitters? or even to "receive them?-I know this isn't really proven yet. But if the neuro Transmitter concentration changes are coded back into the dna for future use that would use electrons wouldn't it? How about when thinking is forming neural pathways? are pathways made by electrons?-This is out of my area so forgive me if the questions are silly.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Friday, June 06, 2014, 21:59 (3821 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: I must admit, this is out of my area. The brain doesn't make use of electrons changing energy levels? How about in the axioms? (axons) Or to release neuron transmitters? (synapses) or even to "receive them?-Since the brain is a biocomputer, it uses chemical ions to transmit > > GK: I know this isn't really proven yet. But if the neuro Transmitter concentration changes are coded back into the dna for future use that would use electrons wouldn't it?-Again, I'm not fully aware of how brain plasticity is regionally controlled, but an area that is in heavy use will grow new neurons. I think I have read that the glial cells play a role. > > GK: How about when thinking is forming neural pathways? are pathways made by electrons?-No, ions. > > GK: This is out of my area so forgive me if the questions are silly.-Not silly, but the presence of consciousness from a material universe is what made Thomas Negel write his book "Mind and Cosmos", and observe that the development of consciousness cannot be explained on a materialist basis.
God and Energy
by romansh , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 01:51 (3821 days ago) @ David Turell
GK: How about when thinking is forming neural pathways? are pathways made by electrons? > > No, ions. > Not that simple ... ions have electrons in them. All chemical reactions ultimately can be viewed as electron transfer. But the ions interact with organic biomatter. -When I take a hammer to a rock and break it ... it can be viewed as a chemical reaction. In the same way if I give nitrogycerine a good shake ... a chemical reaction ensues.-Synapse
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 02:10 (3821 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom: Synapse-A good discussion
God and Energy
by GateKeeper , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 12:24 (3821 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Rom: Synapse > > A good discussion>>-Exocytosis-also good.
God and Energy
by David Turell , Saturday, June 07, 2014, 15:49 (3821 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: Exocytosis > > also good.-Agreed. it shows how complex is the single cell
God and Energy; pure energy existed
by David Turell , Friday, November 11, 2016, 04:58 (2933 days ago) @ dhw
In the early universe in sophisticated simulations, there was a phase of quark/gluon plasma, made up of energy particles which can make up matter, but are not matter in this form/. They are not even atoms:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-simulations-swirling-whirlpool-like-subatomic-soup.html
"At its start, the universe was a superhot melting pot that very briefly served up a particle soup resembling a "perfect," frictionless fluid. Scientists have recreated this "soup," known as quark-gluon plasma, in high-energy nuclear collisions to better understand our universe's origins and the nature of matter itself.
***
"This soup contains the deconstructed ingredients of matter, namely fundamental particles known as quarks and other particles called gluons that typically bind quarks to form other particles, such as the protons and neutrons found at the cores of atoms. In this exotic plasma state—which can reach trillions of degrees Fahrenheit, hundreds of thousands of times hotter than the sun's core—protons and neutrons melt, freeing quarks and gluons from their usual confines at the center of atoms.
***
"When plotted out in two dimensions, the simulations found that slightly off-center collisions of heavy nuclei produce a wobbling and expanding fluid, Wang said, with local rotation that is twisted in a corkscrew-like fashion.
"This corkscrew character relates to the properties of the colliding nuclei that created the plasma, which the simulation showed expanding along—and perpendicular to—the beam direction. Like spinning a coin by flicking it with your finger, the simulations showed that the angular momentum properties of the colliding nuclei can transfer spin properties to the quark gluon plasma in the form of swirling, ring-like structures known as vortices
***
"The simulations provide more evidence that the quark-gluon plasma behaves like a fluid, and not a gas as had once been theorized. "The only way you can describe this is to have a very small viscosity," or barely any friction, a characteristic of a so-called 'perfect fluid' or 'fundamental fluid,'" Wang said. But unlike a familiar fluid like water, the simulation focuses on a fluid state hundreds of times smaller than a water molecule.
***
"Wang and his collaborators have developed a sophisticated, state-of-the-art hydrodynamic model of the quark-gluon plasma and have identified swirling structures that vary within the fluid itself," he said. "Even more useful is the fact that they propose a method to measure these structures in the laboratory."
"Lisa also said there is ongoing analysis work to confirm the simulation's findings in data from experiments at RHIC and the LHC. "It is precisely innovations like this, where theory and experiment collaborate to explore new phenomena, that hold the greatest hope for greater insight into the quark-gluon plasma," he said."
Comment: To conclude previous debates about the possibility pure energy: theoretically these experimental studies are looking at pure energy particles, before they coalesce into matter. Energy is thought to be able to exist without matter being formed from them at the time.
God and Energy; pure energy existed
by David Turell , Monday, May 29, 2017, 18:35 (2733 days ago) @ David Turell
New studies on quark gluon plasma which existed just after the Big Bang. It is my belief that God's consciousness in some variation of this form of particles, the earliest bits that coalesce to form matter:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-properties-subatomic-soup-mimics-early.html
"Particle collisions at RHIC—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility located at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory—regularly recreate tiny specs of quark-gluon plasma (QGP), a mixture of quarks and gluons, the fundamental building blocks of visible matter, which last existed as free particles some 14 billion years ago. The collisions free the quarks and gluons from their confinement within ordinary particles (e.g., protons and neutrons) so nuclear physicists can study their interactions and the force that holds them together in the universe today.
***
"For this particular study, STAR physicists were tracking particles called kaons and pions that emerge when charm-quark-containing particles known as a D-zeros decay. A concerted effort from many groups of the collaboration—including researchers from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Kent State University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago—made this analysis successful in a short time.
""We use the HFT to look for kaons and pions that are very close to one another— within fractions of a millimeter of one another—whose paths from the collision emerge from a single point that's away from the collision vertex, but not very far, about 100-500 microns," Videbaek said. That's the distance D0s travel before they decay, he explained. If the kaon and pion have just the right mass and trajectories emerging from such a point, the scientists can conclude that they originated from a D0 at that spot—and use these measurements to track the emergence of D0s from all around the QGP.
***
"D0s are created in the very first part of the collision, when the quarks and gluons are free," Videbaek said. "Physicists didn't think these heavy-quark particles would have time to interact, or equilibrate, with the QGP, which exists for only an infinitesimally small fraction of a second."
"Instead, the fact that the heavy quarks exhibit the same elliptic flow as lighter particles do is evidence that they are in equilibrium, interacting with the free quarks and gluons in the QGP.
"'The type of flow we observed for particles with heavy quarks suggests that their interactions inside the quark-gluon plasma are so strong that the heavy quarks themselves become part of the quark-gluon 'soup,'" said Dong.
"Grazyna Odyniec, leader of Berkeley Lab's Relativistic Nuclear Collisions Program, added, "The discovery of the elliptic flow of a very massive charm quark is of fundamental importance for our understanding of quark-gluon plasma phase dynamics. It opens up a broad range of theoretical speculations about the nature of a possible mechanism (or mechanisms) behind this observation.'"
Comment: It seems obvious to me that energy particles in the early plasma soup represent what has always existed. The universe did not come from nothing. And somehow they relate physically to the composition of God's consciousness. Perhaps further study will explain how a quark gluon plasma soup can actually mentate.
God and Energy; pure energy existed
by David Turell , Thursday, August 03, 2017, 01:06 (2668 days ago) @ David Turell
More studies on quark gluon plasma, the pure energy that coalesced into matter as particles:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170802134720.htm
Particle collisions recreating the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) that filled the early universe reveal that droplets of this primordial soup swirl far faster than any other fluid. The new analysis of data from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) -- a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility for nuclear physics research at Brookhaven National Laboratory -- shows that the "vorticity" of the QGP surpasses the whirling fluid dynamics of super-cell tornado cores and Jupiter's Great Red Spot by many orders of magnitude, and even beats out the fastest spin record held by nanodroplets of superfluid helium.
The results, just published in Nature, add a new record to the list of remarkable properties ascribed to the quark-gluon plasma. This soup made of matter's fundamental building blocks -- quarks and gluons -- has a temperature hundreds of thousands of times hotter than the center of the sun and an ultralow viscosity, or resistance to flow, leading physicists to describe it as "nearly perfect." By studying these properties and the factors that control them, scientists hope to unlock the secrets of the strongest and most poorly understood force in nature -- the one responsible for binding quarks and gluons into the protons and neutrons that form most of the visible matter in the universe today. (my bold)
***
"We're specifically looking for signs of Lambda hyperons, spinning particles that decay into a proton and a pion that we measure in the Time Projection Chamber," said Ernst Sichtermann, a deputy STAR spokesperson and senior scientist at DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Because the proton comes out nearly aligned with the hyperon's spin direction, tracking where these "daughter" protons strike the detector can be a stand-in for tracking how the hyperons' spins are aligned.
***
The results reveal that RHIC collisions create the most vortical fluid ever, a QGP spinning faster than a speeding tornado, more powerful than the fastest spinning fluid on record. "So the most ideal fluid with the smallest viscosity also has the most vorticity," Lisa said.
This kind of makes sense, because low viscosity in the QGP allows the vorticity to persist, Lisa said. "Viscosity destroys whirls. With QGP, if you set it spinning, it tends to keep on spinning."
The data are also in the ballpark of what different theories predicted for QGP vorticity. "Different theories predict different amounts, depending on what parameters they include, so our results will help us sort through those theories and determine which factors are most relevant," said Sergei Voloshin, a STAR collaborator from Wayne State University. "But most of the theoretical predications were too low," he added. "Our measurements show that the QGP is even more vortical than predicted."
Increasing the numbers of Lambda hyperons tracked in future collisions at RHIC will improve the STAR scientists' ability to use these measurements to calculate the strength of the magnetic field generated in RHIC collisions. The strength of magnetism influences the movement of charged particles as they are created and emerge from RHIC collisions, so measuring its strength is important to fully characterize the QGP, including how it separates differently charged particles.
Comment: this is the pure energy that was present after the Big Bang, before matter formed. Note my bolded part of the second paragraph. God may be in the form of this or an energy form related to this.