God & Particles (The nature of a \'Creator\')
I'm opening a new thread, because "God and Energy" has gone off at various tangents. That's fine, but I'm trying to use David's particular concept of God (see below) as a basis for discussing a different hypothesis, and we have to proceed one logical step at a time. I'd therefore be grateful if we could confine this thread to the single line of argument. (All quotes from "God and Energy".) 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. DAVID: 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.-If your first cause is conscious/intelligent quantum energy particles that form matter, and are within and without matter, the only logical conclusion from your comment is that your God had nothing to do with the formation of elementary matter particles. Without these you can't have the solids, liquids and gases to form what you have argued is a universe deliberately fine tuned to support life. dhw: This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence... 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.-As above. If the inorganic matter of the universe is fine tuned to support life, but inorganic matter has no intelligence and yet consists of energy particles, are you saying that these energy particles have nothing to do with your God, or that he is not within the matter but manipulates it from without, even though its particles can only have come from him as first cause? Or that they came together by your pet enemy, chance?(I don't have a problem with the theory that inorganic matter has no intelligence. I'm trying to tease out the logical implications of your own theories.) 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. DAVID: 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).-We are not discussing the mysteries of quantum processes but the concept of God as quantum energy particles acting consciously and being within and without all that is. You reject the man-made biblical concept of God as an anthropomorphized creator, but you now appear to be saying that the conscious/intelligent quantum energy particles you call God have nothing to do with and are not present in inorganic matter, and only "may" play a role in the evolution of organic life.-Perhaps you will wish to modify the concept of God as defined above, so again I'll break off.-****-Thank you for the article confirming that the current theory is for energy alone to have existed after the BB, which would also confirm that energy made matter. I'm happy to accept that, and it makes no difference to the present discussion, but if the theory were to be wrong (we'll never know), it would simply invalidate your own concept of God.
God & Particles
by David Turell 
, Sunday, June 08, 2014, 16:33 (3820 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. > DAVID: ... It doesn't require intelligence at this basic level.[/i] > > dhw: If your first cause is conscious/intelligent quantum energy particles that form matter, and are within and without matter, the only logical conclusion from your comment is that your God had nothing to do with the formation of elementary matter particles. -No, God's intelligence is always behind what happened and what was planned. I don't, and cannot know, how much God permeates everything. > dhw: This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence...-> DAVID: I agree that living matter has differing degrees of intelligence based on brain complexity, but inorganic matter does not have intelligence. > > dhw: I don't have a problem with the theory that inorganic matter has no intelligence. I'm trying to tease out the logical implications of your own theories.-We have a zoo of particles, but no underlying understanding of why they are the way they are, yet they have created this universe which is fine-tuned to allow life and us. I can see purpose, but I'm sure you don't-> > dhw: We are not discussing the mysteries of quantum processes but the concept of God as quantum energy particles acting consciously and being within and without all that is. ...you now appear to be saying that the conscious/intelligent quantum energy particles you call God have nothing to do with and are not present in inorganic matter, and only "may" play a role in the evolution of organic life.-No, I am not saying that. My concept is that God acts through quantum mechanics and has planned the whole arrangment. Quanta are present in all matter, living and inorganic. God is hidden in the quantum level of reality.-> > dhw: Thank you for the article confirming that the current theory is for energy alone to have existed after the BB, which would also confirm that energy made matter. -I'm glad that issue is settled. If current cosmologic theory changes I will modify my theory of God.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 16:40 (3820 days ago) @ David Turell
> > -> > dhw: Thank you for the article confirming that the current theory is for energy alone to have existed after the BB, which would also confirm that energy made matter. > > I'm glad that issue is settled. If current cosmologic theory changes I will modify my theory of God.-not for me. exactly where was this "pure energy". What is it? please. Could you explain it to me? I don't need to read the artcicle. -at 10^-43 to 10-35, or 10^-15 on ward.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 18:49 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> > > > > > > dhw: Thank you for the article confirming that the current theory is for energy alone to have existed after the BB, which would also confirm that energy made matter. > > > > I'm glad that issue is settled. If current cosmologic theory changes I will modify my theory of God. > > not for me. exactly where was this "pure energy". What is it? please. Could you explain it to me? I don't need to read the artcicle. > > at 10^-43 to 10-35, or 10^-15 on ward.-I just realized ... the only thing being shown was "energy" as used in everyday terms, turned into matter, as understood by most people, is all that was being shown.-Sorry bout that david.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 19:37 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: not for me. exactly where was this "pure energy". What is it? please. Could you explain it to me? I don't need to read the artcicle. > > at 10^-43 to 10-35, or 10^-15 on ward.-This is the standard theory:-http://www.livescience.com/46166-no-majorana-neutrinos-found.html?cmpid=557683-"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."
God & Particles
by romansh 
, Sunday, June 08, 2014, 20:31 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GK: not for me. exactly where was this "pure energy". What is it? please. Could you explain it to me? I don't need to read the artcicle. > > > > at 10^-43 to 10-35, or 10^-15 on ward. > > This is the standard theory: > > http://www.livescience.com/46166-no-majorana-neutrinos-found.html?cmpid=557683 ... > "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."-But when the matter and antimatter condensed it did so unequally ... at least in this universe. Otherwise we would not be here to discuss it.-http://www.radiolab.org/story/122617-nothings-antimatter/
God & Particles
by David Turell , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 21:17 (3819 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom:But when the matter and antimatter condensed it did so unequally ... at least in this universe. Otherwise we would not be here to discuss it. > > http://www.radiolab.org/story/122617-nothings-antimatter/-Yes, all part of current theory, but we still don't know why antimatter became so very limited.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:06 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Rom:But when the matter and antimatter condensed it did so unequally ... at least in this universe. Otherwise we would not be here to discuss it. > > > > http://www.radiolab.org/story/122617-nothings-antimatter/ > > Yes, all part of current theory, but we still don't know why antimatter became so very limited.-I M H O they are over thinking that. With that kind of "mixing" the probability of absolute uniformity is low. It could be as simple as enough "clumped" (a la van der waals type)together and the cascading effect cause enough density difference. How about adding in spin and magnetic fields? let alone exotic particle that can form. Did space inflate totally uniform? or just uniform enough to show the background radiation they see? lol, they don't even know how space 'inflates". But we have to know the exact cause or they say they don't know. And that is not so simple.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 00:10 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
David Yes, all part of current theory, but we still don't know why antimatter became so very limited. > > GK: I M H O they are over thinking that. With that kind of "mixing" the probability of absolute uniformity is low. It could be as simple as enough "clumped" (a la van der waals type)together and the cascading effect cause enough density difference. How about adding in spin and magnetic fields? let alone exotic particle that can form.-It is more complex than that. They should be 50/50 but there is almost no anti-matter.Lots of theories, but no exact answer:-http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-sather.pdf > > GK: Did space inflate totally uniform? or just uniform enough to show the background radiation they see? lol, they don't even know how space 'inflates". -Uniformity is the basis of the theory. To make the universe look as uniform as it appears inflation was proposed. The CMBR fits the theory. There is no cause for inflation currently discovered or described.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 01:37 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
David Yes, all part of current theory, but we still don't know why antimatter became so very limited. > > > > GK: I M H O they are over thinking that. With that kind of "mixing" the probability of absolute uniformity is low. It could be as simple as enough "clumped" (a la van der waals type)together and the cascading effect cause enough density difference. How about adding in spin and magnetic fields? let alone exotic particle that can form. > > It is more complex than that. They should be 50/50 but there is almost no anti-matter.Lots of theories, but no exact answer: > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-sather.pdf > > > > GK: Did space inflate totally uniform? or just uniform enough to show the background radiation they see? lol, they don't even know how space 'inflates". > > Uniformity is the basis of the theory. To make the universe look as uniform as it appears inflation was proposed. The CMBR fits the theory. There is no cause for inflation currently discovered or described.-thank you very much for the paper. cant wait to read it.-really the theory was fitted to match the radiation. There is a difference. How did space expand? did it expand at the same rate everywhere? they are not sure. -there is a cause to inflation. We may not know it. look at where the weak force and gravity separated. That is one explanation. It is not considered "uncaused" it is considered unknown. - It shouldn't be 50/50. the math says that, clearly the math is wrong. When these guys say they are "surprised" what they mean is 'I am supersized our math doesn't work". That is a tad funny to me considering what we don't know. what do you think? -Can we just drop it please. dwh accepted your take on it. If we pursue it we will need to be way more precise in what we mean by 'energy". You will have to define it for me in your words
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 02:26 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> gk: really the theory was fitted to match the radiation. There is a difference.- Not fitted. Guth's theory came first: In Guth's book, The Inflationary Universe (1997) he discusses his predicted graph for the CMBR findings and the COBE Wilkinson study years later fit almost exactly. Page243. > > > GK: there is a cause to inflation. We may not know it. look at where the weak force and gravity separated. That is one explanation. It is not considered "uncaused" it is considered unknown. -All I wrote was we don't know the cause. It is unknown.-> GK: Can we just drop it please. dwh accepted your take on it. If we pursue it we will need to be way more precise in what we mean by 'energy". You will have to define it for me in your words-I just follow Strassler's explanations:-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/-And I conclude that prior to the BB "quantum energy" existed and a perturbation caused the BB and what followed. The first matter particles, as Strassler defines, come out from that event. I think that is as precise as you wish. Let us just leave it at that.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 02:46 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
> > gk: really the theory was fitted to match the radiation. There is a difference. > > Not fitted. Guth's theory came first: In Guth's book, The Inflationary Universe (1997) he discusses his predicted graph for the CMBR findings and the COBE Wilkinson study years later fit almost exactly. Page243. > > > > > > GK: there is a cause to inflation. We may not know it. look at where the weak force and gravity separated. That is one explanation. It is not considered "uncaused" it is considered unknown. > > All I wrote was we don't know the cause. It is unknown. > > > GK: Can we just drop it please. dwh accepted your take on it. If we pursue it we will need to be way more precise in what we mean by 'energy". You will have to define it for me in your words > > I just follow Strassler's explanations: > > http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-mat... > And I conclude that prior to the BB "quantum energy" existed and a perturbation caused the BB and what followed. The first matter particles, as Strassler defines, come out from that event. I think that is as precise as you wish. Let us just leave it at that.-no, not really. You and I would have to get more precise. I will leave it at that also. they look at the uniformity of visible matter and used the earlier background radiation from the guys at bell. They wondered how could it be so uniform. Poof, guth's. It is important you understand and talk to the notions that observations came first in this case. It is important david. It does not mean he is wrong by any means. But also, nobody knows how right and nobody has a better idea. So I like guths too.-dwh stopped at energy to matter. that's where I am stopping. Until we start using this stuff as a "creator creating,"
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 05:15 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: dwh stopped at energy to matter. that's where I am stopping. Until we start using this stuff as a "creator creating,"-No one knows what existed before the BB. Vilenkin has recently shown mathematically there is no "before" before the BB. Over 10 years ago he, Guth and Borde showed a similar result. So it looks for all the world like a creation, but by whom or what is up to your own thoughts or faith as you wish. Energy had to preceed it; You can't get something from nothing.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 12:46 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Monday, June 09, 2014, 13:01
from david:-"No one knows what existed before the BB. Vilenkin has recently shown mathematically there is no "before" before the BB. Over 10 years ago he, Guth and Borde showed a similar result. So it looks for all the world like a creation, but by whom or what is up to your own thoughts or faith as you wish. Energy had to preceed it; You can't get something from nothing."- For the most part, That's what I think too. -maybe we just the word "created differently. I use it the sense that something actively engaging in making another something. "They "created" a theoretical math model explaining their position although there is not one shred of evidence for it." But I wouldn't use the word "created" for a tree producing an apple.- sorry again for no quote's.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 16:06 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: maybe we just the word "created differently. I use it the sense that something actively engaging in making another something. But I wouldn't use the word "created" for a tree producing an apple.- I agree
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:27 (3819 days ago) @ romansh
> > > GK: not for me. exactly where was this "pure energy". What is it? please. Could you explain it to me? I don't need to read the artcicle. > > > > > > at 10^-43 to 10-35, or 10^-15 on ward. > > > > This is the standard theory: > > > > http://www.livescience.com/46166-no-majorana-neutrinos-found.html?cmpid=557683 ... > > > "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." > > But when the matter and antimatter condensed it did so unequally ... at least in this universe. Otherwise we would not be here to discuss it. > > http://www.radiolab.org/story/122617-nothings-antimatter/-yes, sorry about that. I was confused. Your take is fine.-I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light".-My slant is a little different than yours. I use don't use the word "pure energy" as you are here. but if it is good enough for you guys, then so be it. -I also don't use radioactivity in the manor you do. Stored "big bang" stuff is cool. that is as far as I will go. It does not show the universe was "created". You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. -The qm model is based on probability and waving. So how is this creator working in that environment?-I use the word god because of the baggage. If we reject a stance because we don't like a word. We may just have to step back and think about what we are rejecting. Thae data? or the "something else". Like I have to do with the word "science".
God & Particles
by romansh , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:42 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
I am not sure who this is aimed at? > yes, sorry about that. I was confused. Your take is fine. > > I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light".-I did not use the phrase pure light, not sure what an impure light would be. > My slant is a little different than yours. I use don't use the word "pure energy" as you are here. but if it is good enough for you guys, then so be it. What is impure energy? > I also don't use radioactivity in the manor you do. Stored "big bang" stuff is cool. that is as far as I will go. It does not show the universe was "created". This must be aimed at David? > You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. Outside of the universe .... ????? > > The qm model is based on probability and waving. So how is this creator working in that environment? > > I use the word god because of the baggage. If we reject a stance because we don't like a word. We may just have to step back and think about what we are rejecting. Thae data? or the "something else". Like I have to do with the word "science".
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:59 (3819 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Monday, June 09, 2014, 00:10
I am not sure who this is aimed at? > > yes, sorry about that. I was confused. Your take is fine. > > > > I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light". > > I did not use the phrase pure light, not sure what an impure light would be. > > My slant is a little different than yours. I use don't use the word "pure energy" as you are here. but if it is good enough for you guys, then so be it. > What is impure energy? > > I also don't use radioactivity in the manor you do. Stored "big bang" stuff is cool. that is as far as I will go. It does not show the universe was "created". > This must be aimed at David? > > You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. > Outside of the universe .... ????? > > > > The qm model is based on probability and waving. So how is this creator working in that environment? > > > > I use the word god because of the baggage. If we reject a stance because we don't like a word. We may just have to step back and think about what we are rejecting. Thae data? or the "something else". Like I have to do with the word "science".-dern it ...sorry did I forgot to quote it again. Dont the reposes go right under the post?-The link used the words "light". I don't tyson would have used those words either.-Define "pure energy" first. please. I didn't say "impure". "energy" is not defined as they are using the word. Energy is the ability to do work. It is not a tangle "thing". They are using "pure energy" more loosely.-yes, I agree. I am having trouble understanding "outside". Or how the forces began to interact from 10^-43 to the point gravity and the weak separated. so that "it created" matter. matter is not even a thing. so I am way confused really.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 00:29 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK:I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light".-> You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. -Try this to help you:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#mediaviewer/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg-Note photons first
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 00:57 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Monday, June 09, 2014, 01:03
> > GK:I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light". > > > You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. > > Try this to help you: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#mediaviewer/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg&... > Note photons first-"photon" is a gauge boson. Carrier of emr. Gravity and the weak force came out first. They think, although they don't know for sure, that when the weak force dropped out of the initial "soup" inflation started. -"gravity", if in the standard model, would be a graviton. The weak force is carried by the W-Z particles. If use as the electro-week force, than The combo of these forces is on the way to unification. Very high temps. But maybe they are the same "particle" just seen differently.-I am sorry for any confusion. The way you guy are using "energy" is fine. The way I am used to useing "energy", it not a "thing". not yet anyway. It can cause "work" ... loosely. I retract nothing.-dwh is fine with your take. end it there or we have to explore what you mean in detail.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 01:46 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GW: "photon" is a gauge boson. Carrier of emr. Gravity and the weak force came out first. They think, although they don't know for sure, that when the weak force dropped out of the initial "soup" inflation started. > > "gravity", if in the standard model, would be a graviton. The weak force is carried by the W-Z particles. If use as the electro-week force, than The combo of these forces is on the way to unification. Very high temps. But maybe they are the same "particle" just seen differently. > dwh is fine with your take. end it there or we have to explore what you mean in > detail.- We agree: I use this blog to look at the 'particles':-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/-All I showed you was a period of photon formation in the Wiki page
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 02:26 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
> > GW: "photon" is a gauge boson. Carrier of emr. Gravity and the weak force came out first. They think, although they don't know for sure, that when the weak force dropped out of the initial "soup" inflation started. > > > > "gravity", if in the standard model, would be a graviton. The weak force is carried by the W-Z particles. If use as the electro-week force, than The combo of these forces is on the way to unification. Very high temps. But maybe they are the same "particle" just seen differently. > > dwh is fine with your take. end it there or we have to explore what you mean in > > detail. > > We agree: I use this blog to look at the 'particles': > > http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-appar... > All I showed you was a period of photon formation in the Wiki page-I read that paper. What struck me the most is what he said they don't know and how many times he said it. He spoke exactly to my point. There is clearly more than theory. He made that clear also.-Yeah, that picture has always bugged me. The photon was not the only particle formed there. The photon is a gauge boson. it is in a class of particles that was formed Gluons were also present. and maybe even a graviton. That is my only point. -again. can we drop it, pretty please. dwh has accepted your view. If we go any deeper we will have to be very precise in our wording. -I can't thank you enough for the information and time. It was very interesting stuff.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 17:43 (3818 days ago) @ David Turell
would we like to explore what matter is? It is not a "thing"
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 19:15 (3818 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: would we like to explore what matter is? It is not a "thing"-proceed
God & Particles
by BBella , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 20:53 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell
I don't, and cannot know, how much God permeates everything. ->We have a zoo of particles [that] have created this universe...->My concept is that God acts through quantum mechanics... Quanta are present in all matter, living and inorganic. God is hidden in the quantum level of reality. > -David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality. If so, wouldn't it then be easier or more realistic to simplify the word God to "the creator"? I personally have a problem within my own mind (not with anyone else's use) with the word God instead of Creator. The word God just seems to come with so much baggage that it's sometimes difficult to separate the baggage from the name. It is therefore more realistic for me to think and say: The creator of creation resides within the Q level of creation - since that just sounds so simple (to me) without any baggage. -Which reminds me of my favorite sufi sayings: The Creator sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in man. Possibly all at the Q level, yet there are no walls between the Q level and ALL of CREATION.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 21:15 (3819 days ago) @ BBella
> > bbella: David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality. If so, wouldn't it then be easier or more realistic to simplify the word God to "the creator"? I personally have a problem within my own mind (not with anyone else's use) with the word God instead of Creator. The word God just seems to come with so much baggage that it's sometimes difficult to separate the baggage from the name. It is therefore more realistic for me to think and say: The creator of creation resides within the Q level of creation - since that just sounds so simple (to me) without any baggage. > > Which reminds me of my favorite sufi sayings: The Creator sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in man. Possibly all at the Q level, yet there are no walls between the Q level and ALL of CREATION.-Excellent summary and excellent point.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 12:57 (3819 days ago) @ BBella
> > David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality. If so, wouldn't it then be easier or more realistic to simplify the word God to "the creator"? I personally have a problem within my own mind (not with anyone else's use) with the word God instead of Creator. The word God just seems to come with so much baggage that it's sometimes difficult to separate the baggage from the name. It is therefore more realistic for me to think and say: The creator of creation resides within the Q level of creation - since that just sounds so simple (to me) without any baggage. > > Which reminds me of my favorite sufi sayings: The Creator sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in man. Possibly all at the Q level, yet there are no walls between the Q level and ALL of CREATION.-you have an amazing talent for summation that resonates for me. Thank you for this. are you a believer or non believer? If yes. do you follow any set of rituals in particular or just a combination of a few?
God & Particles
by BBella , Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 00:05 (3817 days ago) @ GateKeeper
edited by unknown, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 00:11
bbella: David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality. If so, wouldn't it then be easier or more realistic to simplify the word God to "the creator"? I personally have a problem within my own mind (not with anyone else's use) with the word God instead of Creator. The word God just seems to come with so much baggage that it's sometimes difficult to separate the baggage from the name. It is therefore more realistic for me to think and say: The creator of creation resides within the Q level of creation - since that just sounds so simple (to me) without any baggage. > > > > Which reminds me of my favorite sufi sayings: The Creator sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in man. Possibly all at the Q level, yet there are no walls between the Q level and ALL of CREATION. > >GateKeeper: you have an amazing talent for summation that resonates for me. Thank you for this. are you a believer or non believer? If yes. do you follow any set of rituals in particular or just a combination of a few?-GK~ Oh goodness! Don't get me started! lol A talent for summation? This may prove not so much, as your questions are difficult for me to answer simply. -I have no absolute answers to your questions tho I think of myself more of an agnostic than a believer but, I have experienced much that's allowed me to gain a deeper insight (than I had before) into the "workings" of the fabric of What Is, so at times I do "pray" (mentally or physically), or for me, a better word is "speak" my thankfulness, appreciation or desires to the All that Is. -But as to whether I am a believer in "God"? If you can call this a belief--> I have a hankering to want to believe in the Ancient Alien theory: The theory that the human creature is a creation by a higher intelligence that taught us "in our beginning" to call our creator "God" among other things. So for that reason, I don't personally cotton to the word "God" for the All that Is. The word "God" brings to mind for me a higher intelligence that created humanity through intelligence, science & experimentation. Once this higher intelligence achieved the creation of man, man was then taught the "need" to worship and obey their creator God through religion and ritual to teach man law and order. -As for the All that Is: I do sometimes call the All that Is "creator" because that is an action word and that's what creation does ~ create. So for me, a tree is a creator of the apple just as humans are creators of children, etc. Yet all use the same fabric of what Is to create. Everything creates and/or is in a state of change into something else. Even a rock is in a state of change creating something else only at a much slower rate. Altho science discovered the amazing ability of consciousness to effect creation (which the ancients already knew but we have re-discovered), that does not yet tell us that just because consciousness does effect the fabric of what Is, that the fabric itself is conscious, or that ONE conscious mind is experiencing All that Is, or if consciousness is a product of this fabric. Though some have theorized, and I suspect is so, that one change in the fabric effects all (Sheldrakes morphic field), which could give credence to the All is One theory. But the idea that one mind is consciously in control of All that IS? I don't know. That doesn't really make sense to me.-On practicing rituals: I do not practice any rituals now although I have in the distant past (religion-mediation-etc). -As much as possible, I observe from an open mind with respect, awe and an appreciation for All that Is, without doubt or disbelief of any possibility. That sounds like an Agnostic to me but whatever I am, I try to reserve judgement until it is time to do otherwise.
God & Particles
bbella: David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality. If so, wouldn't it then be easier or more realistic to simplify the word God to "the creator"? I personally have a problem within my own mind (not with anyone else's use) with the word God instead of Creator. The word God just seems to come with so much baggage that it's sometimes difficult to separate the baggage from the name. It is therefore more realistic for me to think and say: The creator of creation resides within the Q level of creation - since that just sounds so simple (to me) without any baggage. Which reminds me of my favorite sufi sayings: The Creator sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in man. Possibly all at the Q level, yet there are no walls between the Q level and ALL of CREATION.-Thank you, BBella, for sticking to the point and for trying to resolve what obviously both of us see as the inconsistencies in David's theory. However, I don't think "The Creator" solves the problem. It has the same baggage as "God", in that it evokes a single figure with a single mind. The sufi saying is great, but sleep, dream, stir and awaken all smack of an anthropomorphized God. David's first cause is emphatically not an anthropomorphic figure, but is energy. And this energy is composed of particles that act intelligently. In my response to him I've pointed out that he seems to be separating the quantum particles from the intelligence of his God, and the same problem would arise with "The Creator". And so I would propose that we dispense with any name, and confine ourselves to the description (energy particles etc.).
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 19:10 (3818 days ago) @ dhw
bbella: David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality. If so, wouldn't it then be easier or more realistic to simplify the word God to "the creator"? I personally have a problem within my own mind (not with anyone else's use) with the word God instead of Creator. The word God just seems to come with so much baggage that it's sometimes difficult to separate the baggage from the name. It is therefore more realistic for me to think and say: The creator of creation resides within the Q level of creation - since that just sounds so simple (to me) without any baggage. > Which reminds me of my favorite sufi sayings: The Creator sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in man. Possibly all at the Q level, yet there are no walls between the Q level and ALL of CREATION. > > dhw:Thank you, BBella, for sticking to the point and for trying to resolve what obviously both of us see as the inconsistencies in David's theory.-I don't think bbella was finding inconsistencies, you are.
God & Particles
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. DAVID: ... It doesn't require intelligence at this basic level. dhw: If your first cause is conscious/intelligent quantum energy particles that form matter, and are within and without matter, the only logical conclusion from your comment is that your God had nothing to do with the formation of elementary matter particles. -DAVID: No, God's intelligence is always behind what happened and what was planned. I don't, and cannot know, how much God permeates everything.-You now seem to be separating "God" from the energy particles of which both he and matter are made, as if his intelligence were not within his particles. Does this mean that your God is something else besides pure conscious energy? You have also agreed with BBella's summary, which you call excellent: "David, by the above...one would conclude that you ARE saying God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic - tho hidden at the Q level of reality." I will comment on BBella's suggested solution to the muddle in my response to her, but I hope you can understand how confusing it is to be told that God's conscious energy particles formed matter, but did not form the elementary particles of matter, and that God is within and without everything, but may or may not be within the matter which is composed of his particles. DAVID: I agree that living matter has differing degrees of intelligence based on brain complexity, but inorganic matter does not have intelligence. dhw: I don't have a problem with the theory that inorganic matter has no intelligence. I'm trying to tease out the logical implications of your own theories.-DAVID: We have a zoo of particles, but no underlying understanding of why they are the way they are, yet they have created this universe which is fine-tuned to allow life and us. I can see purpose, but I'm sure you don't.-I'm not opposed to there being purpose, though you seem to think only one is possible, whereas I can imagine a variety of purposes, with or without your concept of God. I agree that we don't understand why or how the particles work, but that is not the issue here, as I said below: dhw: We are not discussing the mysteries of quantum processes but the concept of God as quantum energy particles acting consciously and being within and without all that is. ...you now appear to be saying that the conscious/intelligent quantum energy particles you call God have nothing to do with and are not present in inorganic matter, and only "may" play a role in the evolution of organic life.-DAVID: No, I am not saying that. My concept is that God acts through quantum mechanics and has planned the whole arrangment. Quanta are present in all matter, living and inorganic. God is hidden in the quantum level of reality.-But according to your definition, God is quantum energy particles acting consciously. And so are you not saying now that quantum energy particles act and plan and are present but hidden in all matter, living and inorganic? If so, how can you say that the making of elementary particles of matter does not require intelligence, and you don't know how much quantum energy particles permeate everything, although you agree with BBella's summary? Please don't misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. I'm trying to put together a hypothesis that will smooth out these apparent illogicalities, but first it's essential to clarify the basic premises.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 19:08 (3818 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You now seem to be separating "God" from the energy particles of which both he and matter are made, as if his intelligence were not within his particles. ...I hope you can understand how confusing it is to be told that God's conscious energy particles formed matter, but did not form the elementary particles of matter, and that God is within and without everything, but may or may not be within the matter which is composed of his particles.-Perhaps I don't completely explain my meanings. I think quantum energy is eternal. I think God is somehow organized as an intelligence and has planned out all the quantum particles that drop out of the plasma and form constituents of matter. These particles have an automatic way of falling together, as they consistently do it the same way as shown by particle physics results. They are in concise families with definite ways of acting. > > dhw: But according to your definition, God is quantum energy particles acting consciously. And so are you not saying now that quantum energy particles act and plan and are present but hidden in all matter, living and inorganic? If so, how can you say that the making of elementary particles of matter does not require intelligence, and you don't know how much quantum energy particles permeate everything, although you agree with BBella's summary? -My above explanation may clear the air. If the particles are designed to work together automatically, they don't need individual intelligence. Does each gear in your car intelligently work with the other gears, or is it intelligently designed to work together?
God & Particles
dhw: You now seem to be separating "God" from the energy particles of which both he and matter are made, as if his intelligence were not within his particles. ...I hope you can understand how confusing it is to be told that God's conscious energy particles formed matter, but did not form the elementary particles of matter, and that God is within and without everything, but may or may not be within the matter which is composed of his particles.-DAVID: Perhaps I don't completely explain my meanings. I think quantum energy is eternal. I think God is somehow organized as an intelligence and has planned out all the quantum particles that drop out of the plasma and form constituents of matter. These particles have an automatic way of falling together, as they consistently do it the same way as shown by particle physics results. They are in concise families with definite ways of acting. -You are still separating God from the quantum particles of the quantum energy which you believe to be the first cause. According to you, nothing existed initially except for the quantum energy you call God. The particles of this quantum energy are "somehow organized as an intelligence" which planned to make themselves (nothing else existed) into matter, although you say the making of elementary particles of matter required no intelligence. The latter is important for me, so I'll repeat the exchange we had
hw: 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. DAVID: ...It doesn't require intelligence at this level. -dhw: But according to your definition, God is quantum energy particles acting consciously. And so are you not saying now that quantum energy particles act and plan and are present but hidden in all matter, living and inorganic? If so, how can you say that the making of elementary particles of matter does not require intelligence, and you don't know how much quantum energy particles permeate everything, although you agree with BBella's summary? -DAVID: My above explanation may clear the air. If the particles are designed to work together automatically, they don't need individual intelligence. Does each gear in your car intelligently work with the other gears, or is it intelligently designed to work together?-A clever image, but again it requires a separation between designer and the thing designed. Let me repeat: Your whole scenario is based on the theory that all matter is energy and your first cause (your God) is energy. This means that all the particles of everything ARE your God ... he didn't design them as man designs gears: he IS them. This at least gives meaning to your claim that God is within and without all that is. He is inside each particle, but if we examine each particle separately, he is also outside each one, because he is also in all the others. BBella put it very succinctly, and you agreed with her: "...you ARE saying that God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic..."-I should emphasize that these problems of logic are important for the panpsychist hypothesis I want to develop, and this discussion is providing very useful material. I hope you're not finding it too frustrating.
God & Particles
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, June 10, 2014, 16:24 (3818 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: > > I should emphasize that these problems of logic are important for the panpsychist hypothesis I want to develop, and this discussion is providing very useful material. I hope you're not finding it too frustrating.-yes they are dwh. you are right there, at the solution, too. remember, all, I mean all, theories has a starting statements. Slide off of that statement and the line of logic will have gaps. I am guessing you know that already.-I was just watching Susskind. it was so cool watching him teaching. He addresses that very notion too. Not that I care really. but some people get all creamy when you post an important name.
God & Particles
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 10, 2014, 17:28 (3818 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You are still separating God from the quantum particles of the quantum energy which you believe to be the first cause.-God is both the particles and the organizer of the particles. He is one and the same.-> dhw: you say the making of elementary particles of matter required no intelligence.-God is intelligence. You have implied something I haven't meant to imply. -> > DAVID: My above explanation may clear the air. If the particles are designed to work together automatically, they don't need individual intelligence. Does each gear in your car intelligently work with the other gears, or is it intelligently designed to work together? > > dhw: A clever image, but again it requires a separation between designer and the thing designed. Let me repeat: Your whole scenario is based on the theory that all matter is energy and your first cause (your God) is energy. This means that all the particles of everything ARE your God ... he didn't design them as man designs gears: he IS them. This at least gives meaning to your claim that God is within and without all that is. He is inside each particle, but if we examine each particle separately, he is also outside each one, because he is also in all the others. BBella put it very succinctly, and you agreed with her: "...you ARE saying that God, thru QM, IS present in all that IS, living and inorganic..."-bbella has it correctly.