More Denton: A new book (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 09, 2016, 16:18 (3181 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: (As an ignorant layman, I must confess that despite all the scientific pronouncements on the subject, I still don't understand how energy can exist independently of matter, or matter independently of energy.)-DAVID: Pure energy is what the LHC and other atom/matter busters pull apart: electrons, protons, positrons, quarks, gluons, photons, are pure energy and are a portion of the particle zoo. Virtual particles at the quantum level are also part of this group, which I have not presented completely. Put back together they make up matter. Could God be an eternal group of these particles as a pure plasma of energy? Why not? I don't know where to let my imagination take me. God could be simply pure energy with consciousness...-This sounds impressive, but particles are matter, and you have listed “portions” of particles. My point is not that we cannot separate energy from matter, but that they are interdependent. However, if you believe your God may be composed of “virtual” particles or some unknown “pure plasma of energy”, and created existing energy and matter out of his "pure energy", then so be it. Similarly, your fellow scientists can believe in strings and multiverses, though you suddenly become sceptical when they come up with such “unknowns”.
 
dhw: I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists.
DAVID: What I presented above can explain to you the possibility of a plasma of energy, no matter formed. Thus disembodied and immaterial just as conscious thought is immaterial.-This is the real crux of the matter. Is consciousness some unknown form of energy that uses the brain, or is the brain the generator of the energy we call consciousness? Who knows?
 
dhw: But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves?
DAVID: Because eternal consciousness cannot appear de novo, it must pre-exist everything else and is first cause.-I'm afraid I find “pre-existing” no more convincing than appearing de novo. That is a sticking-point for me, which is why I stay on my fence.-Dhw: ...you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”.-DAVID: I use the 'tough-love parent' as a metaphor, not as a real parent. -It is an attempt to read your God's mind, as is the suggestion that he created us to relieve the boredom. But let's keep going: what “metaphorical” reasons can you think of for God wanting to set us problems in the first place?
 
DAVID: I agree there is no need for multicellularity. There is no need for the enormous jump to conscious humans. Therefore we must look to teleology. There must be a driving purpose behind an evolutionary process that consistently advances beyond necessity.-There was no need for any jumps...full stop. I agree that there must be a driving purpose: I have suggested survival and/or improvement. That drive (perhaps implanted by your hypothetical God when he hypothetically endowed the first cells with intelligence) would explain every jump you can think of, including from apes to humans.