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.

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.

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.

GK: would we like to explore what matter is? It is not a "thing"-proceed

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.


> 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?


> 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


> 
> 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?


> 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.


> > 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,"


> 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.


> > 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.


> 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

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