quote:Immaterial, to me, means that it just lacks mass.
Light is immaterial, but it isn't nothing.
What I was saying is that light doesn't have (rest) mass so by some definitions it can be called immaterial. Its a small point, but I think that is a better definition than immaterial means "nothing".
adjective 1. of no importance or relevance especially to a law case; "an objection that is immaterial after the fact" [ant: material] 2. without material form or substance; "an incorporeal spirit" [syn: incorporeal] [ant: corporeal] 3. not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities" [ant: material] 4. not pertinent to the matter under consideration; "an issue extraneous to the debate"; "the price was immaterial"; "mentioned several impertinent facts before finally coming to the point" [syn: extraneous] 5. (often followed by 'to') lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other; "whether you choose to do it or not is a matter that is quite immaterial (or indifferent)"; "what others think is altogether indifferent to him"
It's a question to see what you think, not seeking an explanation for myself.
I don't think the quantum field consists of anything. Although, I don't mean to imply that it is an absense of anything. Its a field with a shit-load of degrees of freedom. Its not like I can describe it in a visual sense. And I'm not even that sure that I understand it all that well.
And in reality, you don't have to understand the math to understand and discuss this point.
Actually, you kinda do. Otherwise, it'd be like trying to describe what red smells like to someone who is colorblind.
You have to understand the math to understand how it works, but that it is there and works doesn't take math.
but is there any scientific evidence that the universe is deterministic?
I'd bet that there is, but I don't have anything to present here.
think it's a major discovery, qualitatively different than mechanistic emergent processes since here energy and mass stem from an informational design/principle or perhaps just calling it "X" is what we need to do for this forum.
It doesn't suggest that energy and mass "stem from an informational design/principle" though. Basically, you're just seeing what you want to see.
When in doubt, assume god :rolleyes:
Look, there's a field with a shit-load of degrees of freedom that when warped takes the form of energy/matter. There's no information design/priciple in that, its just the way things are.
Do you also see design in the way that red smells?
Exactly how energy and matter appear from "X" which is absent energy and matter has to one of the great mysteries of modern physics, but we can say it happens.
I'm not even sure that its that big of a mystery. The problem isn't in how energy and mass appear, but in unifying everything in to one quantized field(s).
Cells are physical and so the idea that physical parts make up more physical parts is a non-starter.
The point of that analogy is to show you that its not the unique of a thing, its not that big of a deal.
Huh? Then what the heck does it stem from? Nothing?
No, they stem from warps in the quantum field.
The fact is we are dealing with something, and that something contains specific information that directs the production of matter and energy.
Nah, I don't think its really specific informations and it also isn't directing anything.
If I drop a hammer it falls to the ground. There is no 'specific information' that 'directs' the hammer to fall.
Call it what you want, but it seems more you are not seeing what you don't want to see.
I know you are but what am I? :rolleyes:
If it behaves in any predictable manner at all, it has a design or whatever you wish to call it. It consists of ordered information at a minimum.
But that is where you're wrong. I can predict that the hammer will fall without any design needed whatsoever.
but the Pavlovian response to the word "design" is weird.
Its all your fault. Whenever "you guys" smell any hint of design, you take it and run with it and make all these outrageous claims. I have to reply to you differently than other people. I have to be careful so you don't start running.
It's ordered information.
But its not. That is what you WANT to see, so that is what you are seeing.
but the point is that it has no energy and mass and contains specific order and information, and from that we see mass and energy arise
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't start running.
What makes you think it contains specific order and information?
Where did you get that from? Are you sure your not just making stuff up?
It's no mystery that energy and mass are created or arise from nothing, at least nothing physical?
Not any more.
It is a pretty big deal to discover that the universe is fundamentally non-physical.
I learned in frickin' grade school that the majority of our desks was empty space. It was a pretty big deal.
But really, its not.
The same goes with this "fundamentally non-physical" emergence of energy/matter.
Without gravity, the hammer doesn't fall to the ground. The specific information within the force of gravity is at play.
You're butchering what it means to be information so you can conflate it with being designed :rolleyes: There is no specific information within gravity. But whatever, I don't care to waste time on this anymore. Besides, I don't want to get Moosed...