What is "the fabric" of space-time?

It's a question to see what you think, not seeking an explanation for myself.And in reality, you don't have to understand the math to understand and discuss this point. You have to understand the math to understand how it works, but that it is there and works doesn't take math.

What in your view does red smell like? 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. Actually, you kinda do. Otherwise, it'd be like trying to describe what red smells like to someone who is colorblind. Huh?

The point is that it has neither mass, nor energy (from a physics perspective), right?It is immaterial in that sense, right?To use your analogy, a blind person can accept that red is a color whether he visualizes it or not.

Sure, we've already covered this.So what?

So the universe is first and fundamentally immaterial with the material aspects of the universe being a derived quality, right?

Sure, continue.Just make your argument without all the reassurance, please.But, what is a "derived quality"? I think "emergent property" is a better way to describe it.

Emergent property can say the same thing as derived property. I just think it's interesting that physics shows all energy and matter are derived or emerge from an immaterial state with no mass or energy.We live in a immaterial universe at it's most fundamental level.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Its deterministic at that level too. I dunno, lots of things have emergent properties. I don't find it all that "interesting", at least, not any more than other things.Like I said first, cells don't have brains are hearts yet they can form brains and hearts. Don't you find that just as interesting and energy/mass emerging from non-energy/mass?

Hmmmm.....I hear that from some. Cavediver claimed that, but is there any scientific evidence that the universe is deterministic?On your other question, we could discuss the implications of the universe being fundamentally immaterial, but that is probably off-topic. I 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."X" contains specific informational directives that have the power or ability to give rise to matter and energy. You can call "X" a field, but it is a field absent matter and energy. Personally, I think calling X a realm fits better than the field description because "field" suggests energy, but whatever.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.Cells are physical and so the idea that physical parts make up more physical parts is a non-starter.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'd bet that there is, but I don't have anything to present here. 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 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? 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). 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?The fact is we are dealing with something, and that something contains specific information that directs the production of matter and energy. Call it what you want, but it seems more you are not seeing what you don't want to see. You are self-contradictory here. 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. If you guys want to say the design doesn't suggest Designer, fine. ID isn't the topic of the thread so we aren't discussing that one way or another, but the Pavlovian response to the word "design" is weird.It's ordered information. You are welcome to suggest other words if you want, 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. As such, the fundemantal state of the universe is non-physical. It's no mystery that energy and mass are created or arise from nothing, at least nothing physical? It is a pretty big deal to discover that the universe is fundamentally non-physical.

No, they stem from warps in the quantum field. 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. I know you are but what am I? But that is where you're wrong. I can predict that the hammer will fall without any design needed whatsoever. 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. But its not. That is what you WANT to see, so that is what you are seeing. 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? Not any more. 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.

Just trying to say that time is part of space expansion like in the bible where the sun and the moon stood still for Joshua. I just wonder if"anyone else" has personally experienced time slowing down near stopping like in a time of an emergency.To clarify, I'll start it off with my own personal experience where I experience time appeared to of near stopped. When I was golfing tee'd up and the ball went off the side of the driver slamming into a tree 10 feet away and coming straight for my head.What happened in that instant of time it took for the ball to travel from the tree to my head time appeared to of slowed down. It was as if you slowed down a film and I had all the time I needed to move my head.Now I believe God slowed down the ball in time but everyone else did not see the ball slow down thus its likely was me and the ball. Now it would be like you could walk while everyone else was like not moving or something like that too them time is moving forward but to me in that instant time seemed to stand near still, etc...P.S. In that I was able to move faster than the ball that was moving slow by my minds eye perhaps my time was faster than local time in that instant or everyone around me were in slow time but me ?The ball was moving too fast for me to of had time to react, if the ball would of hit my head at that velocity I might of been seriously injured or killed, which is why I believe God caused time to stand down for an instant, etc...

I think the bat hit you on the head and you just don't remember it.
That would explain a lot...PS: "would of" and "might of" ain't really english, but you know that, right?

Your thinking Whos on first Whats on second I don't knows on third, etc...Thats baseball, etc.. I was playing golf, etc...P.S. I can not imagine how great of a baseball player I'd of been if I could stop the ball freeze frame it before hitting it, etc...Who's on First? by Abbott and Costello I could of been injured, should of been injured, would of been injured but for the will of God!I "couldv'e" been injured, "shouldv'e" been injured, "would've" been injured but for the "willv'e" God!P.S. I know its improper but when you use will of God it somehow seems to make more sense than willv'e God. I'm not an English nut "obviously" but could of, would of, should of and will of sounds better in my head than like instead of saying will of God to will have God which does not make sense, etc... I kinda like Words like thou, thy, etc...http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000204.htmLike is the fabric of the entire universe like the film in a 4D movie projecting real time going forward and backward in time?I'm just expressing about time that I personally had an experience where a moment in time seemed to slow down and suspect others might of experienced this too? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.