and the other layers give rise to what you would call matter and forces.
What are these layers/fields made of? They're not made of anything - they are the underlying reality - everything else is made from, or is an aspect of, these fields. However, they are very familiar - they seem to be objects that we know very well from pure mathematics. Now why should that be...?
So they have energy but no matter? Can you have potential for work from energy without physical existence (matter)?
Certainly, it contains specific design though, right?
Pure math isn't really a physical science, and yet describes how physical qualities come into being from a non-physical (no matter) state? Isn't that an immaterial design giving rise to the physical aspects of the universe?
Seems like you are saying there is a pre-existing design, which is really the fundamental state of the universe, and derived from this design is a secondary state, matter/material.
Edit to add: the definition of energy from a physics standpoint: does energy need a physical system to be defined as energy? If there is no matter, where is the physical quality of the system to define it as energy, or do we need to revise the way energy is defined?
Cavediver, they exist as something, right? Let's go with no energy and no mass, right? But they exist as something since they can be mathematically described, right?
How would you characterize that something? As mathematical principles and design?
Note to admin: if you want to ban me for the word "design", so be it. All I am talking about is they have specific, predictable characteristics. We can use a different word than "design" if that sets off emotional alarm bells, but the doggone thread is about what the fabric of space-time consists of. Just saying it comes from nothing when clearly that nothing, despite having no energy and matter, can be mathematically descibed and has some degree of predictability needs more clarification.
Maybe we use a different word than "design"? I am open to that. It exists as principles which have the ability to give rise to physical things....whatever. The point is not the lingo, but the fact these "principles" have no matter or energy, and yet have the ability to give rise to matter and energy.
I'm not sure what this means, but I certainly do not see it containing any type of design. Mathematics is many things, but it is not 'designed'...
Use a different word then. What I am getting at is that whatever this is, it isn't nothing. It's nothing physical, sure. But it does give rise to the physical aspects of the universe, right?
Call it information if you want. Call it X. It doesn't matter because I am just trying to get at what we do know about it. I think we know it's not physical, not matter and energy, but that it is potential.
Catholic, it's a little deeper than that. Cells actually consist of physical properties. What cavediver is saying when he says it consists of "nothing" is that it consists of no matter or energy (defined by physics). Personally, I question stating a field has no energy even if it is a field that has no matter but I recognize what that's problematic for physics (definition of energy must contain matter).
But whatever this consists of, it does give rise to matter. Imo, this is worth thinking about. My word for "nothing" is "immaterial." It's not nothing because we see it's effects and it can be described mathematically, but since it has no matter, it is an immaterial something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not even sure that its that big of a mystery.
It's no mystery that energy and mass are created or arise from nothing, at least nothing physical?
The point of that analogy is to show you that its not the unique of a thing, its not that big of a deal.
It is a pretty big deal to discover that the universe is fundamentally non-physical.
admin, I am directly addressing what is the fabric of space-time, or at least what gives rise to it.
But that is where you're wrong. I can predict that the hammer will fall without any design needed whatsoever.
No, I am right. Without gravity, the hammer doesn't fall to the ground. The specific information within the force of gravity is at play.
you take it and run with it and make all these outrageous claims.
What outrageous claims? You admit the universe is fundamentally non-physical and yet behaves according to principles (informational design).
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?
The fact it can be described mathematically or at least to some extent shows there is order....Order is specific information that governs behaviour.
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.
But the desk has matter, energy and design. It exists physically because of those things. Here we have something completely non-physical. It has no mass, nor energy, and yet mass and energy are derived from it. If you don't think scientists don't think that is a mystery, you are not paying attention.
How does energy and mass stem from non-physical realms or fields?
Just saying it does is not an explanation on what the non-physical is. Moreover, the idea that physical things stem from non-physical states is doggone revolutionary whether you admit it or not.