Gnomon
Neutrinos are things that travel through my vacuum
Their existence is recognized by their effect
Much like human interaction
One doesn't have to be visible to have an impact — Rxspence

Yes. Both energy and matter can propagate through empty space. But a Neutrino is like a Photon, in that it can indeed "travel through a vacuum". So it is imagined as a tiny bullet (a particle of mass). But the wave nature of a Photon, and presumably of a Neutrino, was a puzzle for early physicists. How can a wave propagate without some physical medium to compress & release?

One proposal was the Luminiferous Aether, which was hypothesized to be almost as close to nothing (i.e. mass) as a Neutron. When researchers found no evidence (measurable effects) for aether, the theory dropped out of favor. But Einstein, while abandoning that discredited term, attributed aether-like properties to his hypothetical Gravity Field. In that theory, empty space was treated metaphorically as a physical substance (e.g. fabric of space). Unfortunately, to this day, the "fabric of space" is undetectable by physical means. So, it remains a metaphysical concept, defined in abstract ethereal mathematical terms. Hence, the vacuum of space is still as close to nothing as ever. :smile:

Luminiferous Aether :
Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support. We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

For any finite volume over any finite time interval, there is always a probability of field excitations. But even without those excitations, the field itself -- the potential for particles to emerge -- exists. 'Nothing' would suggest to me no such fields, not just no local excitations. It seems nonsensical to me to claim there are quantum mechanical arguments for this. — Kenosha Kid

The covariant quantum fields of Quantum Field Theory are what I favor as fundamental, for not only does the standard model work, as based on them, but also because they are non composite, made of only themselves. One cannot have a fundamental entity that is composite, for its parts would have to be even more fundamental.

So, then, much much less could a System of Mind wished for in a God Person be fundamental.

'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

How can a wave propagate without some physical medium to compress & release? — Gnomon

All is field. The excitations are what we call 'particles'. From them, the, born of simplicity, the complex universe.

My friend was raised in a very religious family. At some stage he broke away from their beliefs and declared he was an atheist. My feeling is that he isn’t, that he has moved sideways to this theory he has, unconsciously or not, that requires an intender, which he cannot admit to. — Brett

I can relate to that story. I never claimed to be an convinced Atheist, but did call myself an open-minded Agnostic for years. Yet, late in life, I also made a side-ways move. As an agnostic, my self-education consisted mostly of scientific topics and skeptical periodicals. But eventually, my philosophically-motivated exploration of Quantum Physics and Information Theory led me down a side-road back to the ancient G*D solution to insoluble philosophical and scientific conundrums. This is not the God of religion, or the Faith that is anathema to Science. But it is a personal Theory of Everything, that satisfies my curiosity, except for my eternal destiny. Which I don't worry about anymore.

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. My current position may be what science writer John Horgan called "Negative Theology" or "Rational Mysticism". But it serves my philosophical needs, and does not require unquestioning faith in the transient truths of Science, or the sectarian Truth of Religion. Of course, my non-mainstream position doesn't permit the emotional benefits of social bonding with fellow believers or both kinds. :smile:

Negative Theology : Arguments about which interpretation is “true” cannot be resolved, because our preferences are matters of taste, not truth.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-mechanics-the-mind-body-problem-and-negative-theology/

All is field. The excitations are what we call 'particles'. From them, the, born of simplicity, the complex universe. — PoeticUniverse

Ah . . . I remember the joys of the simple-minded particular faith of Reductionism! Sadly, I have abandoned the simplicity of near nothingness, for the integrity of Unity and Holism --- which includes everything and excludes nothing. :joke:

No election?
No direction?
Only reduction
to the simplest element of all :
Nothingness.

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. — Gnomon

This is still a Mind as being First, aka 'God'.

But eventually, my philosophically-motivated exploration of Quantum Physics and Information Theory led me down a side-road back to the ancient G*D solution to insoluble philosophical and scientific conundrums. This is not the God of religion, or the Faith that is anathema to Science. But it is a personal Theory of Everything, that satisfies my curiosity, except for my eternal destiny. Which I don't worry about anymore. — Gnomon

Interesting. That’s very much my friend’s position. It seems to me at the very last point of thinking about things and trying to understand the only thing left is the Kantian leap of faith.

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. — Gnomon

At one point my friend said the universe unfolds as it should. Does that and your comment on Intention suggest Determism?

At one point my friend said the universe unfolds as it should. Does that and your comment on Intention suggest Determism? — Brett

No. Not in the usual sense of top-down determinism. Based on my Enformationism worldview, the top-down design theory doesn't fit the facts on the ground. It has all of the problems that Atheists have pointed-out in Biblical creation stories.

So, instead of miraculous creation in seven days, I see ongoing natural creation in roughly 14 billion years. The creative process is similar to a computer program starting with a kernel (Singularity) of encoded Information and initial conditions, then calculating toward a final solution to some Programmer's question. This is a bottom-up construction from a "Genetic Code", to simple elements, on up to more complex things, and eventually to living & thinking things.

However, since I don't know the kernel code, I can't predict where this evolutionary process is going. But that doesn't stop me from speculating. Anyway, I'm somewhat optimistic about the "destiny" of the universe. So I could agree with your friend, that in the words of the poem Desiderata :

And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
___ Max Ehrmann © 1927

Bottom-up Creation : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. — Gnomon
This is still a Mind as being First, aka 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Most scientists ignore the clear signs of Intention in the evolution of our world. For example, "Natural Selection" was the analogy used by Darwin to describe the process of weeding out un-favored stock from those that met the requirements of the breeder's intention. Unfortunately, before we learned about genetics, selective breeding often had unintended consequences. So, we might wonder if Natural "breeding" also results in occasional monstrocities. But, that should never happen with a biblical God in charge.

In any case, if sheep breeders intend to produce sheep with thicker or finer wool, and pigeon breeders intend to produce certain homing traits or color patterns, then I must infer that evolution was programmed to produce creatures with special characteristics. There seems to be some mysterious intention behind its "selection" of hardy breeds from among the weak & monstrous results of random mutations. Randomness alone is aimless; but AI computers also use random heuristic searches to find forms that meet the intended criteria specified by the programmer.

So yes, that notion does sound a lot like a god-like breeder, with the intention of producing intelligent creatures from raw matter. Ironically, some of those imaginative creatures have learned to create artificial intelligences, that could turn-out to be Frankenstein monsters. :joke:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Randomness alone is aimless; but AI computers also use random heuristic searches to find forms that meet the intended criteria specified by the programmer. — Gnomon

Years ago I read a theory of how seeds have taught people to be farmers.
as they carried grain back to camp it spilled and sprouted along the trail
as it sprouted they moved the trail and created rows watered by spilled water from the nearest source.
Perhaps artificial intelligence is the seed,
Or the tail wagging the dog

Instead of Quantum Mechanics, let's use the term Emergent Properties. Quantum Mechanics defines the existence of elementary particles by defining these small objects as fields. Emergent Properties simply states we don't understand the properties of the underlying cause and just give the underlying cause a placeholder name. Until some future date when we can define the underlying cause at the level of the so-called elementary particles we are stuck with inventing terms to define these emergent properties. We are actually looking for properties that are, as yet, undetectable.

It may be a cop out, but I think the idea of "things-in-themselves" are interesting , which could be explored in relation to such themes. Of course, it goes way beyond my level of comprehension and capabilities, but the topic of the grounds of things almost always leads to something more basic. Last I heard, we are now at the level of quantum fields.

Then we have competing theories like string theory, which I've heard is mathematically elastic and can describe almost any universe, or there is also the option of loop quantum gravity. Either way, the grounds of these things, could be the thing in itself, whose nature escapes our capacity to understand it. But, again, this is an easy way out for many problems, but this doesn't prevent it from being an option to consider.