Yes. The immaterial can’t exchange energy with the material unless they speak each other’s language, but if they can, then there is no distinct category of immaterial at play in the first place. — PoeticUniverse
We can own the idea or concept even if we don't own the manifestation of said concept. This is what philosophers do. Questioning why someone would own, discuss, and argue for a concept they see manifest in the real world could be easily turned into a question of why you might be on a philosophy forum. There is some emotional element to many of your posts, untangling them from the logic requires a bit of work. — Derrick Huestis
(yes, I know you hate the word infinite). I argue that power to create is greater than power to destroy, and destruction ultimately takes away power the more it is enacted thus it wouldn't be a principle of omnipotence. In this way, the Christian notion that we are eternal makes sense, regardless if good or bad (aimed at destruction). — Derrick Huestis
I am not sure if randomly promoting the quantum fields to the Fundamental Existence has any meaning when the OP has been trying to prove God. — Corvus
Non-existence can't exist
-so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time
-something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time
-things are separated by things which are not of the same type, so the only thing that could separate existence itself would be nonexistence which cannot exist, thus there must be one undivided existence
-this undivided existence must carry all the attributes labeled above. These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent.
-add to this the fact that it must encompass all time: eternal, and you get all the labels attributed to God
-thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint. — "Derrick
The suggestion was to define the nature of your God in its substance. Is it physical, spiritual or conceptual? Or non physical something like space? I am not sure what exchanging energies mean. Could you please elaborate on that, if relevant. Thanks. — Corvus
Not "randomly" promoting.
Quantum Field Theory is the most successful, accurate, and important Theory in the history of science, giving us the Standard Model and a myriad of devices that work.
The quantum fields accord with Derrick’s points in his OP, and further inform us in physical actuality of labels and associations that have been also used for ‘God’. — PoeticUniverse
Since the quantum fields are already fundamental, the hypothesis for ‘God’ would want to attend to that. — PoeticUniverse
"Exchanging energies" means to be able to interact with the material. If something 'mysterious' is inert or of a distinct and separate category, then it's as if it isn't even there. If not, then it's material, too, since it can interact.
So, no 'intangible', 'non-physical', etc., affecting us and we back. 'Supernatural' would thus seem to be out and not there, or if it is then never the twain shall meet.
There's no 'space' as nonphysical. The quantum fields exhaust reality. "All is field", as Einstein claimed. There is also no space as something separate from the fields that is just there to hold the fields. — PoeticUniverse
science said — Corvus
Do you have any real life examples for these events? — Corvus
Quantum fields are such, as fundamental, with no deeper parts, and omnipresent, as everywhere, with all the omnipotence they can have, as power to form the elementary particles, and omniscient, in the way of what all can become from it.
An example of what is not fundamental would be such as a proton, for it has quark constituents that have to be prior. What is fundamental, then, is of an even more lightness of being, such as fields.
No one knows if there is 'God' or what its nature would be if there is 'God', such as Personhood. — PoeticUniverse
The closest I can think of that is of our real life is Descartes' declared separate and distinct categories of the mental and the physical. This fell apart because then the mental and the physical would not be able to interact. — PoeticUniverse
It sounds too imaginative and naive judgement to conclude that quantum field is God for all the reasons listed up there. — Corvus
no one really takes seriously his theory of the immaterial substance soul these days. — Corvus
We apparently don't have all the Omnis to the extent wished for in a 'Person God with Mind' — PoeticUniverse
Well, QFT doesn't prove 'God' as a Person with Mind but rather replaces and gets rids of that type of 'God' idea to leave us with just a Ground of Determination (G.O.D.) type basis. Even the Deity 'God' becomes unnecessary as redundant.
QFT needs to be expanded to include quantum gravity and dark matter (unless neutrinos are already it) and then it will become the Complete Theory of Everything rather than very nearly. — PoeticUniverse
Well, many religious 'God' followers believe in the 'immaterial soul' and the rest of the 'supernatural' in the way of having hopes and wishes. It's a whole nother story of why they want it. — PoeticUniverse
But it is one thing to own the blank concepts, and totally different thing altogether actually to draw some imaginative conclusions from them when there are no logical or tangible connections. — Corvus
It is not that I don't like "infinite", but I just cannot find anything which is infinite in the real world. :) — Corvus
God as a personal being who is believed to be caring and salvaging the world would be beneficial for the followers and believers for giving the possible psychological comforts in their daily lives and hope for the possible immortality after death. — Corvus
It is doubtful if quantum field as a replacement for God could serve any purpose at all. — Corvus
a few possible arguments in promotion of the idea of a mind:
1. I've presented the case for creativity… — Derrick Huestis
2. Consciousness as a higher-level of existence. — Derrick Huestis
In our universe, the lesser ever leads to the greater. — PoeticUniverse
You say I draw illogical conclusions without tearing apart any of my logic. You are quite the sophist, like I said you argue with emotion. — Derrick Huestis
Perhaps you forgot you were finite? Hence, we are forced to use our imagination which you so despise, yet even then we can't truly "find" infinite because our minds themselves are also finite. Based on your current arguments, I get the feeling you might be a flat earther because you've never seen the roundness of the Earth anywhere you've gone... — Derrick Huestis
It's doubtful that an Eternal Fundamental Existence with no beginning and thus no input could have any purpose. The only trait is that it cannot not be; that is the complete message: being is a must. — PoeticUniverse
All beings is contingent. They may exist now, but they might not exist tomorrow, or any moment. That is what existence means. — Corvus
Not exactly. The energy released by the sun is many times less then the energy of the big bang, but as that energy dissipates smaller creations can come to be, all the way down to us weak humans. Basically, we needed the energy of the universe to lessen to come into being. As power goes down, creativity rises. — Derrick Huestis
Glad you're still looking into the logic! There's no greater philosophical quest. — PoeticUniverse
But, who wrote the code? — Derrick Huestis
Perhaps a certain arrangement of atoms, yes, but the underlying matter, no, and the underlying space, also no. The sophist doesn't believe in an absolute truth, it is subjective, up to the individual. For this I criticize you. You keep making claims you uphold, but no supporting logic, and you don't directly attack the logic others present, but say "I do not see." There is a lot you can criticize in this way, you can go back to Descartes "I think therefore I am" and reject that we know about anything more than our mind. — Derrick Huestis
Ultimately, this discussion has many built in assumptions, and relies upon those to build up new ideas. One of those assumptions is that our process of scientific discovery is true. This also entails mathematics, physics, etc. To reject these fields of study is an argument for elsewhere, but yes, if you can undermine them as you seek to do you would undermine a portion of my argument. — Derrick Huestis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.