romansh

Energy = mass x length (squared) / time (squared). ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

I am not arguing here ... being saying that all along

It is as good as any. Science describes reality. We can debate how accurately. And ... we get better descriptions so what? I never said science give us knowledge in the sense of absolute certainty. For example the fact that our GPS works is because time is not what it seems. And the relativity that our GPS calculations are based is likely wrong. Ultimately science does not sift out the truth. It sifts out what is not true, Personally I go with cause and effect ... but I also understand with our relativistic and quantum phenomena, it is not as simple as that. Having said that it does not help your arguments one iota. Now if you can have a go at answering my questions please.

What are your beliefs based on Thormas?

Perhaps my question to Joseph needed more detail ... For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? His reply was: For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen. This to me implies a separateness, and here I can't agree with Joseph if indeed this is what he means. Now when I consider myself or "I", I draw a very useful boundary around myself. But this boundary is flexible and arbitrary. Imagine an average carbon atom ... through the magic of photosynthesis it is plucked out of the air, converted into glucose and then converted into nutrition. Occasionally through an intermediary ... quite often lamb in my case. That carbon atoms briefly becomes "me". It took a whole universe to make that carbon atom and the pattern it fits into. Now I am describing all this dualistic terms. It is very easy to fall into the trap of separateness. Eventually that carbon atom goes back to the air. The Great Circle of Life. Whatever it is - reality - universe. We have a limited array of tools to assess the universe. But science is expanding our array. Are energy and reality the same as being universe? Strange question. Energy is a descriptor of reality. Not the only one. Force, power, tension are also descriptors. There are many more ... they are called words. What? I am not sure what time is ... I have a perception of sequential cause and effect. But something travelling at [approaching] the speed of light will be affected by time differently than me that is at an arbitrary rest. If Joseph is right this universe has come into existence whole (and there is no cause and effect) then your question makes no sense. I do live my life as time exists but I certainly don't think it is at it seems. The universe is in the now, wherever that now might be. Really? If we truly believe we are separate and all the evidence is against it, then how should you describe our belief in separateness? If I had an opinion and someone described it as deluded, I would weigh and debate the evidence and come to a conclusion. But I still maybe deluded regarding my opinion.

To be clear - ground of being, for me is the universe or whatever it is actually. For me the substrate and universe are one. If as I understood Joseph to imply the substrate is some separate then I don't agree. Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion. Scholars like Joseph Campbell have described "eternal" as now.

Who's the odd man out?

Time being an illusion does not say anything about substrate or the eternal. I don't understand your "then". We function regardless whether we recognize that time is an illusion or not.

If we apply any sort logic to this statement we can only come up with the conclusion is unjustified. This energy argument is akin to New Agers and the ilk talking of vibrations. Again remember you are talking to an agnostic here. If I were writing this sentence it would go something like ... We don't actually know anything, but science gives us more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks. Alternatively we just fall for the memes that abound.

This begs the question of time being what it seems.

That is not what it seems either. This as far as we can tell, personal opinion is a product "memes" and the ability for "chemistry" to replicate them. And yet energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) ... which is the real substrate energy or mass/distance/time?

Yes mass is an illusion. I personally do think mass can be thought of as having physical properties. In my interpretation energy flow is from concentrated to dilute ... bit of a metaphor. General relativity ... is one example. I am not sure we can ever be sure. Evolution and evolution is a description. let me quote Hawking and Mlodinow one time. I am not sure I but into this interpretation though: Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.

I could go with that. For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one? Is being existence?

They are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality. an afterthought If we wish to think of energy as sustaining all ... it is the energy differences that appears sustain change; if we assume time as real but illusionary. If we take something akin to Joseph's view then we have to have a completely different view in that time and energy are simply constructs. We simply flip from one reality to another and we don't have to worry about time and energy.

Breitbart? Interesting ... what does he say about the acidification of the oceans?

Yet all the constituent parts of this hopefully happy event are not as they seem. Does not seem like that the baby has been plucked out of the air, water and soil and fueled by the sun. Seem too amazing!

note energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) this is sort of the point of Burl's pun. So when what do we mean when we might say "all is energy"? Brian Greene (if I remember correctly) in one of his books wrote something like ... everything is travelling at the speed of light but the vectors are different.

Illusion: something is not as it seems. delusion: believing something is as it seems when it is not. Should there be any future confusion as to how I use these words. Ground of being anyone ... seems to come up fairly frequently?

So you don't have a book that argues that reality is really as we perceive it? Incidentally - it is The Experience of God - must have made a real impression on you ? https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/david-bentley-hart-on-god/ A wag in the comments section wrote

That is an interesting meme that lets just about anything in.

So when a wife has faith (against all precedents) that her abusive husband will stop beating her, it is 'giving of self' in response to the self-revealing (self-giving) of God/Being. If something can't be studied it just might not be there. Well that is handy for the memes that infect us.

Oh dear ... please choose a book that you think represents that our perceptions are not an illusory reflection of reality. Preferably on your bookshelf. And I will go through it on this forum.

A few days ago I was wondering how would Trump fit here? To be fair I do not know the inner workings of Trump's mind, but I can only think his actions are some sort of reflection of his thoughts. Point 1: Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life; Far from convinced. Point 2: Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey; I don't see 'wisdom' in his actions, regardless from what well he has drawn from. Point 3: Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, ... Oh dear. Point 4: Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe; I sincerely hope not. Point 5: Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes; This is my problem, but I see little grace in Trump. Point 6: Strive for peace and justice among all people; ???? Point 7: Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth; Pruitt. Point 8: Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love. Selfless love?

Lets do a book review of one that you particularly like Thormas. One that talks about reality and our perception of it. And one more time I will settle for some corroborative evidence for the beliefs we hold.

So in short we are at an impasse. I agree models are likely not "right" on either side. But end of the day CO2 is increasing, as is the acidification of the oceans. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-15/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxN_XBRCFARIsAIufy1YsVWj0yRLvQ151NXlXNoiSHkDWwPl6wbpWiJKp-ZgpHnlTZxQB_BMaAu-9EALw_wcB No one doubts that CO2 is contributing to the warming we are seeing. Not even the most hardened intelligent skeptic. The are questions about is it warming as much as we (some of us) think? It is warming, and what is the cause of this warming ... saying it is part of some natural cycle is true ... in that human activities are completely natural.