YHAOS, You are asking some interesting questions. That does not mean there is always an answer for those questions.
When I state ""What if there is, in reality, one more thing?", I am referring to the Conservation OF Mass and Energy. That Law states there is only mass and Energy in the Universe.
Do you agree with that? Do you have any indication there is at least one more thing besides Mass or Energy?
Mass and Energy exist in Space/Time.
Without Time there is no movement.
With movement there must be Space to move in.
Mass is solid Energy.
Are you able to define Energy without a comparision, or without stating what it does. Just saying what it is.
In my humble opinion, using comparisons, with my small amount of insight into Energy I am aware there is something there we don't know how to measure, or test.
There is no need to go into all that here, but when one just deals with examining simple questions about life on this planet and in this Universe we immediately observe the untold beauty and complexity upon complexity in the smallest particle of anything. Our DNA is just made of Mass and Energy??? Then how is it that such a massive amount of Information is contained in those spirals.
I hope I am making myself clear.
I am not running from any questions. I am amazed how we can so easily leave out one major cause and then make Laws and Theories as if we know what we are talking about. Then within five years we can say , Wait a minute . We need to redesign our Theories and one of our Laws.
Here is what I do believe.
With God all things are possible.
With out God No thing.
It appears to me that what we call Science is very often an effort to explain "reality" with no mention of a Creator.
Just look at the inner ear of a child. That was no accident.
You see I have been using Mechanical objects for years. It is obvious to me that the inventors of many things have used the actions and abilities of the Human body to design there mechanical instruments.
Who designed the human body??? An Accident of mutation????
Really???
science does not address a "Creator" for two basic reasons:
1. a Creator of the sort described in the various religious traditions humans have espoused cannot be described, defined, or subjected to testing on an empirical basis - nor can any claims concerning this Creator's nature: These Creator entities are supposedly quite capable of doing what they do without necessarily leaving any discernable trace.
2. it appears that physical reality functions without *need* of a Creator. Barring direct evidence of divine interference, science goes with the *natural* evidence it has.
Divine Creation *might* be the "Really *REAL* Reality"[tm]
otoh
Divine Creation might be an ad-hoc airplane built around a basalt cube.
You do realize, don't you, that you've, in effect, thrown a beaker of mercury on the floor and have asked me to pick it up (the mercury, not the beaker)? How much I ultimately pick up may have a great deal to do with how much grief I want to bring down on my head. [grin]
It's true, I think, every entity must have a place to stand (and in which to act). In my view, both (to stand and to act) are the one and the same as to time and space, and 'to stand' or 'to act' is simply another way of saying 'to exist.' This is an understanding of universal proportions, so far as I can tell. It's scientific; it's legalistic; it's philosophical; it's practical. It is basic to much of what we discuss in this forum. Likewise, the oft mentioned Lisa Randall, and her discussions in the book, Warped Passages. But, it is no less basic to why the drafters of our constitution created a territory (DC) to serve as a federal seat of government. And why, incidently, they viewed serfdom to be a miserable sort of existence, and the ownership of property to be a right of such immense value.
For cryin'-out-loud, even the dead are ceded a place to stand.
Hence, my better understanding in some things leads to my interest in others where I understand little. Intuitive interest, if examined (pursued), leads to the discovery of reasons for the interest. Thus, my reference to the integration of understanding, as opposed to the narrowing of understanding (I think someone herein recently described this last as "knowing more and more about less and less", which, back in my salad days, was a popular observation hinting at a profound wisdom on the part of the observer).
If I'm asking some interesting questions, that's because I have precious little in the way of answers that are satisfying to me.
You ask me to define Energy, 'without a comparision, or without stating what it does.' I normally don't do definitions. But, it does depend on the context to a very great degree, of course. In matters scientific, I leave definitions to the Masters of the Universe. They are, after all, the learned experts of that discipline (science, not the universe). But, to answer your question directly; no, I can't define Energy within the confines you stipulate. Perhaps we will hear from a Master of the Universe who can so define Energy, or who will explain why we are such pathetic idiots to believe a definition so bounded is even reasonable.
But, I should like some definitions. For instance; what is 'randomness'? Unpredictability? Chance? Or, what? Whatever it is, I should like it to be the same tomorrow as it is today.
I understand you are not running from any questions, nor is there any need for you to run. There can be no separation between God and the truth He created. There can, however, be a considerable separation between truth and our feeble understanding (believer and unbeliever alike) of what it is:
“Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.”
And again,
“. . . no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge.”
. . . . . T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7
Augustine, as I recall, has expressed similar sentiments, but I don't have his observations immediately at hand.
Science, I think, is always an effort to explain 'reality' without reference to a Creator (even by scientists who, after some fashion or another, believe in a Creator), creating a kind of certainty which generates, in turn, a very comforting security.
No, it doesn't. What about charge?
Then how is it that such a massive amount of Information is contained in those spirals.
Not that much. Probably comparable to the US tax code.