Of course there are flaws in my use of words and perhaps in my understanding of physics as well, but that is irrellevant to the validity of my belief.
If physics isn't relevant to your beliefs, in that it doesn't matter if your beliefs conflict with physics, then of course it is true that your understanding of physics cannot be relevant to the validity of your belief.
That is simply an issue with the way I portray it
As far as linguistic constructions are concerned, then it is merely a matter of (as you say) your portrayal (or your expression) and is irrelevant to the validity of your belief. If your belief holds certain things to be true of physics that are not in fact true, then this is relevant.
You thus far haven't pointed out anything specifically wrong with my belief
It is my opinion and my belief that consciousness is that very same animating force that causes energy forms to have chemical reactions to begin with
To the extent this your belief, and that you believe that things can be "composed of energy" or that quantum fluctuations are akin to animation (i.e., the dynamics/mechanics/activities of animate entities), then you have stated things that are factually incorrect. Energy is a property of systems:
The equation isn't really E= mc^2. It's
. The subscript (the naught in E-naught) is because this is only true even in theory for a particle at rest (it's rest energy). For photons and other massless particles, it's E=pc or energy equals momentum times the speed of light. On the other hand, for kinetic energy the equation is
. In general, neither equation relating mass and energy holds true. The required equation for the total energy of a particle is E=
. That bottom part is usually expressed by the Greek letter gamma (just take out the mc^2 and keep the denominator as a denominator only written under the numerator 1). A simpler equation is E= mc^2 + pc.
The point is that the equation doesn't define energy as mass. It tells you that some physical system with x amount of energy travelling at y speed must have z mass, or that a physical system with z mass and x energy must be going at y speed, or that a physical system with z mass going at y speed must have x energy. These are all properties of physical systems in relativistic physics, but they do not define energy, mass, or speed. These are defined already as properties of physical systems (including those which aren't intuitively physical such as massless particles).
All physicists (or so it would seem)...especially those who work in the quantum field, know for a fact that there is something still missing from their equations.
Let's say someone stole my wallet. I report the crime and the police officer asks how much money, in bills, I had in my wallet. I tell her (truthfully) that I do not know.
The fact that I do not know how many bills were in my wallet does not prevent me from knowing that I didn't have 50 billion dollars in bills in my wallet.
The fact that there are things we do not understand in physics (or the sciences in general) does not therefore make anything possible. If you cannot precisely understand what it is we are not certain of (as well as why, what we can understand, what we can understand about what we are uncertain of, etc.), then you cannot infer from this anything that you can accurately say follows from this uncertainty.
They don't want to call it energy because they can not as of yet measure it.
Of course they can measure it. And they do call "energy" exactly that: energy.
They (being most quantum physicists) don't want to call it "consciousness" either for fear of ridicule or sounding unscientific
It's because the definitions of consciousness don't apply. If you think that the same scientists who posit infinitely many universes always being created in infinite numbers are afraid to call quantum systems conscious because it would sound unscientific, then you haven't sufficiently read up on the scientific literature in cosmology and theoretical physics.
but there is indeed something there, some type of animating force (non-supernatural IMO) that powers/drives everything that exists, even energy itself.
Apart from the assertion that "as things happen/move/are not static", what does "animating force" mean?
Even
Max Planck alluded to such a thing with these famous quotes....
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter"
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
You can try to refute my beliefs all you want, but you would not be simply going against me, you would be going against the personally held views of a lot of truly great physicists in the field of quantum mechanics.
So you see I DO care how my beliefs are percieved or accepted, I just don't care what YOU think because what YOU think has no basis on whether or not my belief has any merit. What YOU think is irrelevant because you are not at the same level of undertanding of quantum mechanics as Max Planck, or Nick Herbert, or Amit Goswami to name a few...
---[/QUOTE]
