This PRIMARY Field serves as a theatre for the multi-verse to exist in. When a universe pops into existence.. it borrows its energy from the Primary Field... and then the energy gradually returns back to dormant energy... by means of entropy. . over trillions of years..

Most of the Primary Field consists of energy in a dormant.. (or potential)... state..

In fact... EVERYTHING is ENERGY... Energy is an absolute.... NON EXISTENCE IS A FICTION.. It does not exist)... Energy is either active.. or dormant... meaning everything is something...

However.. physics cannot detect dormant energy... and therefore labels it - NON EXISTENT. Nevertheless.. it would seem... EVERYTHING that exists is simply an activity in the Primary Field... INCLUDING OUR OWN CONSCIOUSNESS ...

Physics is the science that detects and describes this activity.

The energy flows like an ocean .. because MOTION is fundamental.. AND FROM THIS FLOW.. WE GET the ENERGY... that we detect as FIELD ACTIVITY (particles and waves.. etc)........ All the fields and activities... in physics are diversifications of this single Primary Field...

Material things have a beginning and an end.. but the Primary Field has no beginning.. and no end... because it is not subject to space- time.. yet it exists both outside.. and inside.. space-time....... Space time is the fabric of the universe.. beyond it is NON-EXISTENCE - (OR DORMANT ENERGY)

This idea is not new.. it is ancient.... It has historically been represented by religious symbols like - GOD - TAO... ATMAN.. BRAHMAN... etc.. When we need to think in terms of - The WHOLE BEING GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS.....

In science EVERYTHING that exists can be summed by a concept of a single Primary Field.... meaning... an Infinite amount of energy.. expressing itself in the form of a process... having an Infinite diversity... that neither has a beginning or an end... At least.. this concept is consistent with existing ideas in today's physics..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Bohm said... concerning entanglement...."The ordinary world view is one which we could call - mechanism - in which the world is made of separate entities.. such as particles.. which.. when they are far apart.. they do not greatly effect each other. Then.. they interact strongly when they are close together. Now.. if they do effect each other far apart.. you can always explain it by a field.. such as light.. which would carry the effect through space.

In this case.. we have a connection between these particles that is not carried by any such field.. and which may go over long distances. (NOTE - I disagree with Bohm.. there is a field.. but in existing physics this Primary Field concept is still missing from the big picture)

Now.. this suggests that the world is not made of separate elements.. but rather.. if you follow it through.. that the world is one whole.. one unbroken whole.. that it is possible to have all these things connected together over very long distances into a whole.. which is not analysable into parts. Both quantum mechanics and relativity suggest that the world is not made of separate elements.. but it is unbroken whole and flowing movement.

The image of that would be flowing water.. If you had vortexes in this water.. each vortex may be thought of as separate.. but in reality they merge together.. there is never any separation. Now.. that is one image.. but this experimental aspect deals with a still more fundamental wholeness.. in the sense that things that are far apart are still related.. deeply.. or may be related deeply.. in a way which is quiet foreign to classical or mechanistic concepts."

do a rock has the capacity to have that?

if all your statements above is true, then, perhaps, you can have an experiment on this. this is one phase why all scientists agree on how to accept the theory into facts. your statements is just qualified as 'make believe' story.. and many like you are deceived by it.

a 'conscious' person can create something that is useful for him, an 'unconscious' rock can not. it just sit there on a corner. have you ever ask yourself how a rock becomes alive? pls be true to yourself.

scientists like wickramasenghe proposed that an intelligent 'alien' deposited a primeval organism into the earth. why he proposed it? because he knew that only intelligent being is able to do that! and because he hated the word 'God" or 'Creator', he just named it 'alien'...

even if this 'alien' seeded the first single cell organism, what is the chance or probability that it will survive on its own? just be open-minded.

even a conscious human baby or a chimpanzee can't create a perfect straight line or a circle, let alone 'unconscious' entities! it pays to have more logic than nothing!

so how's 'nothing' can create a life?

Well, neil, it is okay if we have open questions. Besides, it is entirely possible that God only created the first single cell organisms and let evolution do the rest.

Naw, we've done it multiple times. You just close your ears and start talking about "pops."

or example: they will, without exception, accept the philosophical assertion that nature can ultimately explain everything we know of, even if at this point in time we do not have explanations for all there is. It is a position based entirely upon faith, for there is no logical, scientific, or philosophical argument that has, or even can, establish this position.

There is an inductive argument for science explaining most of nature (it can't directly explain things humans create and new knowledge like engineering and political science). 500 years ago science could explain very little. Now it explains so much more it is hard to compare. Pushing into the future one would expect science to explain much more, though hitting increasing diminishing returns. Of course, it's possible that some things don't actually have an intelligible explanation (like the precise behavior of chaotic systems), but one can never be certain that there is none because someone in the future might be able to explain it (like the hard problem of conscience). Some things, like the latter, do look a bit hopeless right now.

Here is a recent case of a decent explanation of something that looked like it might be impossible to explain, the success of neural networks:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602344/the-extraordinary-link-between-deep-neural-networks-and-the-nature-of-the-universe/

The general idea may be related to how brains model and make sense of the world around them, as neural nets are inspired by the workings of actual neurons.

Just fyi I'm open to certain aspects of theism, but am quite against any form of dualism. If God is existence itself, than nothing can exist apart from God. Otherwise you would be saying something exists independent of existence itself. Baruch Spinoza made some impressive proofs of this a very long time ago, and philosophers today are keenly aware of the lack of any theory of how two completely different substances would interact. Instead of saying God doesn't exist, it becomes God is the only substance that exists. Classical theism has been very popular for a long time for a reason, so it doesn't make sense to dismiss it lightly, in my mind.

just
answer me straight, what is the distinction between a non-living things and
living things?

I already did. I'll repeat it for you:

"what we view as life involves having the right organization of energy, matter, and information needed to animate material. This means that life can develop incrementally from non-living stuff,
just in the same way that a living being can become inert dead material
that decays back into the environment when it no longer is able to
sustain life. Sustaining life in this view does not include possessing a
soul or a life force, but rather having the right organization and
conditions to maintain metabolism and the functioning of the nervous,
immune, circulatory, endocrine systems etc."

Maybe you can explain the difference between a living person, a dead person, a sleeping person, a person knocked unconscious via head trauma, a person in a coma, a person with amnesia, and a person under the influence of a chemical general anesthetic. Just give me a straight answer: why are some of these conscious and others not, and what are the essential differences?