Could energy be “god” ?
Energy has to be the most enigmatic phenomenon in the universe.
Time cannot pass without the engine of energy, nor can matter be manifested and without time or matter there couldn’t be anything temporospatial- distances, speeds and dimensions between discrete objects. Space means nothing without content.
There isn’t a single point in the universe devoid of energy. The fabric of space itself has an intrinsic degree of energy though very small through which particles spontaneously manifest and cancel out.
Furthermore energy is all information and possible states of change and relativity, no information can be separate from itself as this would violate the speed of light. Everything is a truly connected continuum of energy in its many forms.
Energy can be a subject and an object. The conscious mind is a portion of energy in a state of awareness of itself, observing itself. Energy is all feeling, every thought, every line of music, every piece of art and all possible creativity/ imagination of itself and its potential to be.
It’s the creator of things and the created simultaneously.
Perhaps the most bewildering quality of energy is its indestructibility. It is invincible. All it does is change and transform but it never disappears nor did it every appear. Just as “potential”cannot be created or destroyed because it lies in a state of possibility which is not yet defined. You can’t create/destroy a state of “non-definition” just as you cannot cancel zero but you can cancel -1 + 1 (which is still zero).
Energy is omnipotent - all states of power to do work
It is omniscient - all content of information, data , change and knowledge. And it is omnipresent - everywhere is subject to energetic process.
There’s no need to call energy “god” per se, the term energy is sufficient but because it has demonstrated its capacity to be human, to be sentient and aware, I think it is permissible to anthropomorphise it as “god” to acknowledge the awareness and intrinsic capacity for intelligence that it has.
I just can’t think of any property that trumps energy when it comes to defining an all encompassing entity of existence.
Time cannot pass without the engine of energy, nor can matter be manifested and without time or matter there couldn’t be anything temporospatial- distances, speeds and dimensions between discrete objects. Space means nothing without content.
There isn’t a single point in the universe devoid of energy. The fabric of space itself has an intrinsic degree of energy though very small through which particles spontaneously manifest and cancel out.
Furthermore energy is all information and possible states of change and relativity, no information can be separate from itself as this would violate the speed of light. Everything is a truly connected continuum of energy in its many forms.
Energy can be a subject and an object. The conscious mind is a portion of energy in a state of awareness of itself, observing itself. Energy is all feeling, every thought, every line of music, every piece of art and all possible creativity/ imagination of itself and its potential to be.
It’s the creator of things and the created simultaneously.
Perhaps the most bewildering quality of energy is its indestructibility. It is invincible. All it does is change and transform but it never disappears nor did it every appear. Just as “potential”cannot be created or destroyed because it lies in a state of possibility which is not yet defined. You can’t create/destroy a state of “non-definition” just as you cannot cancel zero but you can cancel -1 + 1 (which is still zero).
Energy is omnipotent - all states of power to do work
It is omniscient - all content of information, data , change and knowledge. And it is omnipresent - everywhere is subject to energetic process.
There’s no need to call energy “god” per se, the term energy is sufficient but because it has demonstrated its capacity to be human, to be sentient and aware, I think it is permissible to anthropomorphise it as “god” to acknowledge the awareness and intrinsic capacity for intelligence that it has.
I just can’t think of any property that trumps energy when it comes to defining an all encompassing entity of existence.
Comments (62)
"The Creator God" - Who put his craft into reality, creating the machinations of existence and all it's functions.
"The Essence God" - Who is the fabric of reality. Anything that is in existence is a part of god.
Sometimes the distinction between the two is not quite clear. Sometimes the lines are blurred - but there really isn't any other options here.
Energy definitely fits the latter description. For the former one, I'd say energy still remains an essential tool for such a Creator God - sort of like the groundwork of existence that implies all rules of creation.
We see that energy works on itself though. It is self acting. Energy (be it radiation, a person, a force - lie gravity) takes energy (matter) and recombines it/ moulds it into something new (still energy).
Could this not fulfill Option one - the creator. If you think about it - if the only thing energy can do is change (it’s the only way it proves it’s existence - ie. to act or do something) and the singularity is a singular energetic state at the beginning of time. The only way a singularity can change is to create new phenomena from itself
Def: God - that to which one devotes one's life.
[quote=Bob Dylan, Dirge.]There are those who worship loneliness, I’m not one of them. In this age of fibreglass I’m searching for a gem. The crystal ball upon the wall hasn’t shown me nothing yet; I’ve paid the price of solitude, but at least I’m out of debt.[/quote]
Newton's 1st law
If God exists he must be energy.
Or the basic laws of science are null and void.
We need to ask if energy can exist without sensory recognition.
It can to known by reason that God doesn't exist so your "intuition" is just your imagination
Can you even imagine completely destroying an object?
I agree that God is Invisible to the brain. But the MIND is also Invisible to the brain. Truth is also Invisible to the Brain. And an "object" can be destroyed, it is Energy that is not destroyed. Peace
This is just physical law. What physical law does the soul follow, or God? Neither because they don't exist.
You don't have a single original of the Bible so everything you quote is contingent. You have no reason to hold it in regard even if you had all the original. It was just written by Jews a long time ago and you can't say for sure what it means
It can as well. As I said, the line between "Creator" and "Essence" are often blurred in that sense. Self-Creation is an essential theme for both of them. For "If God did not create itself, who created God?" The main difference really is whether "God" is interwoven with our universe or if God exists entirely separatately from us. Perhaps it would be clearer to define the possible versions of God as "internal" and "external".
Compare the Hindu concept of Brahman with the Abrahamitic concept of "God, the Father".
Brahman is literally everything. In Hinduism, One is Many and Many are One. The tiniest subatomic particle is as much god as the single individual human is god. As much god as the entire universe in it's whole is god. It's an undivisble unit. This would be an "internal God". Energy as the "thing" that binds and moves everything fits this quite well, I reckon.
The Abrahamitic version of god on the other hand comes across as a separate entity for the most part. Like a monarchical figure, it towers above all existence as a supreme being. He who rules from above. Such a Creator wouldn't require his creation to be a part of him - he could exist entirely seperate from our universe. This would be an "external God".
If you'd want to view these concepts in terms of energy, comparably:
1. Energy always existed in the universe (in the form of a singularity as you say). The process of the universe began when god gave shape to itself (creating a new phenomena as you say). This would be internal.
2. Energy did not always exist in the universe. However, there is "something beyond" the universe. Energy was put there by god, starting the process of our universe. This would be external.
:up: :100: excellent!
But paradoxically the quality of energy to “be the cause of all change” must itself be unchanging and constant. Like a law: For if energy no longer caused change/ exerted influence/ power (or if it’s character as a phenomenon was changed itself) it would no longer be energy.
That which changes all things must itself remain the same. It’s a bit of a mind bender. There’s some strange interplay here between passivity and activity in energy. Perhaps “space time” is the passive side of energy.... that fabric that is unchanging and fixed and through which we perceive change by contrast.
The reason I posit space time as standing in for this passive role is that energy cannot act without it. Yet it serves nothing more than to simply be the medium of energetic process. Time is the difference between the singularity - all things happening simultaneously, instantly and as one unit (as if nothing ever happened at all, pure potential/potency) and the long drawn out evolution of activity that we see as the dimensional universe playing out before us.
I understand it in two ways: you can dismantle a car and it is no longer the object “car”, for all intents and purposes the car is destroyed. It is now myriad pieces or car elements with the potential to be constructed into a car.
Can you destroy oxygen atoms on the other hand? I tus inherently more difficult. You can’t divide an oxygen atom. Cutting through gas doesn’t destroy it. However again through fusion or fission you can convert it into another element and then I guess it as the material phenomenon “oxygen” with all its physical and chemical properties has been destroyed.
If you consider the universe as an object with borders then no I don’t believe you can destroy it. Because by definition it still pertains to all processes internal to it.
And of course if you refer to everything as energy then truly it cannot be destroyed just converted to heat or light or sound or maybe a different form of matter.
An object is that which has a certain classical cohesion. Most things can be broken down into their substances but not everything. It's hard to define but not false to say true substances exist. A car is made of many substances. A pool of water is one substance but you can take a glass full of it and it is the same substantial thing. A substance can be destroyed, everyone knows fire can totally destroy something. Physicists take into account that energy remains when something is destroyed
Nice.
Photons are packets of energy. The energy in a photon is directly proportional to its frequency; E=hf. Given that, here's my question. When a photon travels large distances on a cosmic scale and red shifts, where does that energy the photon originally had go?
Not sure but I believe this refers to the Doppler effect. If the transmitter and or receiver of a frequency are not stationary relative to each other then the distance between wavelengths (frequency) will be altered by a factor of the new distance between reviver and transmitter.
In the case of space this translates to expansion. The space through which the frequency is travelling is stretching therefore the frequency appears to decrease - red shift. As for the energy of the photon I’m not sure if it has necessarily diminished
So you're not sure if E=hf?
Well I know a photon cannot lose energy unless it interacts with a particle. The amount of energy it has isn’t related to the distance it travels. It’s massless.
What I’m saying is I don’t think redshift (decrease in frequency) of a photon necessarily means the energy of the photon must be lost. It’s one way that this can occur. But the Hubble constant is based on the idea that the wavelength (distance) per unit time is increasing because the space that must be travelled through per unit time is expanding.
I think you're emphasizing the wrong thing. The significance of the photon traveling large distances on a cosmic scale is not that the distance is large per se, but rather that there is a red shift due to the expansion of space, as you note here:
Quoting Benj96
But now we get to this:
Quoting Benj96
Why not? What's wrong with this argument that the energy of the photon must be lost?: E=hf. h is a constant. f is going down. Therefore, E is going down.
Quoting Benj96
This just implies that the lost energy isn't going to particles that the photon interacts with. Okay. So where is it going?
Incidentally, the mainstream view of this is that energy conservation is not guaranteed on cosmic scales. One way to look at this is that conservation of energy isn't fundamental, but rather, is a consequence of a case of Noether's Theorem as it applies to time translation symmetry. Locally, time translation symmetry holds, and therefore conservation laws implied by it holds. Cosmically, it does not hold, and therefore conservation laws implied by it do not hold. All of this suggests that Noether's Theorem is more fundamental than COE; COE is simply a local consequence of it, and wrt this thread, well, whatever things you want it to suggest (I shall not speculate on the theology of Noether's Theorem, but, it seems you're hanging your hat on a few misconceptions of energy and COE).
Noether's (Nöther's) theorem merely speaks of the relation between symmetries and conservation laws. If a translation in time leaves the system unchanged (time translation symmetry) then energy is conserved. Likewise momentum is conserved if a system is symmetric wrt translation in space. Even conservation of charge because of an underlying symmetry.
"Why not? What's wrong with this argument that the energy of the photon must be lost?: E=hf. h is a constant. f is going down. Therefore, E is going down
The energy of a photon is not lost. In a frame that co-expands with the photon field, then there is conservation of energy. The energy loss is only apparent because the distances between the rishons in our galaxy don't expand along.
Quoting unenlightened
Re: (every) event horizon.
Yeah this is the line of thinking I was taking but I wasn’t able to articulate it as well as you
:up:
I like that idea even though it's kinda like raining on my parade, well, half-a-parade actually.
[quote=Some Guy]They had a name for it - phonophobia - and it was a nightmare. Even the slightest sounds gave me the jitters; loud noises and panic attacks. I decided to build a sound-proof room in my house which would serve as a sanctuary, a place to escape from the cacophony that was the world and so I did. I walked into the room with high expectations, closed the door - the silence was deafening![/quote]
That which you hate and run away from (death) is that which you love and run towards (God).
So one devotes their life to feath?
No. One devotes one's death to life. At birth we are old enough to die, delivered from the womb in free-fall towards that event horizon. Each breath, every heartbeat, is irretrievably one less breath and one less heartbeat to come – another grain of sand that falls in the hourglass. How do we seek to spend the time left to us? How do we make the most of today, this here and now? This devotion, I think, matters most.
Why ought we treat the state of being alive with such reverence? It stands to reason that this sort of I guess “favouritism” so to speak, lends itself to an inherent fear of death, a fear of the inevitable “coming in at second best” -being dead.
Many philosophies see an indifference or apathy towards death as a triumph, a liberation, for in the state of total lack of bias one is free from the burden of navigating their distaste surrounding ones obvious mortality.
Death is required, it is natural, it is price of emerging into awareness, and when suffering, death is even welcome, beckoned forth. You don’t suffer in death. It wasn’t painful to not yet exist nor will it be when we return to dust.
In my experience reflecting on death in this way is incredibly helpful. It is one of the most powerful transformations a living thing can undergo - to plummet from the heights of a life long construction of self identity into pure oblivion.
It doesn’t negate the beauty of living but simply frames it truthfully. It takes the pressure off one trying to “maximise” on every moment, to make every moment spent living worthwhile.
Because at the end of the day a lot of living is about doing very little, being insignificant, being unproductive, “wasting” time. But it’s only a waste if there is this compulsion based on the unequal weighting of the importance of life verses death.
I think it’s okay to live a life where you made very little impact. Because ultimately when all is said and done, no one, not even the greatest legends will be remembered. We will all be lost to time. It stops for no man.
Ah! Now its clear what you meant by the event horizon. I had no idea what you meant. Excuse my spelling. On phone. Isnt their a life after the event horizon?
:death: :flower:
The event horizon is the point of no return from beyond which no information can be received; that is, it's only ever approached but never reached alive.
I’m inclined to agree. When one steps back from daily life and really dives into the state of simply being and “knowing it”, to just exist as this strange phenomenon that has a sense of being... it’s quite undefinable. Language doesn’t muster to potency required to encapsulate it.
When I think of “god” I cannot conceive of something more powerful, more brilliant and clever, than being a “self”. The fact that the universe is capable of producing such a state just blows my mind. The fact that matter and energy can have its very own personal sense of agency - that to me is the most intelligent thing one can appreciate.
We all hit the jackpot with being manifested as sentient beings. But it only feels as such when one truly acknowledges that they are a system that collapses... and resumes a phase of non-being. The wonder is in the transformation, the contrast between inanimate and animate.
Good luck convincing antinatalists of that. :smirk:
Haha. Well diversity is the spice of life. I can understand their sentiments. But for me life is brief and death is long standing if you consider the ratio of living to dead matter in the universe. And if I know death is waiting for me, why not play around and have fun while one can hold the notion of these endeavours.
I’m not saying I prefer life per se, but “when in rome...” *shrug*
It depends on the hole. If its big enough you can easily fall in. You end up in a region where time stands still only according to distant observers. If you managed to get out (which is only possible by evaporation...) you would be young while the universe is old. Someone falling in 123567656 years from now you could actually meet.
When you reincarnate in a following big bang death takes 0 time.
Of course not. God created existence.
That depends on how you define existence. I am using to word to signify that which is; the eternal positive that is just there. In the beginning there is existence which is God. Existence becomes being, life.
Existence cannot be a property of something, even God. Assume X has the property 'existence'. Now ask; does X, as a distinct entity, exist? There are two answers-
1. X exists. If it does existence as a property of X is superfluous because X exists anyhow, whence X is existence.
2. X does not exist. It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, least of all the property of existence.
Therefore existence is not a property. Therefore existence is God. But existence has properties; star, planet, chair, tree...
Existence is God. If God and existence are separate things then God is not existence so how can God exist? If God exists God and existence are one thing. Existence becomes. It evolves into life and being which is more than existence. A rock exists, a bird has life and being.
A rock has life and being potentially in it. God merely created the stuff from which stones and birds are made. He was outside the world of being and existence. Not a part of it. They created the world in their image. Not their essence. If he did then we would be the same as God. But we are not the same as them. We are no gods.
We are new creations because we are properties of existence/God. Our essence is God, our being is created. This is what is meant by 'In Him we live and move and have our being'. We inherit our existence from God. God's existence and ours is the same thing. Everything that is shares God's existence. We become created beings. Suppose bronze is existence. Bronze can be formed in the shape of a bird. The bird is created, the bronze is.
We are no properties of existence. We are the stuff we are made of. And they created it.
Bronze is the stuff. It can be in the form of a bird but its non-living stuff. A real bird is made of the same stuff as the bird. But a bird experiences all the (magical, unexplainable) content of matter. The essence. Only god can explain the essence. We merely experience it.
Quoting Benj96
I agree. That's why I developed the philosophical notion of EnFormAction, to encompass the enigmatic properties of Energy, and the all-encompassing ubiquity of Information. But, when I reluctantly refer to the implicit Omnipotent Enformer behind EFA by name, I spell it G*D, to indicate that I'm not talking about any traditional religious notion of a humanoid deity. Instead, it's more like the "Prime Mover" of Aristotle, or the "Universal Substance" of Spinoza. :cool:
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
EnFormAction :
[i]* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enformationism :
[i]* As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
* As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
It doesnt indeed. But what's the Nature of mass/energy? You can view mass/energy as point-lke (or a Planck sized 4d sphere, like a circle on a tiny curved cilinder), but what is it. What,s that particle carrying besides charges?
Very interesting proposition. I too have considered a similar thread of thought in the past. The way I see it is with 2 assumptions:
Assumption one: energy must cause change. It is a fundamental property of energy.
Assumption 2: the “singularity” is a uniform/ homogenous origin state.
Logically then, the only possibility for a singularity is therefore to become “un-single” ie. internally “divide” into two or more properties. Because change cannot occur in a single state. What would it change into if it remains the same all the time? Change requires an A and a B.
How the singularity first changed is a bit difficult to determine for me. It’s a bit of a which came first: energy, time, space or matter?
Assuming that the singularity is some form of “proto- energy” or “potential to act” then one would imagine time and energy must begin simultaneously as one of the first “divisions” of this “prime mover/ universal substance”.
Very true. There wasn't a point-like singularity in the beginning though. There was a Planck-sized accumulation of quantum fields fluctuating (virtual particles, to make it popular scientific visible). This tiny ball (of which the accompanying real particles are 4dimensional spatial spheres wrapped up on a rolled up 5dimensional space) expands on a 4dimensional infinite space. The virtual particles (the field fluctuations) get real after expanding on this fixed space (which, in 2d, has the form of a cut-open torus with a Planck-sized mouth). The fluctuations accelerate away from each other, around the Planck-sized mouth) from each other to become real particles, or better, to become field excitations interacting by gauge field fluctuations.
In my metaphorical model of "The Singularity", which is basically a mathematical ellipsis . . . . meaning whatever happens beyond this point in incalculable and unknowable, it's the point-source of all that follows the Big Bang, including Space & Time.
However, in my Information-based thesis, I imagine the Singularity as a computer program, that occupies no space or time, but is only Potential, until someone hits Enter. Instead of a magnetic tape or disk, the Singularity is recorded on a "mathematical point". From that point forward, the program begins to calculate Actuality from Potentiality. And that potential may be your "proto-energy", which I label EnFormAction in my thesis.. "En-" stands for Energy (power) ; "-Form-" is mental & physical objects that are meaningful to a mind ; and "-Action" is Causation or Creation. So, EnFormAction is the power to create both physical (material objects) and metaphysical (mental or mathematical objects) Forms, things we can sense & think about. The bottom line is that the Big Bang created our on-going evolving world literally from Scratch. So, it is literally the First Cause. But where did the Information encoded in the Singularity come from? Who was the Programmer? That's where we begin to do some serious speculation about what's out there beyond Space & Time . . . . the Ellipsis. :smile:
Point :
In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in the space, and has no length, width, or thickness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)
from scratch :
from the very beginning, especially without utilizing or relying on any previous work for assistance.
____Oxford
[i]Ellipsis :
an intentional or unavoidable gap in information[/i]
Yes. Metaphorically, I think of the Singularity as an atom of Uranium undergoing fission. Unlike an atomic bomb though (the Big Bang), this ongoing division & distinction and aggregation & integration is not destructive, but constructive : building a world. It releases Energy, but in a prolonged self-controlled and self-organizing process. Hence, like a fertilized egg, it begins to divide from one into two, and thence into a multi-cellular organism. So, the key to such positive change is the act of Fertilization, which I liken to an input of teleological Information, as in programming a cybernetic system. That fertilizing "sperm" is what I call EnFormAction, the power to cause transformation and complexification. :nerd:
EnFormAction :
[i]the creative power to enform; to cause transformations from one form to another.
1. As the generic power of creation (Big Bang, Singularity), it turns eternal Potential into temporal Actual, it transforms Platonic Forms into physical Things.
2. As physical energy (Causation), it is the power to cause changes in material structure.
3. As condensed energy (Matter), it is light speed vibrations slowed down to more stable states.
4. As animating energy (elan vital, Chi), it is the power to cause complex matter to self-move.
5. As mental energy (Consciousness; knowing), it is the power to store & process incoming information as meaning relative to self.
6. As self-awareness (Self-consciousness; Will-Power), it is the power to make intentional changes to self and environment.
7. As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person (Chi, Spirit).[/i]
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary and "antidisciplinary" approach concerned with regulatory and purposive systems—their structures, constraints, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
The term cybernetic system has a clear quantitative definition. It is a system that dynamically matches acquired information to selected actions relative to a computational issue that defines the essential purpose of the system or machine. This notion requires that information and control be further quantified.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1477068?journalCode=apc
Neither the Judeo-Christian nor the Muslim God could be energy. A hypothetical God? Perhaps, but that would involve adding a new sense to the definition of the terms "god" and "God".
Accumulation from Where and When? The notion of a "tiny ball" sounds like ancient Atomism, except that it assumes the existence of highly compressed internal parts, that can be released, like an atom bomb, by a quantum fluctuation of ambient Space, which is presumably external and prior-to the existence of that ball. In that case, the Singularity "ball" has a prehistory and a position in infinite space-time. How did ambient multidimensional space get compressed into that sub-Planck-scale "point".
Does this imaginative scenario have empirical grounding? Was that "ball" a black hole (gravity well) remnant of a previous Universe, which emerged from the universe before that, in an infinite regress of "turtles all the way down"? Sounds like "space" is infinitely flexible, in both physical and mythical forms. :smile:
Singularity :
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense.
PS__Prishon say "what?".