Perhaps it doesn't really matter whether we call it energy or God ultimately. It may be a choice of language more than anything else. Some of the new physicists, such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies saw parallels between ideas in the new physics and the understanding of God, as depicted in the Tao. I would imagine that it is not a matter how we label it as such, but whether it makes a difference in whatever else we go on to believe as a result of choosing to speak of energy, or of God.

It is aware of itself. It observes. It is power, it is information and even the void is thermal - the seemingly nothingness of empty space has a certain level of energy intrinsic to it. . . . seems to be the ultimate agent. — Benj96

In my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, I do focus on the ubiquitous role of Energy as the active agency that is constantly enforming the world, as it evolves from a pin-point of Potential (Singularity) to the mind-boggling universe that human agents have discovered out there beyond our local habitat. I refer to that teleological Energy as EnFormAction. And, I do sometimes use the label "G*D" when referring to the logically necessary First Cause (the ultimate agent) of the evolutionary process. But I also use a variety of other descriptive terms in different contexts. For example, when discussing the information processing of our world, I refer to the presumed "Programmer", who encoded the natural laws that guide & moderate the explosive burst of Energy that brought our universe into existence. When discussing how order can arise, despite Energy's Achilles Heel of Entropy, I use the term "Enformy". In my blog, I attempt to answer many of the questions your raised in the OP. :nerd:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Mainländer tried to think of God in secular terms and essentially "thought" his way to a "simple union" or a "simple substance", don't now the correct word but it's very similar to the singularity. He did this before such a concept was discovered, still, it's quite surprising. Of course, one need not follow his idea of God committing suicide and the like, but at least in metaphysical speculation, it was a fruitful idea it seems to me.

As to your question, I'd have to ask why use these words differently? The problem with God talk tends to be the association of God with the good, the just, etc. Energy is a neutral term in that respect.

They serve different purposes though.

But speaking of it being subject and object can be a problem, we are both and we are also energy in some obscure manner. But energy itself need not be subjective.

Fundamental physics tells us energy is indestructible and that there is no single place in the universe where energy hasn’t got it’s fingernails dug in- it has a “finger in every pie” so to speak. It is every object that occupies the universe as well as all interactions between said objects. — Benj96

Darn good questions. My Youtube feed has lately been serving me up a lot of creationist-oriented critiques of science, so this subject is on my mind.

It turns out that there's quite a lot we don't know about the universe and its origins. We're told that the big bang came out of the original quantum field; that there was "nothing," defined by Laurence Krauss (author of A Universe from Nothing) as a quantum field devoid of time, space, matter, and energy. One day it all explodes into existence, and we can "do the math" and make the theory work. Critics note that the quantum field and the laws of physics are not "nothing," they're something; and all we've done is shove the question deeper. Where did the quantum field come from, where did the laws of physics come from?

It turns out also that we can't actually explain the origin of even so familiar a thing as the solar system. We're told the planets coalesced out of spinning gas, but the model doesn't actually work to explain the various planets and their anomalies.

Now the creationists say, "God did it." To me this is unsatisfactory. Even if God did do it. this doesn't explain anything. It just says we're giving up trying to understand, and just invoking a supernatural explanation.

But the new atheists are wrong too. They say, "Science proves there is no God," when in fact science proves no such thing. We have better and better explanations, but in the end all we have is mysteries.

So I object to both the new (and militant) atheists, Krauss and Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and all the rest of them. They don't know what dark matter is, they don't know how the world got started, they don't know how life got started. They have theories but only to a point, and often no proof. And none of their theories say God doesn't exist.

I object also to the scientific creationists, the people who say that since we have all these inexplicable scientific mysteries, that "God did it" is a logical conclusion. It's not. Especially because it's so often the God of the Christian Bible. These folks will outline a brilliant critique of the (borderline nonsensical) theory of eternal inflation, and then "answer" it with a quote from the Bible. As if the Buddhists and Zoroastrians have no say in the matter.

I suppose that makes me an agnostic, "one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine." That's my belief.

What I do oppose is scientism, the popular belief that science has already explained everything. Truth is it hasn't. We have far more questions than answers. Our own theories say that it's statistically far more likely that I'm a Boltzmann brain than that the universe exists. In fact there was recently a thread here in which @RogueAI linked a popular article on the measure problem in eternal inflation. From the Boltzmann brain article we find out:

One class of solutions to the Boltzmann brain problem makes use of differing approaches to the measure problem in cosmology: in infinite multiverse theories, the ratio of normal observers to Boltzmann brains depends on how infinite limits are taken. Measures might be chosen to avoid appreciable fractions of Boltzmann brains.[20][21][22] Unlike the single-universe case, one challenge in finding a global solution in eternal inflation is that all possible string landscapes must be summed over; in some measures, having even a small fraction of universes infested with Boltzmann brains causes the measure of the multiverse as a whole to be dominated by Boltzmann brains.

Our best cosmologists can only come up with absurdities to avoid believing "God did it." Yet "God did it" is useless as a scientific theory or an explanation of anything.

We simply don't know. Which is fine. What's not fine is so many "public intellectuals," in well-deserved quotes, going around telling the public that we do know. That's wrong intellectually and morally. It's wrong intellectually, because in fact we don't know; and it's wrong morally, because it leads the public to believe "science" has all the answers. And we've seen enough of that this past year to last a lifetime.

tl;dr: Up with science; down with scientism. Up with a healthy respect for the miracle of creation; down with the glibness of "God did it."

Our best cosmologists can only come up with absurdities to avoid believing "God did it." Yet "God did it" is useless as a scientific theory or an explanation of anything.

Why is "God did it" useless as an explanation? Doesn't it tell you why something happened? God did it!

Our best cosmologists can only come up with absurdities to avoid believing "God did it." Yet "God did it" is useless as a scientific theory or an explanation of anything. — fishfry

Yes. Although I am not religious, I would hope that scientists could come-up with something better than the Multiverse theory --- which doesn't attempt to answer the First Cause question, but simply assumes that "Energy & Laws" have always existed : a Forever Cause. That sounds like a generic description of the worldwide God-concept : the creative force and organizing principle of our world. So, I long-ago, gave-up trying to avoid the most common vernacular term for the philosophical "First Cause". In my personal thesis, I attempt to re-formulate traditional god-concepts (Logos ; Tao ; Brahma ; etc) in a way that could be useful as the philosophical foundation for a scientific Theory of Everything. :smile:

Why is "God did it" useless as an explanation? Doesn't it tell you why something happened? God did it! — RogueAI

It's not helpful as a scientific theory. It doesn't help us make predictions or develop deeper understanding. I'm probably not the best person to offer a detailed critique of the unsatisfactory nature of religious explanations. The new atheists (Krauss, Dawkins, Harris, et. al.) do a fine job of that. It's their excesses of scientism that I object to.

I wanted to mention to you that I did read that Quanta article and die a little web research. I convinced myself that we had yet another classic case of a speculative scientific idea, simplified and misconstrued by Wikipedia, and finally completely misrepresented by a pop-science writer who was not in a position to ask the right questions and substituted gee-whizzery for insight. I was going to write it all up but didn't. I wonder if I can challenge myself to say it in fewer than 3000 words (my first draft, which I abandoned). Bottom line is that eternal inflation is a highly speculative idea. The multiverse, if it even exists, is finite today, finite tomorrow, finite a billion years from now, and finite at every moment of time for all eternity That's something the Quanta author missed and that you have to dig into the literature to figure out. It's only when you assume that inflation is truly eternal -- that it lasts literally forever -- that you get infinite universes. The cosmologists perfectly well understand that, they just enjoy not making it explicit when they're impressing the public.

Secondly, the cosmologists perfectly well understand the point I made about asymptotic density, that we can in fact sensibly say that half the positive integers are even, by taking the limit of finite calculations as you go to infinity. What the article (and the measure problem in general) are about, is a description of the various approaches cosmologists take in calculating that limiting process. In that respect, the article is excellent. What's wrong is the gee-whiz attitude of the "mystery of doing statistics on infinity," which is actually a perfectly well understood process by mathematicians AND these cosmologists. It's really mostly the blurb at the top of the article that says, "Infinity does a number on statistics," that implies mystery where there is none. The article's not even about that. It's about how cosmologists try various approaches to calculating the infinite limits.

Hey that came out pretty well. I did actually write 3000 words last week in response to the article, then abandoned the project, and this morning it came out just fine in a couple of paragraphs. If there is one takeaway, it's that eternal inflation is literally that. They assume time goes on forever; and that at each moment there are finitely many new universes, so that over eternal time you get an infinite multiverse.

Sounds more like theology than science.

Fishfry, if we discovered for sure that God did something, wouldn't it become of paramount importance to figure out the nature of this god? And then try to communicate with it? Of course. The "god did it" explanation, if true, has profound implications.

Fishfry, if we discovered for sure that God did something, wouldn't it become of paramount importance to figure out the nature of this god? — RogueAI

Hasn't that been the basis of too many violent religious wars over the centuries? That's one of the New Atheist arguments against religion: that it's not just a benign and harmless set of beliefs, but that it's actively harmful. I mean sure, if we could confine the figuring out of the nature of God to academic journals that would be great, as long as we can leave the holy wars out of it.

And then try to communicate with it? — RogueAI

Like SETI but aimed at God? How would that work exactly? I'm ok with personal prayer, if that's what you mean.

Of course. Let me give you an example: suppose one night the stars move around to spell out: "god is displeased with you all". Wouldn't the "god did it" explanation then be a heavy favorite? And wouldn't it succeed in explaining the phenomena? — RogueAI

I'll reserve judgment till that happens. On the other hand one might be tempted to say that the evidence of God is all around us in the world. What more do we need?

I'm not sure if you're asking rhetorical questions or making a serious theological point.

I just see that you both come from different perspectives, and it is related to the wording of the question as 'Should..' I don't see the matter as being how we should see or 'focus', because that is being prescriptive.

I think you're conflating the difficulty of proving "god did it" with "god did it". Simulation theory and "god did it" are both very similar in that they're impossible to prove, but if true, have staggering implications.

I think you're conflating the difficulty of proving "god did it" with "god did it". Simulation theory and "god did it" are both very similar in that they're impossible to prove, but if true, have staggering implications. — RogueAI

Name one. If I'm a brain in a vat or God made me or the great programmer in the sky made me or I'm a Boltzmann brain, exactly what will I do differently today than I would have done before I found out? And how would I find out? They're all propositions without any hope of proof.

And all these explanations explain nothing. If God made the universe who or what made God? If we're designed, as in Intelligent Design, who designed the designer? If we're programs running in the cosmic computer, who programmed the programmers? In fact only the Boltzmann brain explanation actually explains anything. It's pure random statistical chance, actually far more likely than that the entire universe exists. But I say that NONE of the things you mention has the slightest implication whatsoever, let alone staggering ones.

I just see that you both come from different perspectives, and it is related to the wording of the question as 'Should..' I don't see the matter as being how we should see, because it is being prescriptive. — Jack Cummins

I think I personally use the term God the way Einstein did. Nature, or the cosmos, or the Great Everything and all its mysteries. Certainly not in any religious sense.

Name a staggering implication if theism is true? OK: God exists.

I don't think you're reading this right:
"Simulation theory and "god did it" are both very similar in that they're impossible to prove, but if true, have staggering implications."

If you knew for certain that god exists, that wouldn't change your life in any way?

It may be a choice of language more than anything else. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Every time I was inclined to say "everything" I found myself put off by the suffix "thing." It implies too much concrete. I looked for a word, like "universe", and found that too limiting because of the way some physicists interpret it. I didn't like the word "God" for obvious reasons. So, I settled on "All." And to distinguish "All" I felt compelled to define it as accounting for the absence of itself. I was inclined to say "included" the absence of itself, but I found that would subordinate the absence, as if it were not on par with, or was merely a part of All. So I chose "accounting for." Kind of like the distinction between pantheist and panentheist.

Long story short, I chose "All." I think it conveniently comports with the "A" which is often used as a shorthand in calculations. So, A = A and -A at the same time. That there is All as I see it. Everything else is simply individual, relative perspectives which are All perceiving itself. I wondered if it hadn't been around long enough to develop self awareness of it's All status, but I realized the answer did not matter because it is both yes and no and whatever else. Or not.

Sorry for the digression. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. Carry on.

If you knew for certain that god exists, that wouldn't change your life in any way? — RogueAI

Not in the slightest. I'm asking you to explain how it would make any difference in my life. Explain this so I can understand what you mean. I do think there's some kind of universal spirit, maybe an active intelligence of the universe. I don't discount the possibility. And I do have a humble reverence for the miracle of life and the universe and all that. But I don't alter my behavior in any way as a result of my beliefs.

So you're telling me Fish, that if you knew for certain that a god exists (and here I mean some powerful supernatural being capable of creating a universe like ours), you would have no follow-up questions? Really? You would just take it in stride?

How do you think the world and scientific community would react to definitive proof of theism? I think people would completely lose their shit. Because once you know some god exists, it becomes pretty important to find out what its plans are for you and whether you're in its good graces.

I am glad that you can see the yes and no, because it seems that many people seem to be all one or the other. Mind you, the two opposing viewpoints are probably united in seeing both of us as sitting on the fence, but as I see it is more like the psychology picture which can be a vase or two faces. It seems to be about choice of language and framing. However, I would imagine that both theists and atheists will think that I make light of their big distinction.

once you know some god exists, it becomes pretty important to find out what its plans are for you and whether you're in its good graces. — RogueAI

Not until you've got some reason to believe it has plans for you, that it has good graces, that you can do anything about either of those things, that you'd have any way of finding out what you should do, how you would trust that instruction to be correct in any other context than the one in which it was given. Notwithstanding the question of whether you'd change anyway, whether you're going to act differently because the creator of the universe told you to.

Sounds to me like doing the 'right' thing would be just as much of a crapshoot in a world with a proven God as it is in a world without one.

So you're telling me Fish, that if you knew for certain that a god exists (and here I mean some powerful supernatural being capable of creating a universe like ours), you would have no follow-up questions? Really? You would just take it in stride? — RogueAI

Yes. What else can I do? Can you please give me a specific example of how you think my life would change? I'm not a criminal nor a violent person. I don't have much about my life that I think is bad or ungodly in the sense of going against the purpose or will of the universal intelligence or spirit. I'm asking you (third time I think) to give me a specific example of what you are talking about. It doesn't have to apply to me in particular, just give me an example of what you are saying because I honestly have no idea. Watch fewer pro-football games? Have different political opinions? Eat fewer animals? Maybe that last one has something going for it. But then why did God make cheeseburgers taste so good? If it were up to me when I die I'd like to have them toss my body in a cow pasture to complete the cycle, but cows don't eat people. Next choice would be to toss my body, my whole body and not my ashes, into the ocean so the fish can eat me, as I've eaten so many fish in my life. But I feel this way right now, I don't need proof of God to feel that way. So tell me what you are talking about. Give me an example. Please.

How do you think the world and scientific community would react to definitive proof of theism? — RogueAI

I truly have no idea. I watch the world react to the latest doings of the British royal family or the butt sizes of the Kardashians so I don't have a very high regard for the opinions of the general public. And the scientists? What would they think? Who cares? They wouldn't stop doing science.

I really think you need to give me an example of how you think people would change because I don't know what you're talking about. Would we all go to church more? That's religion, not God. The biggest Holy Roller televangelists are always robbing the till and consorting with rent boys. I truly have no idea what you are getting at.

I think people would completely lose their shit. Because once you know some god exists, it becomes pretty important to find out what its plans are for you and whether you're in its good graces. — RogueAI

People lose their shit over everything and anything. What does "lose their shit" mean in this context? Tweet about it? Post a selfie? Do you pay any attention to the popular culture? People got worked up over Oprah's interview with Megan and Harry, so I guess for a few weeks they'd get similarly worked up over God, but nothing much would change. People are always "losing their shit" over one thing or another. News tease: "God proved to exist. News at 11." What would change? I genuinely disagree with you that anything would change long term. And I still challenge you to give me a specific example. "Lose their shit" is not a specific example.

Definitive proof of theism (of the kind of god I described) entails definitive proof of the supernatural. Supernatural inquiry would then become legitimate. There would be a crash effort to discover the nature of this god and attempt to communicate with it. Everything would be on the table: psi, mediumship, prayer, meditation, drugs, the wobble of the muon. It would become the number one problem in science, because any given scientific experiment done in a theistic universe begs the question: were the results accurate, or did the god do it?

I think we're talking past each other. No worries. — RogueAI

Yes but could you just tell me specifically how your day to day life would change?

That's weird. My response posted before your question. Maybe God did that.

I think we're talking past each other. No worries.

I agree. Every time I was inclined to say "everything" I found myself put off by the suffix "thing." It implies too much concrete. — James Riley

“Everyness”might serve better haha :p

It is aware of itself. — Benj96

That's the contentious one, and the one that either potentially justifies or rules out God-talk. Without consciousness, energy (or the quantum field or whatever) can't be called God or any other god-term that implies agency and will and consciousness etc.

“Everyness”might serve better haha :p — Benj96

That's a good one, but All is shorter and dovetails nicely with A, so . . . :wink:

I am glad that you can see the yes and no, because it seems that many people seem to be all one or the other. — Jack Cummins

People, especially logicians (but many religious folks too), are very uncomfortable with a violation of the fundamental principles of logic, as if we can no longer function without them. But I function fine living without a foundation, floating, wondering, and the possibility that I live on air. And contrary to the intuition of those more grounded than I, living in such state does not stop one from continuing to search. I can accept their rules for the sake of argument just as easily as they do, then move forward on that basis. But I think I remember, in the back of my mind, that I don't know it.

I am sure that my own perspective is one that may bother some people, but it is simply the way I see the matter at present. I am searching and I am hoping not to receive negative backlash for expressing an idea that goes against the two extremes of logical arguments which are usually expressed.

That is not to say that I don't wish to be challenged at all, but in a constructive way.Some of the discussions on this site can become very heated and I guess that is because they involve topics of such importance and meaning. But, I do believe that we should be able to express our views as they are. Anyway, I am reassured by your responses because it enabled me to feel less alone. I wonder if there are a fair amount of people using the site who are searching too.I also don't want people to think that I am just trying to be clever in trying to sidestep the logic of the question, because I am just trying to express my honest thoughts.

despite Energy's Achilles Heel of Entropy, — Gnomon

I find this interesting that you understand entropy to be energies Achilles heal. I actually believe it’s energies greatest feat.

“Rate” = energy/ time or “work done” divided by the “time taken to do it”. So if we see energies potency seemingly diminishing as entropy increases... and we know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.. then where is it going? I believe it’s not going anywhere but rather being transformed/ converted into time itself.

“Entropy” in this case is the “rate at which energy is converted into time” - it’s reciprocal.

I believe the creation of “matter” to be this process of conversion as matter and time dilation go hand in hand (see gravity).

What’s interesting however is that unlike energy matter does not disperse. It congregates. It is the form of energy that comes together (negative entropy) as time dilates. We know this because the greater the mass - the greater the time dilation (see black holes/ gravity).

So maybe this is the key to how the potential of energy is collected as entropy increases. Maybe matter balances the equation of entropy. Would this mean black holes would eventually lead back to the singularity that spawns the universe? Who knows, I haven’t thought into it.

I find this interesting that you understand entropy to be energies Achilles heal. I actually believe it’s energies greatest feat. . . ,
“Entropy” in this case is the “rate at which energy is converted into time” - it’s reciprocal.. . .
It is the form of energy that comes together (negative entropy) as time dilates. — Benj96

My characterization of Entropy as Energy's weak point, was not concerned with Time. Instead, it was based on their opposite "reciprocal" roles in Evolution. Basically, Energy is construed as Constructive while Entropy is Destructive. Figuratively, Entropy tears-down what Energy builds-up.

You are correct though, that Entropy is a measure of Time's Arrow. It's the rate at which our world is "going to hell in a handbasket", to borrow a phrase. Evolution began with maximum Energy & Order in the Singularity. But the original order was essentially crystaline, with no room for change, except as an explosion of Cosmic power --- which could have positive or negative results, depending on the degree of control : Atomic Bomb vs Atomic Energy. However, as evolution proceeded, that pent-up energy loosened-up enough to create organization : not just Matter, but also Life & Mind. Ironically, we may now be near the peak of evolution's creativity ; so from here on out, it's all downhill toward the frozen Hell of Heat Death --- which is maximum disorder and disorganization and dissolution.

That's why I referred to destructive Entropy as constructive Energy's Achillies Heel. But it's just a metaphor, because Energy is only constructive when circumstances (and natural laws) allow it : what I call Enformy. And Entropy can be a positive function of Change, as it removes the detritus of the past to make room for novelty in the future. That ecological notion may be the more positive "reciprocal" role for Entropy that you were referring to. :smile:


Entropy and disorder :
Entropy is sometimes referred to as a measure of the amount of "disorder" in a system. Lots of disorder = high entropy, while order = low entropy. And again, the more orderly states are the states with the lower entropy. ...
https://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/entropy/entropy7.html

Entropy (arrow of time) :
Entropy is one of the few quantities in the physical sciences that require a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

Heat death of the universe :
The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze) is a theory on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html