Could energy be “god” ?

Benj96

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.

View Answer

180 Proof

Death is the only god.

Hermeticus

That really depends on your definition of god. Traditionally, in historic religions, there are two types of god.

"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.

Benj96

↪Hermeticus

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

unenlightened

That really depends on your definition of god. — Hermeticus

Def: God - that to which one devotes one's life.

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. — Bob Dylan, Dirge.

Rxspence

Energy can not be created or destroyed
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.

frank

1 Brother James

↪Benj96

There are several types of energy, not just physical energy. But your point, that Energy itself might be God... is correct, although this cannot be "proven" by intellectual or physical means. But it can be known by use of one's faculty of Intuition. Peace

Gregory

it can be known by use of one's faculty of Intuition. — 1 Brother James

It can to known by reason that God doesn't exist so your "intuition" is just your imagination

Gregory

Perhaps the most bewildering quality of energy is its indestructibility. It is invincible. — Benj96

Can you even imagine completely destroying an object?

1 Brother James

↪Gregory

"known by reason"? Let us separate Know with a capital "K", and know with a small case "k". To Know is to Know the Truth, which is quite rare. On the other hand, many people "think" they know the truth... but what they know is relative truth. And reason concluded by thinking is at best relative truth, since that is all the brain will ever Know. God is Neutral Spiritual Energy, which in the Bible is said to be a "void". Or an empty space, implying "nothing".
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

Gregory

And an "object" can be destroyed, it is Energy that is not destroyed. — 1 Brother James

This is just physical law. What physical law does the soul follow, or God? Neither because they don't exist.

Gregory

God is Neutral Spiritual Energy, which in the Bible is said to be a "void". — 1 Brother James

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

bert1

I don't think so. Energy is always working, no? But God spends eternity not doing anything.

Hermeticus

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 — Benj96

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.

Proximate1

↪unenlightened

Making an object [or whatever you choose] into 'God' might be squirming through the wrong rabbit hole. You run afoul of the paradigm of what is- an then inevitably- what is not, God. That's a bad place to go if your looking for ultimate meaning. As Lao Tzu said 'the 'God' that can be named is not the ultimate God . It's all in the definition- if God just becomes limitless possibility then count me in.

javi2541997

I don't think so. Energy is always working, no? But God spends eternity not doing anything. — bert1

:up: :100: excellent!

Benj96

↪Hermeticus

this is a really well rounded and fleshed out answer thank you! Definitely food for thought/ curiosity fuel.

Benj96

I don't think so. Energy is always working, no? But God spends eternity not doing anything. — bert1

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.

Benj96

↪Gregory

depends on when you define an object as not being that object anymore.

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.

Gregory

↪Benj96

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

Hanover

Def: God - that to which one devotes one's life. — unenlightened

Nice.

InPitzotl

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. — Benj96

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?

Benj96

When a photon travels large distances on a cosmic scale and red shifts, where does that energy the photon originally had go? — InPitzotl

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

InPitzotl

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 — Benj96

So you're not sure if E=hf?

Benj96

When a photon travels large distances on a cosmic scale and red shifts, where does that energy the photon originally had go? — InPitzotl

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.

InPitzotl

The amount of energy it has isn’t related to the distance it travels. — Benj96

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:

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. — Benj96

But now we get to this:

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. — 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.

Well I know a photon cannot lose energy unless it interacts with a particle. — 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).

Prishon

There is a lot I don't understand in your question I know God is a oerson who created the universe. There is matter in this universe (and in a parallel one therd is antimatter inly). This matter carries energy and can be transformed completeky in energy. The energy is then pure in that it is massless. All matter is endowed with some magical, non explainable stuff that resides inside of it. That is where consciousnous is based on. It can develop only in Natural way. In evolution. God resides outside of this universe and is probably not made out of the same matter as us. Energy is just a atate of matter. So maybe God or the gods are energy matter and magical too, if he made us in his image.

Benj96

↪InPitzotl

oh okay interesting I wasn’t aware of they I’ll look into Noether’s theorem and conservation of energy a bit deeper. Thanks :)

Prishon

Thanks — Benj96

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.

Prishon

must — InPitzotl

"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.

Could energy be “god” ?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions