If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[Ben Dhyan]

We can say consciousness is a form of energy converted into other forms of energy, but that would make some energy aware of itself and other some forms not aware.

Agree...but would add that awareness is relative...some energy you note that is aware of itself may in turn not be aware of energy exhibiting higher awareness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I agree we as humans interact with some just reacting, but in this case you interacted with the quote in a conscious way. Consciousness seems to be the energy or force that initiated our interaction or movement towards an idea that we can both agree upon or disagree. Consciousness seems to be the cause of this movement without moving itself. We can say consciousness is a form of energy converted into other forms of energy, but that would make some energy aware of itself and other some forms not aware.

It is our ability to interact which allows us to be conscious or aware of things, not the other way around. If you could not see, touch, taste, smell, or hear anything, how would you be conscious of something? It is the combination of several complex interactions which gives us this feeling of being conscious. We are not "conscious", we are interacting in a complex manner. Consciousness is neither a form of energy, nor is it a force. I consider it to be a complex form of interaction.

 

[idav]

Energy was related to matter long, long before Einstein. It was and remains unknown long after. For the historical conception of energy among physics see Energy, the Subtle Concept: The Discovery of Feynman's Blocks from Leibniz to Einstein. This work does something to explain how meaningless it is to say that energy is conserved or that energy is anything at all, as even the title itself is from a section from Feynman's lectures in which he notes that what we call "energy" is in reality nothing more than a mother's use of some basic interpretations to understand how her son's building blocks appear or disappear by e.g., accidently loosing them because a friend borrowed them. It is a mathematical notion, and the conservation of energy (which makes no sense in special relativity or quantum mechanics) consists of mathematical fixes.


Great. What's this "matter"? According to our most accepted interpretations of QM, the foundations of physics describe probabilities, not physical systems. According to the stand model of particle physics, theoretical physics, cosmology, etc., "matter" is an outdated notion from the 1700s that existed then only because of debates among a select few of Greek philosophers.

What all the universe came from was pretty much energy before it "became" matter during expansion. Everything is necessarily quantum and the cooling and slowing down doesn't change that everything is whatever the beginning of the universe was during its state of intense heat and gravity. So here is the question the other way. How is the everything in the universe not merely a different form of what existed prior to the elements?

 

[Sonofason]

WE did not (and this is assuming the standards big bang cosmology, which I do, actually, as I find cosmologies based upon aspects of physics that are currently untestable to be..., well, highly speculative (this includes most inflation cosmologies).

Time didn't exist apart from the big bang. The question is problematic because there is no "time" in the big bang cosmology that is distinct from "space". However, and perhaps more intuitively, what existed is space and time (or spacetime) and matter and energy.

Great point. In your equation, E=m (with the ellipses). Only even in the simplest version of Einstein's equivalence equation (E=mc^2), energy is not equal to mass.


Thanks! I look forward to your answer.

Are we suggesting that we can transform energy into pure mass? When was this done?

If we were to convert some specific energy into pure mass, I would assume that the mass no longer has energy. What is the state of mass that has absolutely no energy. What are the electrons doing, or do they cease to exist?

 

[idav]

Are we suggesting that we can transform energy into pure mass? When was this done?

If we were to convert some specific energy into pure mass, I would assume that the mass no longer has energy. What is the state of mass that has absolutely no energy. What are the electrons doing, or do they cease to exist?

Like a star becoming a black hole?

For mass energy is in the form of gravity. All the energy of a star becomes a dense mass of gravitational force.

 

[Sonofason]

Like a star becoming a black hole?

For mass energy is in the form of gravity. All the energy of a star becomes a dense mass of gravitational force.

There is no evidence available that shows that there is no energy in a black hole?

 

[idav]

There is no evidence available that shows that there is no energy in a black hole?

Hawkings radiation illuminates the subjects saying that black holes have a lifespan something like trillions of trillions of years. So there is something being discharged extremely slowly.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110612105138AA63nEw

 

[Sonofason]

Hawkings radiation illuminates the subjects saying that black holes have a lifespan something like trillions of trillions of years. So there is something being discharged extremely slowly.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110612105138AA63nEw

It seems that I am capable of identifying the lies told by atheists, without doing a lick of research.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It seems that I am capable of identifying the lies told by atheists, without doing a lick of research.

Sounds more like you are formulating your own imagined "lies" through your own misunderstanding. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to do a little research.

 

[Sonofason]

Sounds more like you are formulating your own imagined "lies" through your own misunderstanding. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to do a little research.

I do my research, but when I see a lie, I recognize it without doing research. If I were to research every lie told by an atheist, I would find that I was right, and they were indeed lying.

Let me clarify my position here:
I do not believe that every false statement by an atheist is a lie. Sometimes they themselves believe what they are saying, but are either misinformed, or have been deceived to believe what they believe. And when it comes to science, the false facts they attempt to pass off as truth are easily recognizable for me. Just like when they make false statements about what the Bible says. I know the Bible very well, and I understand it very well; so I easily recognize the false statements when I see them.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I do my research, but when I see a lie, I recognize it without doing research. If I were to research every lie told by an atheist, I would find that I was right, and they were indeed lying.

Let me clarify my position here:
I do not believe that every false statement by an atheist is a lie. Sometimes they themselves believe what they are saying, but are either misinformed, or have been deceived to believe what they believe. And when it comes to science, the false facts they attempt to pass off as truth are easily recognizable for me. Just like when they make false statements about what the Bible says. I know the Bible very well, and I understand it very well; so I easily recognize the false statements when I see them.

Please provide specifics. What false facts are you referring to?

 

[Sonofason]

Please provide specifics. What false facts are you referring to?

Atheist lies and/or mistruths about the Bible
Flat earth...not biblical
Earth created in six 24 hour days...not biblical
no evolution... not biblical
to name a few

Atheist lies and/or mistruths about science
Pangaea was a super-continent that occupied one side of the earth while oceans occupied the other...not true science.
tectonic plates drifting about the earth...not true science.
tectonic plate subduction...not true science.
to name a few

 

[Runewolf1973]

Atheist lies and/or mistruths about science
Pangaea was a super-continent that occupied one side of the earth while oceans occupied the other...not true science.
tectonic plates drifting about the earth...not true science.
tectonic plate subduction...not true science.
to name a few

The evidence says otherwise.

 

[Sonofason]

The evidence says otherwise.

No it doesn't. Show me the evidence you have. Pangea covered the entire planet. There were no oceans.
Show me your evidence. I'll show you some of mine.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No it doesn't. Show me the evidence you have. Pangea covered the entire planet. There were no oceans.
Show me your evidence. I'll show you some of mine.

Sure...

 

[Sonofason]

Sure...

Yes Adams doesn't have an answer for where the mass comes from, but I do. It comes from the sun. Energy and mass are essentially the same thing. Photons are particles bombarding the earth all the time. They accumulate and the earth grows. So, you're debunking video is debunked. This guy talks like an *** to mach the title of his video. A typical atheist

And by the way, when I am proven right, I will take the credit. Yeah, me, the creationist.

 

[Thief]

I've often heard people say that in some sense or another "everything" (whatever that is) is "energy". This confuses me, to put it bluntly. I often work with "energy" as it is "defined" (exists? described?) in modern physics, and this has not helped me understand the assertion that everything is energy. So if any members believe this and would be willing to describe what this belief means (or if any members are more knowledgeable about what this means than I) I would be grateful for an explanation as to what "everything is energy" means (e.g., what is the nature of this "energy"? why ought we to believe that everything is indeed a form of or made out of this "energy"? etc.). Thanks!

so in the beginning......
and substance took form......

I think God did it

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes Adams doesn't have an answer for where the mass comes from, but I do. It comes from the sun. Energy and mass are essentially the same thing. Photons are particles bombarding the earth all the time. They accumulate and the earth grows. So, you're debunking video is debunked. This guy talks like an *** to mach the title of his video. A typical atheist

And by the way, when I am proven right, I will take the credit. Yeah, me, the creationist.

Courtesy of NASA...btw, math doesn't lie.



"How much mass does the Earth gain from sunlight?

The luminosity of radiant energy is 4 x 10^33 ergs/sec. Since 1 gram is worth 9 x 10^20 ergs, sunlight equals 4 x 10^12 grams/second or 4.4 million metric tons of equivalent mass per second .This is radiated over a sphere equal to the radius of the earths orbit 147 million kilometers in radius or 2.7 x 10^27 square centimeters. The Earth's cross section is 1.3 x 10^18 square centimeters, so the ratio of the total mass per second, to that intercepted by the earth is 1.9 kilograms/sec. During the entire life of the sun...4.5 billion years, the earth has gained 2.7 x 10^17 kilograms, which is only 1/21 millionth of its mass. The problem is that the earth is in thermal equilibrium with the sun at this distance, which means that whatever energy or mass-equivalent it gains, it also looses by re-radiating this energy in the infrared spectrum. So, the net gain is only a small fraction of what it receives given that it is not a perfect black body."

 

[godnotgod]

I come from the school of thought that says Consciousness is the fundamental and matter/energy are derivatives of Consciousness. Probably the opposite of standard western thinking.

i see Consciousness as the only thing that answers the questions about the Big Bang, SpaceTime, Matter and Energy, because it does not exist in either Time or Space, and because it also addresses the issue of materialism in the sense that what we have been calling the 'material world' turns out to be not so 'material' after all, at least not according to Quantum Physics on the one hand, ie; 'all mass is virtual mass', and particularly Hinduism on the other, ie; 'maya'. So SpaceTime is merely conceptual by nature, and all material and energy forms are in reality purely manifestations of Pure Consciousness. It is non-dual Pure Consciousness that is always present, prior to the manifestation of all Universes, and during, just as the potential for light is present prior to the flipping of a light switch. And isn't Quantum Physics pointing to potential as the basis for this material world? The 'material world', ie 'maya', is not different than Pure Consciousness. IOW, it is Pure Consciousness that is 'playing' ITSELF as all the various 'parts' of the entire Universe, including you and I. And so, as the great Vedantic mystic has told us:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

One key to understanding this is the realization that the illusory quality of this 'material' world, though detectable with its 'facts' confirmed via analysis and logic, does not suddenly vanish as with most illusions upon detection. IOW, the illusion is on a higher plane than the ordinary illusion, and so requires a higher (ie; 'awakened') state of conscious awareness, one that is transcendent of perceptual reality, in order to detect the illusion. Because of conditioned awareness, we see the world as 'real'. The facade can only be pierced via an awakened consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see energy, or anything for that matter (ourselves included), as being aware or conscious. Energy and forms such as us humans are interactive. The more things interact, the more conscious they appear. Our brains interact in a very complex manner, thus we have this "feeling" of consciousness, but really all we are doing is interacting in various physical ways. When something occurs to the brain and it is damaged, that ability for the brain to interact in it's normal fashion is thereby altered and we end up "acting" differently. What also ties into this idea of mine is that not only are we not truly conscious, we are not truly living, nor do we ever truly die. As interactive forms, all we can ever do is change form . We never cease to exist or cease to interact with the universe in some way. Humans will never create a living robot or any kind of life for that matter because we ourselves are not truly alive. However, humans may one day create a robot with the ability to interact in such a complex manner that it replicates those characteristics we consider to be life. The reason why humans can't re-create life or consciouness?...because they don't actually exist, they are just words...labels. The Fundamental Forces...those interactions exist. Complexity exists.

There is only consciousness without an agent of consciousness. Show me the 'interactor' of the 'interaction'. 'Interaction' assumes the presence of 'things' that interact, but there are no such 'things' in reality. The human mind makes the gross error of seeing the Universe as a great 'thing', when in reality, it is an action, but even this 'action' is illusory. The only true Reality is That which does not change, and That is Pure Abstract Intelligence.

There is no such thing as a 'whirlpool'; there is only whirling water.

There is no such separate agent we call 'human' that 'interacts' with the Universe. We are none other than the Universe itself, just as the wave is inseparable from its source that is the vast ocean. There is no 'observer of the observation'. That idea is just a mental construct. The observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality, and this single Reality is, at its source, changeless, uncaused, unborn, unconditioned.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”

Kalu Rinpoche