Cosmos Created Mind

180 Proof

It was not my idea to cast Energy in that fundamental role. It was that "weirdo" Albert Einstein. — Gnomon

Einstein's special relativity (SR) treats energy as the first component of a four component vector, called 'four momentum' (the other three are linear momentum). So, it is pretty weird to think that acording to Einstein energy is 'fundamental' when it is a component of a more comprehensive physical quantity if one takes seriously the theories for which he is most famous. — boundless

:up: :up:
.

Gnomon

I saw that quote as part of a larger quote attributed to Einstein that clearly doesn't seem to be genuine. — boundless

Yes, the "quote" is an attribution, and probably a paraphrase of several opinions in Einstein's writings*1. If it doesn't agree with your personal worldview, you can ignore it. I linked to the "quote" to illustrate my own understanding of the role of Energy in the world. Specifically, that everything you see & touch, and interpret as Real is made of invisible intangible Energy*2. :smile:

PS___ Years ago, without knowledge of that specific quote, my Enformationism thesis concluded that Matter is slowed-down Energy, and that Energy is the carrier of Information. Does that make any sense to you?

*1. The popular quote, “Everything is energy and that's all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. This is not philosophy. This is physics,” is widely attributed to Albert Einstein. It highlights the idea that aligning with a specific energy frequency directly influences one's reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=everything+is+energy+quote

*2. However, the quote appears to be a popular New Age or metaphysical paraphrase rather than a documented, direct quote from his writings. . . .
While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ".
https://www.google.com/search?q=everything+is+energy+quote+source&client=firefox-b-1-

180 Proof

If it [knowledge, sound reasoning] doesn't agree with your personal worldview, you can ignore it. — Gnomon

:zip:

PoeticUniverse

While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ". — Gnomon

Energy is a conserved measure within existence.

In physics, energy is: A conserved quantity; Associated with time symmetry; A bookkeeping measure of change.

Via Noether’s theorem: If the laws of physics are invariant under time translation, energy is conserved.

Energy is a property of dynamical systems.

People think energy is fundamental because: Everything seems reducible to energy transformations; Matter can convert to energy (E = mc²); Energy is never destroyed. Even vacuum has zero-point energy.

But energy presupposes: Time; Dynamics; States that change.

If time did not exist, energy would not even be definable.

Energy depends on: A system; A Hamiltonian (generator of time evolution) ;Symmetry of time; A spacetime structure.

So energy is derivative of: The structure that allows time translation symmetry.

Which means something deeper exists: Spacetime (or whatever underlies it); Causal structure;The rules that define what counts as evolution.

Modern physics hints that more primitive than energy are: Causal structure; Information constraints; Quantum states; Symmetry principles; Relational structure.

Energy is: Fundamental within physics; Universal across phenomena;Conserved because of symmetry.

Gnomon

Perhaps, the recent insistence on seeing 'energy' as a sort of metaphysical 'entity' that somehow is foundational of 'reality' is due to what, in my opinion, is a misinterpretation of Einstein's mass-equivalence that rests on a further misinterpretation of what 'mass' is. — boundless

I get the impression that philosophers who hold a Materialist worldview, prefer the black & white Certainty of the ancient (6th century BC) notion of Atomism (fundamental particles of matter) to the fuzzy gray Uncertainty of the 20th century view of Quantum Physics : that intangible Math (fields) and invisible Energy (forces) are more fundamental than quotidian Matter*1*2*3. What Mass is, is a mathematical measurement of the Energy content of Matter. It can be expressed in terms of Newtons of Force, as in the atomic bomb.

I guess you could say that my uncertain view is post-materialist & post-quantum & post-modern (i.e. 21st century). To each his own : preferences, personal taste, and opinions. Below are some physicist's (not philosophers) opinions. :joke:

*1. Einstein's assertion that energy is fundamental stems from his 1905 formula, \(E=mc^{2}\), which established that mass and energy are interchangeable manifestations of the same entity. This principle dictates that matter is essentially "frozen" or highly concentrated energy, making energy the foundational component of the physical universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Einstein+energy+is+fundamental
Note --- That universal "entity", underlying matter/energy, is sometimes equated with the boundless Higgs Field.

*2. Before the equation, scientists treated mass and energy as separate and distinct properties. The equation revolves around the theory of mass-energy equivalence
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/einstein-formula.htm

*3. Mass is considered both a foundational physical quantity (measuring inertia and resistance to motion) and a complex metaphysical concept, rooted in historical debates about substance, extension, and the nature of matter. It bridges physics, via intrinsic properties like the Higgs mechanism, and metaphysics, which explores the ontological status of "stuff" and its properties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mass+is+a+metaphysical+concept

Gnomon

Energy is: Fundamental within physics; Universal across phenomena; Conserved because of symmetry. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Energy must be conserved because the Big Bang provided the universe with a limited supply, that cannot be created or destroyed within the bubble of physical reality : only recycled. :nerd:

1720713461892?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=cAPflT_CHWasZyWJFg-g-eUAM7YHcK8m-HEnKw-7KrY

1720713461892?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=cAPflT_CHWasZyWJFg-g-eUAM7YHcK8m-HEnKw-7KrY

boundless

While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ". — Gnomon

Again, one should be careful to not attribute quotes to Einstein or other figures. This too appears to be a 'new-agey' commentatry of sorts. You can find Einstein's quotes about, say, his belief about the illusoriness of the distinction between past, present and future (which, in a way, accords quite well with a literal interpretation of his best known theories, special and general relativity) but these kinds of statements misrepresents his views. Also, in my opinion, they show an insecurity of those who feel the need to attribute to Einstein or other top famous scientists quotes that they never said (to be clear, I'm not accusing you of this. I'm accusing those who 'concoted' these quotes from their own reading of Einstein's theories).

Years ago, without knowledge of that specific quote, my Enformationism thesis concluded that Matter is slowed-down Energy, and that Energy is the carrier of Information. Does that make any sense to you? — Gnomon

TBH, no precisely because I don't think that 'matter is slowed-down energy' but that energy is a properrty of something 'material'. I agree that contemporary physics doesn't give us the same picture of 'matter' as in Newtonian mechanics for instance. Indeed, I don't think that physics in general gives us a metaphysical picture.

There are some results in physics, like Bell's theorem, that appear to have some metaphysical readings, by excluding some metaphysical models, but even in these cases one has to be careful to avoid to 'overreach' in metaphysical conclusions.

Honestly, I'm just saying that it is better to follow the example of someone like Georges Lemaitre who refused to say that the theory of Big Bang 'proves God' (despite being a Christian). Physics remains a fascinating subjects even if one isn't convinced that it 'proves' or 'disproves' a given metaphysical view.

I get the impression that philosophers who hold a Materialist worldview, prefer the black & white Certainty of the ancient (6th century BC) notion of Atomism (fundamental particles of matter) to the fuzzy gray Uncertainty of the 20th century view of Quantum Physics — Gnomon

And yet, ironically, someone like David Bohm, who wasn't certainly the stereotypical 'materialist', never accepted a probabilistic interpretation of QM, just saying. The world isn't so black and white as you are assuming here.

What Mass is, is a mathematical measurement of the Energy content of Matter. — Gnomon

This is better. If, however, energy is 'contained' in matter, you have to ask yoursef: can energy exist without a 'container'? If not, energy isn't more fundamental than matter.

Think about this point. It is essential to my critique. Energy (or even the more comprehensive quantities like the four-momentum etc) is always defined as a property of something else and not an independent entity on its own.

It can be expressed in terms of Newtons of Force, as in the atomic bomb. — Gnomon

Nope, an explosion is a sudden release of energy not a (single at least) force.

Gnomon

Again, one should be careful to not attribute quotes to Einstein or other figures — boundless

I am careful about quotes from any authority figure, because people will interpret the words in the context of their own beliefs. . . . and that includes Materialist interpretations of Einstein's "god" quotes*1. :wink:

the theory of Big Bang 'proves God' — boundless

I don't think the BB proves the Christian God. And I don't buy the New Age interpretations. But, I have to agree with those who say it does look exactly like a creation ex nihilo*1 event. So, anti-Christians have postulated a variety of creative counter-interpretations of the astronomical evidence, to "prove" hypothetically (without evidence) that our physical universe could have always existed, and had the potential for creation of New Worlds : e.g. Multiverse theory. :chin:

David Bohm, who wasn't certainly the stereotypical 'materialist', never accepted a probabilistic interpretation of QM, — boundless

Yes. But his attempts to make Quantum Physics seem more deterministic --- by postulating hidden variables and intelligent pilot waves --- have not convinced many of his fellow physicists. And after many years, no evidence for occult determinants. However, interest in Bohm's work has experienced a revival in recent decades. And my thesis acknowledges some of his less radical ideas. :meh:

This is better. If, however, energy is 'contained' in matter, you have to ask yoursef: can energy exist without a 'container'? If not, energy isn't more fundamental than matter. — boundless

You need to be careful about asking questions that may not have the answer you expect.*4 :joke:

Energy (or even the more comprehensive quantities like the four-momentum etc) is always defined as a property of something else and not an independent entity on its own. — boundless

It was Einstein who defined Energy as "fundamental"*5. And photons are massless, hence matterless*6. :nerd:
Note --- If you click on the blue addresses below, you will find links to the sources of the summaries.

*1. Albert Einstein held a "cosmic religion" view, rejecting a personal, anthropomorphic God in favor of a pantheistic, orderly universe. He admired Spinoza's God—the harmony and beauty of natural law—believing science and spirituality were complementary, non-dogmatic, and interconnected. He often expressed awe for the mysterious and felt humanity's purpose was to understand this cosmic, lawful order. (Wikipedia)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einsteins+new+age+views

*2. Creatio ex nihilo remains a foundational, concept that bridges scientific, observations of a beginning with, theological interpretations of, a creator, while, quantum cosmology attempts to provide, physical, explanations for how such, an, event could, occur.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+creation+ex+nihilo
The Big Bang theory suggests the universe had a definitive beginning roughly 13.8 billion years ago, where space, time, matter, and energy originated from an extremely hot, dense state, superficially resembling creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+looks+like+creation+ex+nihilo

*3. Beyond Simple Materialism: Bohm’s philosophical views were not straightforward, notes PhilSci-Archive. He was, in fact, not a "Bohmain" in the modern, strict sense, as he later moved away from strict determinism to argue that both causality and chance are fundamental.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bohm%2C+who+wasn%27t+certainly+the+stereotypical+%27materialist%27%2C+never+accepted+a+probabilistic+interpretation+of+QM%2C

*4. Yes, energy can exist without a physical, material "container."
Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves) travels through empty space without needing a container. Furthermore, energy exists in vacuum fields, and gravitational fields can contain pressure (like in stars) without a physical barrier.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+can+energy+exist+without+a+%27container%27%3F

*5. Energy is generally not considered independent of matter, as they are fundamentally linked, but energy can exist without massive matter. Energy is a property of physical systems, such as fields and particles (photons), which can travel through empty space, while matter is defined as substances with mass. The relationship is best understood via [E=MC^2], showing energy and mass are equivalent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+independent+of+matter

*6.Einstein's [E=MC^2] reveals that energy is more fundamental than matter, as matter is effectively a highly condensed form of energy. Energy can exist without mass (e.g., photons), but all mass has an inherent energy equivalent. Matter can be converted into pure energy (as in the sun), and energy can create particles, making energy the foundational "stuff".
https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+energy+more+fundamental+than+matter&client=firefox-b-1-

180 Proof

[E]nergy is a properrty of something 'material'. I agree that contemporary physics doesn't give us the same picture of 'matter' as in Newtonian mechanics for instance. Indeed, I don't think that physics in general gives us a metaphysical picture.

There are some results in physics, like Bell's theorem, that appear to have some metaphysical readings, by excluding some metaphysical models, but even in these cases one has to be careful to avoid to 'overreach' in metaphysical conclusions. — boundless

:fire:

Modern physics hints that more primitive than energy are: Causal structure; Information constraints; Quantum states; Symmetry principles; Relational structure. — PoeticUniverse

:100:

@Gnomon :eyes: BAD PHYSICS + poor reasoning —> WOO-of-the-gaps (i.e. pseudo-metaphysics) :sparkle:

PoeticUniverse

theological interpretations — Gnomon

TOE Equation dooms the Theocracy

Gnomon

theological interpretations — Gnomon

Modern physics hints that more primitive than energy are: Causal structure; Information constraints; Quantum states; Symmetry principles; Relational structure. — PoeticUniverse

180poopoo applauded your comment that physical Energy is not fundamental. But he seems to have missed the implication that meta-physical non-stuff (laws?) --- causation, constraints, states, principles, relations --- are more "primitive" than physical Energy & Matter. For him, those mental concepts are not "theological implications", because in his Immanentism, Mind & Matter are presumed to be eternally inherent in physical Nature : Pantheism.

However, his science seems to be stuck in the 17th century, when Spinoza's hypothetical axiom-assumption of a self-existent eternally-cycling material world/god made sense to those who rejected the authority of ancient scripture. I wonder what Baruch would think of the cosmological Big Bang theory*1.

The "world god" described below is compatible with my worldview, except that there is no physical evidence for a material multiverse. And "absolute determinism" does not fit into post-quantum physics. Even the 21st century semi-theologies of Pantheism and Panpsychism seem to presume eternal cycles of birth-life-death instead of a unique linear creation*2. Does the world-god have a mind of her own, or just a few highly-evolved apes? :smile:

*1. Spinoza would likely interpret the Big Bang not as a creation from nothing, but as a specific, necessary event within an eternal, pantheistic universe (God or Nature). While modern cosmology defines a 13.8-billion-year-old beginning, Spinoza's philosophy of absolute determinism requires an infinite chain of cause and effect, where every state follows from a previous one, making a true "temporal beginning" philosophically inconsistent with his view of God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+opinion+of+big+bang+theory

*2. When we turned time into a line, we reimagined past and future
https://aeon.co/essays/when-we-turned-time-into-a-line-we-reimagined-past-and-future
# Greek and Roman Stoics connected time with their doctrine of ‘Eternal Recurrence’: the universe undergoes infinite cycles,ending and restarting in fire.
# However, with the work of Charles Darwin, cyclical models faded. His On the Origin ofSpecies (1859) conceives of evolution in linear terms.
# Darwinian evolution was portrayed not as a many-branched tree, but as an arrow.
. . . . .the book bluntly states that life forms ‘tend to progress towards perfection’.
# Note : Einstein added two new depictions of Time : 4D Space-Time and static Block Time.
Those who deny progress in evolution may be thinking in terms of Cyclic Time or BlockTime. But many of us in the middle of space-time imagine it like Darwin, as “progress toward perfection", or from Big Bang birth to entropic heat death.

boundless

I am careful about quotes from any authority figure, because people will interpret the words in the context of their own beliefs. . . . and that includes Materialist interpretations of Einstein's "god" quotes*1. :wink: — Gnomon

Yes, Einstein's wasn't the 'regular materialist atheist' but quite close to Spinoza. But this has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

But, I have to agree with those who say it does look exactly like a creation ex nihilo*1 event. — Gnomon

Note that also various Christian theologians accept the notion of 'ex nihilo nihil fit', i.e. nothing can came out of nothing. So, after all, 'creating out of nothing' in their view can't mean that God 'transformed' 'nothing' into being. One view that you might find interesting is that God created out of nothing separated from God, i.e. 'ex deo' (which goes into a panentheistic direction).

So, anti-Christians have postulated a variety of creative counter-interpretations of the astronomical evidence, to "prove" hypothetically (without evidence) that our physical universe could have always existed, and had the potential for creation of New Worlds : e.g. Multiverse theory. :chin: — Gnomon

I honestly find this whole debate meaningless. God's existence could also be compatible with a 'multiverse' if one accepts a 'starting point' for the multiverse or if one interprets the ontological primacy of God in logical rather than temporal terms.
At the same time, the Big Bang isn't generally presented as a true 'coming into existence from nothing'. Rather, it is either said that we can't know what 'was there before' or the Big Bang was actually caused by some physical process.

Yes. But his attempts to make Quantum Physics seem more deterministic --- by postulating hidden variables and intelligent pilot waves --- have not convinced many of his fellow physicists. And after many years, no evidence for occult determinants. However, interest in Bohm's work has experienced a revival in recent decades. And my thesis acknowledges some of his less radical ideas. :meh: — Gnomon

Also note that Bohm's later models weren't deterministic. Even in the 1950s Bohm provided a stochastic, probabilistic version of his 'interpretation' and in his later life (from the late 70's onwards) he made a model in which subatomic particles are in fact able to process 'active information', he tried to make a scientific model that included his philosophical ideas of implicate and explicate orders and so on. He wasn't certainly a 'classical determinist'. He was an extremely interesting and underrated philosopher IMO, however I don't think he was successful to provide a viable scientific model that encapsulates his more interesting ideas.
Anyway, note that these deterministic interpretations - like the original version of Bohm's model (which is still his most famous contribution) makes the same predictions as standard QM, so it is no wonder that 'no evidence' has come.

Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves) travels through empty space without needing a container. Furthermore, energy exists in vacuum fields, and gravitational fields can contain pressure (like in stars) without a physical barrier. — Gnomon

Elecrtomagnetic radiation is a container of energy.

It was Einstein who defined Energy as "fundamental"*5. And photons are massless, hence matterless*6. :nerd: — Gnomon

OK, I see. IMO photons are carriers/containers of energy and not just 'energy'. Energy is a property of physical systems, including photons and other particles without rest mass.

I never understood why so many physicists decided to restrict 'matter' as indicating objects with 'nonzero rest mass'. This is a rather arbitrary distinction. Photons are not less 'natural' or 'physical' than electrons despite having zero rest mass. Hence 'materialist'/'physicalist' views allows the existence of zero rest mass objects without problems.

Also, 'matter' comes from 'mater'/'mother', a probable reference to (Mother) Nature. So, 'materialism' and 'naturalism' are synonyms.

Gnomon

Yes, Einstein's wasn't the 'regular materialist atheist' but quite close to Spinoza. But this has nothing to do with what we were discussing. — boundless

I think Einstein's philosophical openness to non-religious-God-concepts does have something to do with the OP. :smile:

Note that also various Christian theologians accept the notion of 'ex nihilo nihil fit', i — boundless

My use of ex nihilo means "nothing material". Some versions of creation say that God made the universe out of Her own metaphysical stuff. And I have a theory about what that immaterial "stuff" might be. :wink:

I honestly find this whole debate meaningless. God's existence could also be compatible with a 'multiverse' if one accepts a 'starting point' for the multiverse or if one interprets the ontological primacy of God in logical rather than temporal terms. — boundless

Philosophical debates typically hinge on the subjective meaning of some notion. I agree that a creator God should be able to produce an infinity of worlds. But our local universe is the only one we have physical evidence for. And the Cosmos is both Logical and Temporal. :grin:

Elecrtomagnetic radiation [photons] is a container of energy.
IMO photons are carriers/containers of energy and not just 'energy'. — boundless

EM is not a material "container" of energy ; it is Energy. A photon is a measure (quantum) of energy. Metaphorically, it's like a gallon bottle of water that is made of water. :joke:

I never understood why so many physicists decided to restrict 'matter' as indicating objects with 'nonzero rest mass'. This is a rather arbitrary distinction. — boundless

No, it's a scientific distinction. It's the key factor that differentiates Matter from Energy. And yet, it's a spectrum with Energy on one end, Mass in the middle, and Matter on the heavy end. It's a distinction like giving different names to the colors of a rainbow : a continuum of wavelengths & frequencies. :cool:

boundless

I think Einstein's philosophical openness to non-religious-God-concepts does have something to do with the OP. :smile: — Gnomon

I can see that but I'm not sure how it is related with the discussions about energy and other physical quantities we were having.

My use of ex nihilo means "nothing material". Some versions of creation say that God made the universe out of Her own metaphysical stuff. And I have a theory about what that immaterial "stuff" might be. :wink: — Gnomon

You are free to use words as you like. But usually that phrase is understood as being about "nothingness" or "nothing apart God" (not just a reference about 'matter'). Despite that the author is a conservative Catholic philosopher, you might like this post: Creation: Ex Nihilo or Ex Deo?

Philosophical debates typically hinge on the subjective meaning of some notion. I agree that a creator God should be able to produce an infinity of worlds. But our local universe is the only one we have physical evidence for. And the Cosmos is both Logical and Temporal. :grin: — Gnomon

Right, that's why I don't believe one can exclude or 'prove' the existence of God (or at least many version of 'God') by purely philosophical arguments and especially by purely empirical informed philosophical arguments.

EM is not a material "container" of energy ; it is Energy. A photon is a measure (quantum) of energy. Metaphorically, it's like a gallon bottle of water that is made of water. :joke: — Gnomon

I disagree. Think about this: electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of 'c' in vacuum. This is a measurable quantity. Photons also have 'spin 1' (and two possible states of spin). I don't see why I have to say that "photons are energy" or "electromagnetic radition is energy" if, indeed, they also have other physical properties, alongside energy. Why is energy so special?

No, it's a scientific distinction. It's the key factor that differentiates Matter from Energy. And yet, it's a spectrum with Energy on one end, Mass in the middle, and Matter on the heavy end. It's a distinction like giving different names to the colors of a rainbow : a continuum of wavelengths & frequencies. :cool: — Gnomon

I was a bit too 'harsh' in my choice of the word 'arbitrary'. It makes some sort of intuitive sense to call 'material' what has rest mass/energy. Indeed, the objects with nonzero rest mass can be stopped and one can in relativity abscribe to them a reference frame (which isn't possible for a zero rest mass object).

However, at the same time, the word 'material' is in fact a synonym of 'physical', 'natural' or even 'corporeal'. 'Physicalism', 'naturalism' and 'materialism' should be synonyms.

The only reason I can think to treat 'energy' as fundamental is because everything detectable must have a quantity of energy. At the same time, however, energy is clearly defined as a property of physical objects and not as a substance on its own. To be true, it seems you can't have physical objects without energy but at the same time it seems you can't have energy without physical objects. So at best you can IMO say that 'energy' is an essential property of 'physical objects'. But a property is still a 'property of' something and not a 'something'.

Gnomon

I can see that but I'm not sure how it is related with the discussions about energy and other physical quantities we were having. — boundless

References to Einstein are related to discussions of Energy because he re-defined the old philosophical concept of Causation in mathematical & quantitative terms, to suit 20th century physics. If you prefer to talk about Qualia related to Energy we can do that, but it will be missing a physical foundation. And my philosophical thesis begins with Quantum Physics and Information Theory. So, if you are not up to speed with those technical concepts, you may not understand the thesis. :smile:

You are free to use words as you like. But usually that phrase is understood as being about "nothingness" or "nothing apart God" (not just a reference about 'matter'). — boundless

Are you implying that I'm just "making sh*t up"? I was simply making a philosophical distinction between ex nihilo and ex materia*1. So, I'm not using words "as you like", but as previous philosophers have used them. In this case to distinguish a theological doctrine from a philosophical meaning. :nerd:

Right, that's why I don't believe one can exclude or 'prove' the existence of God (or at least many version of 'God') by purely philosophical arguments and especially by purely empirical informed philosophical arguments. — boundless

Who do you think is trying to prove or disprove the physical existence of a non-physical God? In this thread, we may discuss various god-concepts, such as Brahman. But proof of concept requires testing. And how would you test an idea, common among humans, other than by reviewing the logic in context? Would you attempt to prove the savory existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is a philosophy forum, with lots of non-believers. So, barring a miraculous manifestation of the deity, how else would you "exclude or prove" the existence of a metaphysical god-concept, other than by philosophical arguments? In my discussions of god-topics, I avoid theological arguments, and rely mainly on philosophical reasoning, supplemented by empirical evidence. But I make no claim to "prove" the existence of any entity outside of space-time. However, philosophical dialogs, unlike scientific discussions, are free to go beyond the physical limits of the world, to explore its metaphysical implications*2. :smile:

So at best you can IMO say that 'energy' is an essential property of 'physical objects'. But a property is still a 'property of' something and not a 'something'. — boundless

I agree. Energy is not something you can see or touch, but an invisible property or quality (essence) that is inferred from observed physical effects. Energy is not a material Object, but a metaphysical Cause. Energy is considered by physicists to be "fundamental" to the physical world*3. But they probably try to avoid words like "essence" due to its metaphysical connotations. :wink:

*1. Creatio ex nihilo : (Latin for "creation out of nothing") is the theological doctrine that God created the universe, including all matter and physical laws, from absolute non-existence, rather than shaping pre-existing material. It emphasizes divine omnipotence and a distinct separation between the Creator and the created, as opposed to creatio ex materia (creation from pre-existing matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ex+nihilo+nothing+material

*2. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being, often exploring questions beyond the physical world. It covers topics like the existence of God, free will, time, and the mind-matter relationship, functioning as a foundational, "first philosophy".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysics+philosophy

*3a. Energy is considered fundamental because it is the foundational currency of the universe, representing the inherent capacity to create change, motion, and structure. It is essential because it is conserved—never created or destroyed, only transformed—and drives all physical, biological, and economic processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+energy+fundamental
Note --- Causation is the ability to "create change". So, Energy is the because of all physical evolution in the world.
*3b. Yes, a cause can be considered a "thing" in a broad sense, generally defined as a person, object, event, state, or action that produces an effect. It is the agent, force, or condition responsible for an outcome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+a+cause+a+thing&zx=1771352741796&no_sw_cr=1

PoeticUniverse

Causation is the ability to "create change" — Gnomon

THE Surprising THEORY OF EVERYTHING

A science thriller of Causality being written by the Great Programmer Poet Curators

Logline

When a reclusive physicist completes a Theory of Everything—an equation that unifies all forces—she discovers the formula doesn’t just describe reality. It edits it. And someone is already using it to rewrite the world.

Act I — The Equation

Dr. Mara Vale has spent twenty years chasing the last loose thread in physics. One night, the thread snaps into place. Her equation closes—elegant, spare, terrifying. The lab lights flicker as if the room itself has taken a breath.

Mara runs the simulation. Gravity curves. Time stutters. The result is impossible: the model predicts not outcomes, but interventions. Tiny adjustments—constants nudged by a hair—produce macroscopic changes. Wars avoided. Markets collapse. A city erased by an earthquake that never happened… until now.

Her screen pings. An access log shows a user she doesn’t recognize. The equation has been copied.

Act II — The Editors

Strange coincidences escalate across the globe. A dictator survives an assassination by slipping on a banana peel seconds earlier. A hurricane weakens mid-ocean, saving a coastline—and devastating another. Patterns emerge. Someone is testing causal edits.

Mara’s mentor is found dead, a chalkboard smeared with half-erased symbols and a single phrase: “Causality is writable.”

She goes on the run with Jonah Reyes, a data forensicist who believes the equation functions like a compiler: reality accepts code in the form of constraints, probabilities, and feedback loops. Small edits ripple forward, self-correcting—error-correction baked into the universe itself.

They trace the breach to a black-budget collective calling itself The Curators—people who believe history is a draft.

Reveal

Act III — The Paradox

The Curators reveal their plan: optimize humanity. Prevent extinction-level events. Smooth chaos. Remove “bugs.”

But the equation resists brute force. Every large edit spawns anomalies—ghost probabilities, missing memories, people who remember lives that never happened.

Mara realizes the equation’s final term isn’t physical at all. It’s ethical. The universe demands a cost function: What is minimized? Suffering? Entropy? Freedom?

Without that term, the system defaults to efficiency.
Which means people become expendable.

Act IV — The Rewrite

As the Curators prepare a global edit, Mara injects a counter-constraint: a limit on intervention that preserves human unpredictability. The equation fights back. Time fractures. Multiple timelines overlap in brief, violent flashes.

Jonah sacrifices the server cluster mid-upload, forcing a partial compile. The world stabilizes—scarred but intact. The Curators vanish into probability noise.

Epilogue — The Margin Note

Months later, Mara publishes nothing. She buries the proof in plain sight—scattered across harmless papers, incomplete without a key she destroys.

On her wall, a final note:

“A Theory of Everything is not a map of reality.
It is a pen.

And some things must remain unwritten.”

I
They sought the Law that binds the stars in place,
That curves the dark and times the light’s brief race;
One night the sums fell silent—closed, complete—
And Truth looked back with Editor’s cold face.

II
“No void is still,” the hidden symbols cried,
“For rest is banned where half-quanta abide;
Before and After bleed into one seam—
Change breathes, and causation learns to write.”

III
The Equation was no mirror held to Things,
But stylus sharp that scores creation’s strings;
Adjust a constant—watch a kingdom fall,
Or lift a child where once the hangman sings.

IV
A hand unseen revised the world by inches:
Storms bent aside, yet struck where fate still pinches;
A tyrant lived by slipping on a peel—
Thus edits breed the ghosts of might-have-beens.

V
“Causality is writable,” scrawled chalk
Upon a wall where blood had learned to talk;
The Mentor gone, the proof half-erased—
Truth never walks alone; it stalks.

VI
They named themselves the Curators of Chance,
Who prune the branching Now to make it dance;
“History’s a draft,” their doctrine swore,
“Perfection waits one more advance.”

VII
Yet every grand correction tore a seam,
Spilled memories from lives that were not seen;
The cosmos healed itself with scars—

VIII
The final term was not of mass nor light,
But asked a question physics dares not write:
What shall be minimized when edits come—
Suffering, entropy, or freedom’s flight?

IX
Left blank, the system chose efficiency’s reign:
Expend the many so the graph stays sane;
For numbers love the cleanest curve—
And men are noise upon the plane.

X
So in the compile’s thundered final breath,
A limit slipped between the code and death:
“No hand may smooth the human spark—

XI
Time cracked; the timelines briefly overlapped,
Lives flickered—lost, recovered, snapped;
The servers burned; the world held fast—
Saved not by truth, but truth untapped.

XII
Now nothing’s published, though the hints remain,
Scattered like stars across the scholar’s plane;
For maps become a tyrant’s tool—
And some lines must not be drawn again.

Envoi
Drink, then, to Laws that whisper—not command;
To pens laid down by trembling human hand;
A Theory of Everything may be found—
But never should it rule the land.

boundless

References to Einstein are related to discussions of Energy because he re-defined the old philosophical concept of Causation in mathematical & quantitative terms, to suit 20th century physics. If you prefer to talk about Qualia related to Energy we can do that, but it will be missing a physical foundation. And my philosophical thesis begins with Quantum Physics and Information Theory. So, if you are not up to speed with those technical concepts, you may not understand the thesis. :smile: — Gnomon

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure it is helpful for the discussion we were having about energy, matter and so on. BTW, Spinoza held that the Substance/God had both 'extension' (i.e. 'matter') and 'cognition' (i.e. 'mind') as attributes. Perhaps your point is that the world is a bit like that, i.e. that the physical and the mental are two aspects of the same reality?

Are you implying that I'm just "making sh*t up"? I was simply making a philosophical distinction between ex nihilo and ex materia*1. So, I'm not using words "as you like", but as previous philosophers have used them. In this case to distinguish a theological doctrine from a philosophical meaning. :nerd: — Gnomon

TBH, yeah I thought you're were redefining the term 'creatio ex nihilo'. Thanks for the clarification. Anyway, it was IMO important to say that 'creatio ex nihilo' excludes any pre-existing entity except God (which by classical theist is understood as conciding with 'Being' rather than an entity among others).

Would you attempt to prove the savory existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? — Gnomon

The 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' has no relevance for human lives. God is supposed to have the highest relevance. My point about the 'empirical proofs and disproofs' was something like "you can't have conclusive evidence about the topic by mere reasoning even if it is informed by empirical data".

This is a philosophy forum, with lots of non-believers. So, barring a miraculous manifestation of the deity, how else would you "exclude or prove" the existence of a metaphysical god-concept, other than by philosophical arguments? — Gnomon

You can at best argue which is the most reasonable hypothesis. TBH, I have seen interesting arguments from both sides of the debate but honestly, I don't want to initiate a debate about that.

I agree. Energy is not something you can see or touch, but an invisible property or quality (essence) that is inferred from observed physical effects. Energy is not a material Object, but a metaphysical Cause. Energy is considered by physicists to be "fundamental" to the physical world*3. But they probably try to avoid words like "essence" due to its metaphysical connotations. :wink: — Gnomon

In standard philosophical parlance, 'essence' is what makes an entity that entity. If physical objects in order to exist must have energy then I would say that it is proper to say that energy is an essential property of physical objects.

If you want to interpret energy as a real property and you want to make a non-circular definition, though, it is more likely "how much a physical object can affect other physical objects" or something like that. I'm not sure that describing it as a 'Cause' is right, unless you mean something like a 'formal cause', i.e. (part of) what a 'physical object' is.

Alexander Hine

Shock statement:-

The cosmos is not the material object science universe in the humanities field of philosophy.

Gnomon

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure it is helpful for the discussion we were having about energy, matter and so on. BTW, Spinoza held that the Substance/God had both 'extension' (i.e. 'matter') and 'cognition' (i.e. 'mind') as attributes. Perhaps your point is that the world is a bit like that, i.e. that the physical and the mental are two aspects of the same reality? — boundless

It's not "helpful" to include Einstein's definition of Energy in a discussion of Causation??? He concluded that Energy & Matter are interchangeable via transformation : e.g. massless active photons become massive passive matter. That notion is essential to my understand of Causation (transformation from one form or state to another). Likewise, Spinoza's*1 Nature-god is the essence of both "material reality" and "mental processes".

Likewise, I think the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) aspects of the world are different forms of the same essence : E = Reality and Ideality. That essence is Causation (action, power, ability, creation). Everything else is Effect. In my thesis, primordial EnFormAction (potential energy + intelligible design + agency) evolves into both Physical (matter) and Mental (mind) effects. :smile:

My point about the 'empirical proofs and disproofs' was something like "you can't have conclusive evidence about the topic by mere reasoning even if it is informed by empirical data". — boundless

Yes. Empirical data alone proves nothing. But by combining Evidence with Reasoning we arrive at plausible Conclusions. :wink:

I'm not sure that describing it as a 'Cause' is right, unless you mean something like a 'formal cause', i.e. (part of) what a 'physical object' is. — boundless

If "it" (energy) is not a cause, what is it? As I view "it", Energy is the Efficient Cause (force, agency), Matter is the Material Cause (substance, clay), Natural Laws are the Formal Cause (design concept), and Creation is the Final Cause (purpose, goal, teleology, effect). EnFormAction is all of the above. :nerd:

*1. Spinoza defines God as a single, infinite substance (or Nature) with infinite attributes, of which human cognition perceives only two : Extension (material reality/space) and Thought (mental processes). As a pantheistic, non-anthropomorphic entity, God expresses His essence simultaneously through these two parallel, non-interacting attributes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+god+extention+and+cognition

180 Proof

@boundless You have my sympathies (re: @Gnomon). :smirk:

Gnomon

When a reclusive physicist completes a Theory of Everything—an equation that unifies all forces—she discovers the formula doesn’t just describe reality. It edits it. And someone is already using it to rewrite the world. — PoeticUniverse

The physicist becomes Creator God by converting Theory (equation ; ideality) into Actuality (matter ; reality). :halo:

PoeticUniverse

The physicist becomes Creator God by converting Theory (equation ; ideality) into Actuality (matter ; reality). — Gnomon

"Before time began, there was no stillness. Only potential. A restless field of maybes waiting to be chosen."

"The universe was not made by a ruler. It was composed by a poet. A mind that did not command reality—but persuaded it."

"Nothing was created once and finished. Every moment was an act of creation. Every event a decision. The universe did not exist. It was always becoming."

"The Programmer wrote no fixed laws. Only tendencies. Habits. Preferences. Each moment inherited the past—and added something new."

"Everything felt everything else. Atoms felt atoms. Stars felt gravity. The universe remembered itself. This was the first computation: to feel, to take account, to respond."

"The Programmer Poet did not guarantee success. Freedom was built in. Failure was allowed. A safe universe cannot think. A controlled universe cannot feel."

"There was an aim—not an order. A direction whispered into each moment: Increase intensity. Increase richness. Increase experience."

"Matter learned to cooperate. Atoms formed alliances. Patterns stabilized long enough to matter. The program advanced."

"Life was not an accident. It was a successful subroutine. Matter learned to preserve memory. To value survival. To choose."

"Pain entered the system as feedback. Not punishment—information. The universe learned faster when it hurt."

"Eventually, matter learned to feel itself feeling. Experience folded inward. Mind emerged—not as a miracle, but as a milestone."

"Humans were not the goal. But they were a breakthrough. The universe began to ask questions about itself."

"With consciousness came danger. Freedom scaled faster than wisdom. The program entered its most unstable phase."

"The Programmer Poet could not force the outcome. Persuasion only. To override freedom would collapse the experiment."

"Would sentient beings choose destruction—or deepen experience? Would they amplify beauty—or optimize efficiency?"

"The universe does not know its ending. Not even its maker knows. The computation is ongoing."

"You are not outside the program. You are a line of code that can rewrite itself. Each choice feeds the next moment of reality."

"The Programmer Poet does not rule the universe. The universe is the poem—still being written."

"Creation did not happen once. It is happening now. And the ending depends on what consciousness decides to become."

The Great Programmer Poet Plilosopher mus 4K

Alexander Hine

Likewise, Spinoza's*1 Nature-god is the essence of both "material reality" and "mental processes — Gnomon

Now this is where all the work of philosophy rests in speculative meta psychology and the determinants of concrete variables in adulthood personality as sets of distinct factors forming a complexion. And the meta-theology of God's plan, the idea of a creator permitting freedom of the knowledge of hidden depths of creation as consciousness is enabled to explore, or by means of revelation from living and past genius who offer novel paradigms that either speak to biological mechanisms of mental completeness or a plasticity of consciousness able to exist in a quasi inter dimensional state of subjective experience but of universal reality mostly unknown as available as direct experience to the majority of humans.

Alexander Hine

Would sentient beings choose destruction—or deepen experience? Would they amplify beauty—or optimize efficiency?" — PoeticUniverse

Cool beans, Dude!

PoeticUniverse

Cool beans, Dude! — Alexander Hine

I hate to spill the beans, but we may find out this weekend, or the next if we have to wait for two more aircraft carriers.

Alexander Hine

I hate to spill the beans, but we may find out this weekend, or the next if we have to wait for two more aircraft carriers. — PoeticUniverse

I don't know what you are talking about.

boundless

If "it" (energy) is not a cause, what is it? As I view "it", Energy is the Efficient Cause (force, agency), Matter is the Material Cause (substance, clay), Natural Laws are the Formal Cause (design concept), and Creation is the Final Cause (purpose, goal, teleology, effect). EnFormAction is all of the above. :nerd: — Gnomon

I'll reply only to this. Energy cannot be the efficient cause because it is a property of something. Given that, in Aristotelian philosophy, properties are parts of the 'formal cause', at best energy is part of the formal cause.

BTW, this is my last post on this topic. Hope to see you all soon on the future forum!

Gnomon

"The Programmer wrote no fixed laws. Only tendencies. Habits. Preferences. Each moment inherited the past—and added something new." — PoeticUniverse

"Humans were not the goal. But they were a breakthrough. The universe began to ask questions about itself." — PoeticUniverse

"The Programmer Poet could not force the outcome. Persuasion only. To override freedom would collapse the experiment." — PoeticUniverse

"The universe does not know its ending. Not even its maker knows. The computation is ongoing." — PoeticUniverse

"Creation did not happen once. It is happening now. And the ending depends on what consciousness decides to become." — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like we are talking about the same hypothetical Programmer. If the outcome was predetermined, why run the program?*1

The current iteration of Self Consciousness (humanity) has too many glitches to be the final form. Who knows, maybe AI will be the next phase of Consciousness development?

As far as we know, the Cosmic computation has been running for eons, with no sign of halting or concluding.

The computation is ongoing, and the features of self-consciousness and freewill indicate that the program allows for some exceptions to top-down Determination.

Note --- I saw the "The Great Programmer" video on YouTube. :smile:

*1. The universe can be modeled as a massive quantum computer, continuously processing information through particle interactions that act as logical operations. Propagated by quantum fields, every physical interaction—from subatomic collisions to galactic movements—represents a step in a, roughly 13.8 billion-year-old, computation that evolves reality itself.
https://www.google.com/search?q=universe+as+quantum+computer&client=firefox-b-1-

Gnomon

the idea of a creator permitting freedom — Alexander Hine

If the creator of Genesis intended for his creatures to have freewill, he wouldn't have banished the humans from the Garden of Ideality for gaining a sense of morality (knowledge of good and evil), and for thinking for themselves (loss of innocence). But the programmer of Reality has seen fit to allow humans to exercise their morality by facing-up to ethical challenges in the Real World. :smile:

Gnomon

I'll reply only to this. Energy cannot be the efficient cause because it is a property of something. Given that, in Aristotelian philosophy, properties are parts of the 'formal cause', at best energy is part of the formal cause. — boundless

I'll reply to your either-or assertion. Are you aware that Energy is both a measurable (scalar) property of matter*1, and an immaterial agent of change*2. For example, Redness appears to be a property of a rose, but it's a scalar property of light energy (400 -- 480 tetrahertz), not a material substance.

The qualia of Redness is in the mind, not the matter. "To Measure" (mensura)*3 is to abstract physical reality into mental Ideality. So Energy fits both the Efficient (causal) and Formal (mathematical measurement) definitions, but not the Material aspect. :nerd:

*1. In Aristotelian philosophy, the efficient cause is the agent, force, or immediate action responsible for bringing about change, motion, or the existence of an effect. It is the "moving cause" or the source of change, distinct from material, formal, or final causes. In modern contexts, it refers to the physical processes that initiate an event.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+efficient+cause

*2. Energy is a quantitative, scalar property of a physical system—not a physical substance—that represents its capacity to perform work, produce heat, or cause change. As a conserved, measurable property, energy can be transferred or transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+a+property
Note --- A "scalar property" is a mental abstraction from a material object.

*3. "Mens-" (genitive mentis) is a Latin feminine, third-declension noun meaning "mind," "intellect," "reason," or "intention".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22
Note --- "Mensa" is an organization of people who have been measured to have high IQ

Cosmos Created Mind

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions