Physicist: Unfortunately, “pure energy” isn’t really a thing. Whenever you hear someone talking about something or other being “turned into pure energy”, you’re listening to someone who could stand to be a little more specific about what kind of energy. And whenever you hear someone talking about something being “made of pure energy”, you’re probably listening to someone who’s mistaken.
“Pure energy” shows up a lot in fiction, and most sci-fi/fantasy fans have some notion of what it’s like, but it isn’t a thing you’ll find in reality.
Energy comes in a hell of a lot of forms, but they’re all pretty mundane. For example, when “energy is released” in an explosion (most explosions) that energy mostly takes the form of kinetic energy (things moving and heat). Light is about the closest anything comes to being pure energy, but it’s not pure energy so much as it’s one of the several kinds of energy that isn’t tied up in matter. It’s “matterless”, sure, but that doesn’t mean that electromagnetic fields (light) are any closer to being pure than, say, gravity fields (another, very different, massless form of energy). “Pure” energy: nope. Some form of energy without matter: that happens.
So, energy can change from one form into another into another into another, etc., but the question remains: what is energy? The answer to that is a little unsatisfying.
There’s this quantity, that takes a lot of forms (physical movement, electromagnetic fields, being physically high in a gravitational well, chemical potential, etc., etc.). We can measure each of them, and we know that the total value between all of the various forms stays constant, and just like every other every constant, measurable thing it gets a name; energy.
If fusion in the Sun releases energy*, then the amount released is E = (Δm)c2 (where Δm is the change in mass between the hydrogen input and helium output and c is the speed of light). If that energy travels from the Sun to the Earth as light, then each photon of that light carries E=hν (Planck’s constant times frequency), of it. If those photons then fall onto a solar panel, that light energy can be converted into electrical energy. If that electrical energy runs a motor, then the energy used is E = VIT (voltage times current times time). If that motor is used to compress a spring, then the energy stored in the spring is E=0.5kA2 (where k is a spring constant, and A is the distance it’s compressed). If that spring tosses a stone into the air, then at the top of its flight it will have converted all of that energy into gravitational potential, in the amount of E = mgh (mass of the stone times the acceleration of gravity times height). When it falls back to the ground that energy will become kinetic energy again, E=0.5mv2 (where m is the stone’s mass and v is its velocity). If that stone falls into water and stirs it up, then the water will heat up by an amount given by E = C(ΔT) (where C is the heat capacity of water, and ΔT is the change in temperature).
The “same energy” is being used at every stage of this example (assuming perfect efficiency). But there’s no “carry through” that makes it from the beginning to the end. The only thing that really stays the same is the somewhat artificial constant number that we Humans (or more precisely: Newton) call “energy”.
When you want to explain the heck out of something that’s a little abstract, it’s best to leave it to professional bongo player, and sometimes-physicist Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call “energy,” that does not change in the manifold changes that nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is a strange fact that when we calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Something like a bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves – details unknown – it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.)
(…) It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy ‘is’. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas.” -Dick Feynman
The Green Lantern picture is from here.
*Every time energy is released from anything, that thing ends up weighing less. It’s just that outside of nuclear reactions (either fission or fusion) the change is so small that it’s not worth mentioning.
Undoubtedly, one of the best posts on science I’ve ever read!
What about in the first few seconds after the Big Bang where there was no matter. As far as I understand all the matter we see around us came from energy from the Big Bang. What sort of energy existed back then?
If the total energy contained within the universe is a constant, can we calculate that constant, what would it look like? Could we incorporate it into physics equations/are there physics equations that use a constant like this?
@Hasan: I expect it was like one single infinite black hole.
@Dan: sort of…
Ok, my link didn’t work. I’ll try again, Dan…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Phyllics…wht a comment. I’m out of my mind, how could u write sumthng like this….
Phyllis’ comment is a good illustration of how common definitions of terms like “energy” or “entropy” differ from the scientific meaning of such terms. Context clearly matters. Energy can be thought of as a metaphor for describing something we see in nature, and it can be useful to use the term, metaphorically, in other areas of interest. It would be interesting to know the history of such terms as ‘energy’, and where bifurcations in meaning may have taken place. Was it a popular term, adopted by Science at some point? Or could the term be seen as having been refined in the pursuit of Science and then adopted as a common metaphor? Maybe both?
@phyllis McLemore
I understand the truth of your message. Email me at ”cassandrarosengard@yahoo.com” some time if you still pay attention to this page.
As for the original article, I have one thing that just gets me. If there are different forms of energy that go around randomly transferring into other forms of energy, how does it produce such complex and intelligent patterns (Fibonacci spiral, etc.) everywhere in the universe, yet energy is not considered intelligent….I say that because science says the universe happened by chance. But computers don’t build themselves so how can life without a subtle intelligence that influences every aspect of it.
I think that science is a great tool but it is trying to understand something that is creative from a logical point of view.
You can’t understand it until you experience it yourself either.
Pure energy is a vast field of waves that we turn into wave packets with the energy of our intents.
I thought in that moment before the Big Bang all we had was a point of very hot and very dense pure energy. If that is true, then what kind of pure energy was that?
Phyllis McLemore i love what you have written here about energy, im trying to understand how all this works, can you suggest any books for me to read? please email me at bevp@live.couk
Pingback: My researches on ISP | My Integrated Studio Project
Hey bevp@live.couk
I sent you an email with this info and it was returned.
The Seth Material
Page 301
The conscious ego rises, indeed, out of the “unconscious,” but the unconscious, being the creator of the ego, is necessarily far more conscious than its offspring. The ego is simply not conscious enough to be able to contain the vast knowledge that belongs to the inner conscious self from which it springs.
It is this inner self, out of massive knowledge and the unlimited scope of its consciousness, that forms this physical world and provides stimuli to keep the outer ego constantly at the job of awareness. It is the inner self, here termed the inner ego, that organizes, initiates, projects, and controls the EE (electromagnetic energy) units of which we have been speaking, transforming energy into objects, into matter.
The energy of this inner self used by it to form from itself–from inner experience–a material counterpart in which the outer ego then can act out its role. The outer ego then acts out a play that the inner self has written. This is not to say that the outer ego is a puppet. It is to say that the outer ego is far less conscious than the inner ego, that its perception is less, that it is far less stable though it makes great pretense of stability, that it springs from the inner self and is therefore less, rather than more, aware.
The outer ego is spoon-fed, being given only those feelings and emotions, only that data, that it can handle. This data is presented to it in a highly specialized manner, usually in terms of information picked up by the physical senses.
IT IS THIS INNER SELF, OUT OF MASSIVE KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNLIMITED SCOPE OF ITS CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT FORMS THIS WORLD….IT IS THE INNER SELF, HERE TERMED THE INNER EGO, THAT ORGANIZES, INITIATES, PROJECTS, AND CONTROLS THE EE UNITS……….
It organizes, initiates, projects and controls the EE units we are made of. We are not solid.
TRANSFORMING ENERGY INTO OBJECTS, INTO MATTER.
WOW!! get a grip on that. This is what people call God, All That Is, magic and miracles. This science fiction creature which has massive knowledge and unlimited scope transforms energy into objects, into matter. We are constantly being organized, intiated, projected and controled by an energy being vaster than we are. And apparently, it is the self that IS us, except on this planet the dumbing down of society has won, mostly. That is why our egos seem so stupid. People teach each other that they are stupid. This whole society is set up to teach stupidity, the whole time quantum physics says that this field of waves does not stop until there is a look upon these waves, a stare, and intent and then POOF!! there is a frequency that can be measured on any hospital screen. People are literally frequencies because there has been intent within this field of waves that IS the projection, IS the EE units. The energy of Intent/want/desire itself is what pulls/magnetizes these EE units to come together to form–US. This look or intent or desire literally bunches up this field of waves. On the internet site wisc.edu under the physics department and wave/particle duality you can find a picture of a wave and the particle/wave/light point that rides on it when it bunches up.
We are holographic energy wave packet projections, literally being projected from another frequency domain where this inner ego lives/vibrates–at that non local level where we are all one energy/being–which is where our electrons vibrate/oscillate. It is all a game and we are the players–very much like the players of a video game, but we are conscious of the game (except in this world where people are taught they are solid and then die).
A few more books:
The Holographic Universe by Talbot
Hands of Light by Barbara Brennan
Psychic Healers by St. Clair
Healers and the Healing Process by Meeks
Healing Yourself by Rossman
An Ascension Handbook by Tony Stubbs
i realize the significance of philosophical and metaphysical debate around this topic, but the question was asked from a physics (scientific) perspective, so can we stick to the relevant please?
that said, it is easiest to think of energy as a currency of physical action – the more energy there is, the more ‘action’ can take place. action therefore could be said to be the exchange of energy between the locally available forms and residence.
That was interesting. When I first started reading Phyllis McLemore comment, I thought to myself that’s sound like AI. Good stuff
Pingback: Q: What does “E=mc2” mean? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
I have a question regarding a personal experience. I would have been skeptical if I hadn’t been a witness. Soon after my grandmother’s death my father and I returned to her home to retrieve personal items for the upcoming funeral. Once inside we separated until my father called to me and I followed his voice into kitchen. “Erie isn’t it?” He said as my eyes followed his glance to the hanging (battery operated) clock. The short hand was still and pointing directly to the number 2, while the second hand flickered , vacillating between the numbers 46 & 47, the recorded time of my grandmother’s death. I have since wondered about many physical and mathematical possibilities. Do you have any explanations or theories about this phenomena?
Thank you for the time and consideration
@lAura Ketron
breaking it down, clocks (analogue) would likely behave this way once the battery runs out. had a few do just that. the question comes down to timing – is it a coincidence that it happened at just the right time?
maybe. back-of-envelope, there are 86400 seconds in a day – of these, one specific combination of the hour hand and second hand (or minute hand i suspect would have been noteworthy too, if it had stopped at 46-47) occurred. for that hour, there were 60 times the second hand could have stopped in the right place, and 60 times the minute hand could have stopped at the right place (60 seconds between minutes 46-47; 60 minutes with second hand on 46-47).
at any given time of day, there was 1/24 chance the hour would coincide. in that hour, there are 3600 seconds / positions, and of those, 120 would coincide. so all in all there is a 1 in 720 possibility that this happened purely by chance, (1 in 360 if you don’t count 24 hour time). this is not a large number, so it is quite possible that it happened solely by chance. problem is we notice things that coincide far more often than when they don’t, which is a type of cognitive bias.
disclaimer: i’m a skeptic.
Where did energy come from then? If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that would imply energy has always existed. Wouldn’t that make energy an infinite quantity since it would have no starting nor finishing point. Isn’t that somewhat paradoxical. Also I’ve often seen quoted that during black holes information is lost doesn’t that violate the laws of conservation of energy.
What about when matter and anti-matter collide and annihilate each other? I’ve heard that creates pure energy
This “answering mathemetician-physicist”is just amazing in his perceptiveness. His fluid integration of the factual/mathematical, conceptual, logical, even quasi-philosophical in such colorful, poowerfully metaphorical, and humorous/”down-to-earth” language is truly a manifestation of a profoundly keen intellect. I really feel blessed to be able to read what he has written on a variety of topics. I’m sure he’s not absolutely 100 percent correct in every last word he “utters” in every last article but who cares?! I’m also sure he’s pretty darn close and I’m 100 percent sure I wouldn’t know the difference! Totally fantastic and really a public service, in my opinion, that is very commendable and admirable.
Are your eyes dim? Do you not see? Since Galileo the world of physics has confined its domain to that of the physical. By its very own rules anything outside of that it has no authority to talk or coment on other than informally. By this constraint it has gained, but it will also suffer.
What is reality? When we reduce objects to atoms and atoms to almost massless fundamental particles what do we have left? Does it not look like the trend of reductionism is showing us that all is energy? Then what is this so called ‘energy’?
The concept of energy does not exist without the concept of time, but the problem is that , as Einstein put it time is “stuff made in clocks”, it is abstract. So then is energy. An abstraction is a generalisation of something that is objective, so what is it that is the object of our research then? Is there anything in our fundamental discoveries that has a dynamic aspect to it? Why yes – Paul Dirac discovered that the electron has spin and the electron is fundamental and it is, as far as we can tell, eternal. So, we should ask ourselves, since this spin is a feature of the make up of all constructions up to the level of the atom is it at all possible that this spin is the cause of time, energy, forces?
Looking at the question generally the answer has to be yes because the spin is four dimensional. We live in a 3 dimensional (spatially) world so we are constrained to see the atom as a 3D phenomenon. When I say ‘we live in’ what I mean is that we too are apparently made of 3D atoms, so we will react to other external atoms accordingly. Look I’m sorry I’m not going to give you everything here it would take too long so it will just be teasers I’m afraid. Let us take the starting point of the Paul Dirac’s electron: a four dimensional rotation of zero extent: does anyone know any different? From this ‘particle’ and its cousins we are able to create a 3D atom WITH extent. I.e. from pure PROCESS (in 4D) to extent in 3D with the appearance of a connected 4th dimension of dynamic time.
It is 3 dimensional extent which is the illusion. It is the abstract understanding we have put on time which is non-existent. The fundamental is ‘process’, it is what goes on in the eternal electron. This process gives rise to the appearance of something dynamic which we try to characterise as time.
Sorry for the teaser, I will be formalising this as I get ‘time’.
Pingback: Q: Why does kinetic energy increase as velocity squared? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
I’m not a mathematician or physicist, But those “theories” about pure energy and spiritual beings are absolute nonsense. Computers/Phones on which these “spiritual” comments are being written are made with the help of science (laws of physics, mathematical calculations), they didn’t come from spirituality or sacred focused mind.
I’ve read articles stating that atoms are made of pure energy vortexes, but we know that energy is just a property that MUST be tied to some kind of objects/matter.
I’m quite fascinated with the theory of information, that universe is computing at a quantum scale, there are only bits of information being processed every second, that’s the same process our DNA evolved!
If “pure energy” cannot exist then what form did it take in the earliest moments of the Big Bang?
If temperature is the result of particles (i.e. highly condensed and structured energy) in motion, then how can the particle-less early universe be said to have had a temperature of some enormously big number of degrees?
These are the kinds of obvious question that occur to the intelligent Layman (I have degrees in Maths and Biology) but that popular books on science gloss over, or do not consider at all.
Come to think of it, I have yet to see a satisfying explanation in print of the much simpler question of why the temperature gets lower as you climb a mountain. Everything I have seen and read is either incomprehensible or logically flawed!!
Tom Rose: “If “pure energy” cannot exist then what form did it take in the earliest moments of the Big Bang?”
It had to be kinetic energy since after the Big bang was a “radiative” period (movement).
“If temperature is the result of particles (i.e. highly condensed and structured energy) in motion, then how can the particle-less early universe be said to have had a temperature of some enormously big number of degrees?”
During the “radiative” period, there was a particle that manifested itself. It was the massless neutrino. That particle was the only one existing at the time to manifest movement.
We have to consider the fact that the Big bang didn’t happen at time = zero. Since the Big bang is the appearance of our tridimensional universe, which means a “volume”, this volume couldn’t have a smaller diameter than the length of Planck (10^-35 m). So the Big bang happened at Planck’s time (10^-43 sec after time – zero).
It was during that period of 10^-43 sec called Planck’s era that kinetic energy developed itself to “explode” at Planck’s time.
I’m presuming a site like this and its crowd-sourced helpers err on and presume good faith on the part of the seekers. So, I’m confused/perplexed/curious/worried when people draw a distinction between the common understanding/use of the term “energy” and a more esoteric or rarified “scientific” term. It this distinction a function of defining its various states and behaviors in those states more than its common origin? When we harvest the biosphere, are we not harvesting different manifestations of the same ultimate source? When we use our body to work or drive a car or eat chocolate or pay attention to anything, aren’t we all using energy from the big bang, and usually from our own sun? Isn’t every transaction conducted by humans powered by the big bang or the sun? Or am I wrong? English degree from a regional religious college, here.
The energy of the sun originated from the Big bang. All energy observed today originated from the Big bang… except for one portion which is the energy that produced inflation at 10^-33 sec after time = zero. That energy added itself to the energy manifested at 10^-43 sec after time zero.
That second portion of energy brought with itself the space geodesic that would develop in space deformation (the source of gravity). The particle involved was the gluon whose geodesic sends everything to a “center point” instead of everywhere (all points). We describe it as a “gluing” result. “Gravity” is simply the contrary motion of “expansion”.
Thanks for this. I think the world could not help but be a better place if we printed this information on all our currency just to clarify the reality of our common situation.
That second portion of energy brought one heck of a hostess gift to the party.
All the metaphysics and philosophy exposed here is just bad.
No offense for the commenters, but what you expose here and the what science suggests or has discovered is completely incompatible. I mean, c’mon. We know death exists. Any “out of body” experience is a mere psychological phenomenon that can be triggered by different situations. Also, energy cannot be a pure thing because it is a property. That is what energy is. A property. So, no, the spinning of electrons is not pure energy. It is kinetic energy, because is the energy of the electron as it spins — moves.
As for the Big Bang questions, let me propose an answer:
According to relativistic-quantum theories, the Big Bang is a singularity point of infinite density. What kind of energy existed in the Big Bang? Energy is the capacity of a system to do work. If we were to measure the energy of the singularity point previous to the Big Bang — theoretically speaking, obviously, since we can’t measure energy previous to the Big Bang just yet — then this energy would be defined as the amount of work that this singularity is capable of doing. That energy would probably be equivalent to that of the entire universe. We can’t measure the energy of the entire universe. It’s not even really possibly to know how big the universe — our knowledge is limited to the observable universe. So, we can only know what the energy of that Big Bang singularity “is” like, but we can’t imaginably measure it.
I always belive that all living things contain purest
form of energy.
I am just reading Angel’s comment of November 30:
“this energy would be defined as the amount of work that this singularity is capable of doing. That energy would probably be equivalent to that of the entire universe. We can’t measure the energy of the entire universe. It’s not even really possibly to know how big the universe — our knowledge is limited to the observable universe. So, we can only know what the energy of that Big Bang singularity “is” like, but we can’t imaginably measure it.”
As you say, our bodies fail, but are these things true:
1) Are our living bodies “living” because we consume/transform a portion of the energy “equivalent to that of the entire universe?”
2) Is consumption/transformation of that original energy (many times removed) a diversion of entropy (to some other part of the universe)?
3) Does consumption that enables the temporary complex organization of particles temporarily divert entropy, or the laws of the universe for a “living” form to “live”?
If not, stop me now.
If so:
4) Does access to surplus energy mean we have the capacity to be intentional with the powers and properties of the universe? Perhaps it IS metaphysical if my premise (points 1-3) are not incoherent or wrong somewhere 🙂
Thanks to anyone who answers this.
Nice article and just some thoughts:
To Slick rick:
Couple things. 1. There isn’t really much in the way of answers as to where the energy came from in the first place. Perhaps it has always been no one knows and there is likely no way for anyone to ever know. Even with the most amazing telescope in the universe ever invented or ever will be invented even if we could see the light that still exists that hasn’t reached us yet or is too dim to see even with cosmic background radiation there is no way to see past the big bang. This is why metaphysics and religion gets brought into this arena. There is no way we will ever know so we imagine and try to use our ultimately simple brains to understand things that are just completely beyond us. As an experiment think about the concept of infinity. Because it is an abstract idea that is mirrored in the real world it is next to impossible to wrap your head around. Nothingness is a similar issue. The absence of absolutely anything is just not something you could ever comprehend. Your not wired to but you are wired to fill in the gap with things you do understand to try to cope with the lack of understanding. In the example of nothingness most people will imagine a never ending sea of white this however is not true because for it to be white there needs to be light and if there is light it’s not nothingness. You might say well then fine a sea of black well you have some other issues there like in order for something to be truly nothing you can not perceive it because the minute you perceive it it become something if only a physical property that you are perceiving. 2. Please understand information is an abstract concept again. Lights blinking on and off in a recognizable pattern is information. Your computer is proof of that. As would be lights blinking to binary or Morse code. In the example of say radio waves that get trapped in a black hole we are talking about EMF that has changes in things like it’s amplitude or it’s frequency that could be construed as information. So let’s say you have a radio wave that gets trapped by a black hole. Well it’s not going to have the power or energy to escape. Even if it’s an intelligent bit of information that could think for itself (bear with me I know how bad this is) and it actually tried to turn away from the singularity and escape all the energy that it is using would be converted into other forms of energy eventually leading into heat if not directly to heat. Eventually that energy would be all converted no more movement could be made and any mass that the information, which is actually it’s carrier wave, had would be pulled into the singularity adding to it’s mass and density and creating a larger (by really really tiny amounts) gravity profile. All the energy is still there in different forms either heat or electromagnetic forces or even potential energy stored in the mass. So no it does not contradict the law of conservation of energy.
To Tom Rose:
How is getting colder as you go up a mountain logically flawed? It’s all about air pressure on a mountain it is less meaning the heat energy is spread out.
To penny :
1. There is a lot of debate about what constitutes living and dead matter and no one really has a definition for it.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
is the definition but there are things that would be considered dead that grow and reproduce so it’s really kinda gray area.
2. This isn’t how entropy works. For the topic of energy your thinking of thermodynamic entropy and it doesn’t fit within what you are talking about. It has to do with how heat transfers between molecules.
3. You seem to be thinking of Schrodinger paradox either way the issues that crop up with what you seem to be thinking come from the second law of thermodynamics however that has to do with an isolated system which living beings are not.
Either way your premise is very confusing and hard to follow. Angel was talking about the idea of potential energy. Thanks to the law of conservation of energy we know energy can’t be created or destroyed. That means that every bit of energy that is now ever was and ever will be is the same energy and all of it was at one point stored as potential energy in the singularity that was the big bang.
Many thanks, tourn 🙂 I agree I am unable to articulate my thoughts coherently on this topic, and that I’ve mixed up the terms, and yes, I was set on this path by Schrodinger’s What is Life?, and implications of the second law.
Professor Frank Lambert of Occidental College beautifully says what I would LIKE to say and understand, and I recommend his writing on entropy and the second law for any other hapless humanities types like me: http://shakespeare2ndlaw.oxy.edu/
Here is an excerpt from one piece intended for extreme non-scientists:
“Shakespeare speaks movingly and powerfully about our complex human relationships. His work ‘teem[s] with the most vital ideas about the inner development of man, showing the whole grandeur and misery of human existence.’ In contrast to Shakespeare’s symphony of contributions to an understanding of being human, facts and theories about the physical world like the second law may initially sound tinny and trivial. But every microsecond of our acquaintance with grandeur or with misery involves — and often is determined by — physical and chemical events outside of our bodies and inside them. Physical matter is not a trivial component of our being human, of being complex emotional and rational creatures. Externally, we may be daily both beset and delighted by natural objects and by artifacts; our lives may be straitened to desperation by simple impacts or in violent car accidents. Internally, the biochemistry of our bodies depends upon material molecules in palpable organs and plays a significant part in everyone’s inner (emotive) development — as well as being responsible for our continuing life.
“The importance of the second law of thermodynamics in our lives? When second law concepts are coupled with examples of the effect of activation energies on chemical and physical events, they become a Rosetta stone for interpreting all the matter-dependent happenings in life. They are the helix codes for the occurrence of physical events.”
Tourn, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond as you have. It wasn’t just Schrodinger’s use of the term “negative entropy,” but listening to Feynman’s lectures, when he concludes one of the earliest lectures with the remark about us being this complex combination of particles. Living things are open systems but what happens if a living system is unable to take energy from its environment? Being open does not in itself presume access to energy. If an open living system is prevented from accessing energy from its environment, it succumbs to … starvation? Is this a variation on entropy? I don’t mean to be woo woo or spiritual, but in fact the opposite: to be as reductionist as a person as ignorant as I am can possibly be, and then consider the implications. Is the body and the brain within it a physical object subject to the laws of thermodynamics, including the second law if it fails to secure energy from its environment? THANK YOU!!!
Everything would be easier if you consider that the universe is quantized, pixelated, and that everything, even energy, is made of information, and obviously ourselves also.
In a few words, matter and energy are programmed. As programmers cannot be part of the program, they are outside.
“…Everything would be easier if you consider that the universe is quantized…”
Indeed , everything would be easier . I’m sure some people agree with you. But some are still hooked up to the idea that if you give someone a hammer , everything starts to look like a nail.
Since we live in a digital age , everything seems to be information processing or IP.
Is anyone right ? And if so , who is right ?
Let’s put “…everything, even energy, is made of information…” under the microscope for a second.
Clearly there is information and there is information processing.
Energy and matter are clearly the same thing . E=mC² says exactly that.
Our mind is the information processing entity.
Everyone understands that nothing can “exist” if the information is not available.
All we get from our “sensory inputs” is information . There is no way to prove that anything other than information exists.
“Reality” is just information being processed by our minds.
But what it means to process information ? Where’s the information coming from ?
Is there a programmer ? A god, nature , universal consciousness or whatever other name we choose to call it ?
Apparently , processing information seems to be simply to simply attach meaning to it. For instance , a simple word , “one” , is nothing but information. Vibration ,frequencies . Some would assign a quantitative value , 1 as opposed to nothing or zero , some would assign the meaning of a person , human, etc.
What happened to the original information when meaning was assigned to it ? It just became more complex . The “programmer ” seems to be in this case , our mind, our consciousness.
If anyone remembers The Game of Life devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970 , proved how simple rules can give birth to such complex systems. Everything seems to go from simple to more complex. As if the information itself is evolving , expanding , becoming more complex.
Would it be completely senseless to assume that everything started with “to be or not to be” ? To exist or not to exist ?
This “reality” or “universe” we are so familiar with seems to have this binary property. Nothing makes any sense unless there’s an opposite.
What meaning would have the light without darkness or absence of light ? Life without death ? Existence without non-existence ? Something without nothing ?
Logically , in order for “non-existence ” to make any sense, something Must exist !
Information doesn’t seem to make any sense if it is less than binary.
Following that logic , this “verse” , “universe” , “reality ” , had no choice but to exist in order for non-existence to make any sense.
Same scenario for information processing. Non-processed information only makes sense as opposed to processed information. Simple as opposed to complex.
Is this such an abstract idea ?
Maybe we are not so different from one another , maybe we are ,after all, multiple instances of the same consciousness , going trough different experiences at the same time.
energy is NOT a thing, stuff or antity at all. Energy is mathematical fiction. A characteristic, a property only- like size. Shaq is HUGE. Is Shaq made of this abstract property- NO.
Energy is not an entity that exists itself in this universe. it does not have to “come from” somewhere because it is NOT something in our universe- it is A NUMBER ONLY.
Matter and energy are as different as giraffes and heaven. Energy is A CONCEPT, matter is STUFF. Photons, while not matter, ARE DEFINITELY PARTICLES- STUF. Enegy is NOT.
Energy and matter should not even be paired in one’s mind together. They could not be more different.
Xerenarcy says:
March 6, 2014 at 1:19 am
i realize the significance of philosophical and metaphysical debate around this topic, but the question was asked from a physics (scientific) perspective, so can we stick to the relevant please?
The problem with science is the ego of Wisdom. Like wisdom, the mother of science, science has no foreknowledge, it only relates to tangible history, chemical energy; thus it doesn’t matter what truth exists, if science cannot verify it, it is meaningless to its subjects; even though pure Energy is staring it in the face.
@Hanson…. The Big Bang, I believe, is one of many bangs, a continual or series that exists and will always: a constant series of super mega size black holes that siphon and squeeze matter through into and out of “white holes” (a starting point of big bangs), like a cosmic chain…it’s perpetual.
Pure energy
Why don’t you all accept that pure energy is something humans of earth can never harness or control at this stage of evolution. Long way to go.
@Bev:
“Phyllis McLemore i love what you have written here about energy, im trying to understand how all this works, can you suggest any books for me to read? please email me at bevp@live.couk”
Read my comments above for your own benefit.
@Xerenarcy
“that said, it is easiest to think of energy as a currency of physical action – the more energy there is, the more ‘action’ can take place. action therefore could be said to be the exchange of energy between the locally available forms and residence.”
This is a really good way to explain it, although be careful with the usage of the word action, since in physics, that already has a definition as well.
@Joseph Killsnight:
“That was interesting. When I first started reading Phyllis McLemore comment, I thought to myself that’s sound like AI. Good stuff”
Certainly interesting for an AI, but terrible in general as it is full of false information.
@lAura Ketron
“I have a question regarding a personal experience. I would have been skeptical if I hadn’t been a witness. Soon after my grandmother’s death my father and I returned to her home to retrieve personal items for the upcoming funeral. Once inside we separated until my father called to me and I followed his voice into kitchen. “Erie isn’t it?” He said as my eyes followed his glance to the hanging (battery operated) clock. The short hand was still and pointing directly to the number 2, while the second hand flickered , vacillating between the numbers 46 & 47, the recorded time of my grandmother’s death. I have since wondered about many physical and mathematical possibilities. Do you have any explanations or theories about this phenomena?
Thank you for the time and consideration” ”
You were probably suffering from an optical illusion, which indicates that your vision and you brain functioning was being affected by her death. It is not uncommon for this to happen to multiple at once: experiencing a close one’s death can be incredibly impactful negatively for people’s brains. But it is also possible the clock was malfunctioning. “But Angel, why would it oscillate between those two numbers exactly?” Coincidence. And I know coincidence isn’t a satisfactory answer, but why should it be satisfactory? It’s easy to accept it’s a coincidence. Coincidences are REALLY common. In fact, just as common as caused events. And the probability of it having oscillated between any other two adjacent numbers is just as small as the probability of it having oscillated between 46 & 47. The probability is greater than 0, and it if it happened, then there is no contradiction, so there is no need for an explanation here.
@Slick rick:
“Where did energy come from then? If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that would imply energy has always existed. Wouldn’t that make energy an infinite quantity since it would have no starting nor finishing point. Isn’t that somewhat paradoxical. Also I’ve often seen quoted that during black holes information is lost doesn’t that violate the laws of conservation of energy.”
We know not where it came from, but your question presumes there had to be somewhere for it to come from. However, there is no reason for it to have come from anywhere whatsoever. According to the scientific evidence, time and space themselves began when the Big Bang happened, implying that there is no universe preceding the existence of the Big Bang. If there is no universe that precedes it due to the lack of the existence of time, then there were no natural laws to prohibit the universe to begin to exist randomly without a cause.
@Robbie:
“What about when matter and anti-matter collide and annihilate each other? I’ve heard that creates pure energy.”
The collision of matter and anti-matter produces photons which intrinsically have some energy, but it isn’t any purer than any other form of energy. Energy isn’t pure or impure. Energy just exists.
@Carl:
“Are your eyes dim? Do you not see? Since Galileo the world of physics has confined its domain to that of the physical. By its very own rules anything outside of that it has no authority to talk or comment on other than informally.”
This is completely untrue. We can use science to describe and explain non-physical ideas all the time. We do it in anthropology and psychology. Also, new math has been created from physics in the past.
“By this constraint it has gained, but it will also suffer.”
There is no proof for this.
“What is reality?”
Depends on your frame of reference and your choice of axioms.
“When we reduce objects to atoms and atoms to almost massless fundamental particles what do we have left?”
Pretty much everything. We can still talk about love and feelings and logic meaningfully withing a physical world.
“Does it not look like the trend of reductionism is showing us that all is energy?”
No. Numbers aren’t energy. Neither is time. Time and energy are by definition different, in fact.
“Then what is this so called ‘energy’?”
Energy is a measurable quantity which characterizes a particular property for any given sum of forces and particles, which describes to potential to cause motion for any given particle at any given position relative to the sources of the forces.
“The concept of energy does not exist without the concept of time…”
Not true.
“…but the problem is that , as Einstein put it time is “stuff made in clocks”, it is abstract…”
Actually, Einstein never said this at all. All Einstein managed to demonstrate is that space and time are part of the entity in the universe, a single entity called space-time, whose measurement is not absolute, but rather relative to the velocity of the frame of reference of the observer.
“So then is energy.”
Energy is abstract indeed, but it is still real.
“An abstraction is a generalisation of something that is objective…”
No. An abstraction is something which cannot be made concrete.
“…so what is it that is the object of our research then?”
The potential to cause motion of a group of given particles for any given configuration of forces parametrized by the position of said particles.
“Is there anything in our fundamental discoveries that has a dynamic aspect to it? Why yes – Paul Dirac discovered that the electron has spin and the electron is fundamental and it is, as far as we can tell, eternal. So, we should ask ourselves, since this spin is a feature of the make up of all constructions up to the level of the atom is it at all possible that this spin is the cause of time, energy, forces?”
The answer is no. The Big Bang created time itself when it occurred, yet the spin of the electron began to exist much after the Big Bang had occurred, so it cannot be the source of time & energy.
“Looking at the question generally the answer has to be yes because the spin is four dimensional.”
1) This is non-sequitur.
2) The spin is not anymore 4-dimensional than the rest of the universe.
“We live in a 3 dimensional (spatially) world so we are constrained to see the atom as a 3D phenomenon.”
You cited Einstein, who mathematically proved that, given that the his assumptions are true, then the universe must exist in 4 dimensions. His assumptions were experimentally shown true.
“When I say ‘we live in’ what I mean is that we too are apparently made of 3D atoms, so we will react to other external atoms accordingly. Look I’m sorry I’m not going to give you everything here it would take too long so it will just be teasers I’m afraid.”
You’re not giving us anything, since all you’re doing is spreading misinformation.
“Let us take the starting point of the Paul Dirac’s electron: a four dimensional rotation of zero extent: does anyone know any different?”
You just said a sentence of nonsense. There is no such a thing as “four dimensional rotation with zero extent.” For one, the notion of an extent as physical quantity is undefined. For two, rotations do not occur in the temporal axis, only in the spatial axis. The only particle capable of rotating in a temporal axis is a tachyon, but we have no evidence to suggest they exist, and our mathematical formulation of them is incomplete anyway.
“From this ‘particle’ and its cousins we are able to create a 3D atom WITH extent.”
Electrons have radii greater than zero, if that is what you mean by extent. Also, it is unsurprising atoms have “extent” or whatever you want to call it. Atoms are 99.999999% empty space.
“…I.e. from pure PROCESS (in 4D) to extent in 3D with the appearance of a connected 4th dimension of dynamic time.”
You’re making no sense, and you clearly don’t understand very well how 4-dimensional physics works. Also, spin is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, so there is no notion of classical mechanics you can use to explain it like you are trying to.
“It is 3 dimensional extent which is the illusion. It is the abstract understanding we have put on time which is non-existent. The fundamental is ‘process’, it is what goes on in the eternal electron. This process gives rise to the appearance of something dynamic which we try to characterise as time.
Sorry for the teaser, I will be formalising this as I get ‘time’.”
No, you won’t be formalizing it, you simply will be discarding it as I’ve shown you it is wrong. You don’t have to take my word for it: just open a book on relativity and see the content for yourself.
@Andre Lefebvre
“Tom Rose: “If “pure energy” cannot exist then what form did it take in the earliest moments of the Big Bang?”
It had to be kinetic energy since after the Big bang was a “radiative” period (movement).”
Radiative energy isn’t kinetic though. Photons are produced from potentials that cause excitations, and once the photon is produced, the photon carries the energy E =hf, but prior to this release, the energy is potential. Most energy is in fact potential, and it is possible for all of it to be potential.
” “If temperature is the result of particles (i.e. highly condensed and structured energy) in motion, then how can the particle-less early universe be said to have had a temperature of some enormously big number of degrees?”
During the “radiative” period, there was a particle that manifested itself. It was the massless neutrino. That particle was the only one existing at the time to manifest movement.”
Actually, this is not exactly true. Gluons also existed, and quarks. Besides, we have no empirical confirmation that the neutrino is massless. We know it is possible for it to be, and we still would have mathematical consistency, but we have no confirmation.
“We have to consider the fact that the Big bang didn’t happen at time = zero. Since the Big bang is the appearance of our tridimensional universe, which means a “volume”, this volume couldn’t have a smaller diameter than the length of Planck (10^-35 m). So the Big bang happened at Planck’s time (10^-43 sec after time – zero).”
Actually, this is not quite correct either. What you are referring to occurred after the Big Bang, known as the the Planck epoch. The Big Bang did occur at time 0, almost by definition, and it had to be this way according to relativity and thermodynamics.
“It was during that period of 10^-43 sec called Planck’s era that kinetic energy developed itself to “explode” at Planck’s time.” ”
It wasn’t kinetic.
@penny
“I’m presuming a site like this and its crowd-sourced helpers err on and presume good faith on the part of the seekers. So, I’m confused/perplexed/curious/worried when people draw a distinction between the common understanding/use of the term “energy” and a more esoteric or rarified “scientific” term. It this distinction a function of defining its various states and behaviors in those states more than its common origin?”
No. The reason such a distinction exists, as with many other terms, is because most people know too little of science, so they lack understanding on what a term actually means, or on how to properly use it, so they begin to misuse it so much that it becomes the accepted common usage, simply because most of society cares not enough about scientific learning & education.
“When we harvest the biosphere, are we not harvesting different manifestations of the same ultimate source?”
When we harvest energy, we harvest the capacity to do work, which is a quantity we call energy. It is not a physical object though.
“When we use our body to work or drive a car or eat chocolate or pay attention to anything, aren’t we all using energy from the big bang, and usually from our own sun?”
Energy which originating at the Big Bang, yes. The energy our sun provides for us was also created in the Big Bang. All energy was created in the Big Bang.
“Isn’t every transaction conducted by humans powered by the big bang or the sun? Or am I wrong? English degree from a regional religious college, here.”
You’ren’t wrong, although your wording could certainly be better. I know I sound picky, but believe it or not every single nitpicky distinction actually makes a distinction in science. In fact, I wasn’t picky enough for it to be considered scientific.
@letitgo:
“I always belive that all living things contain purest
form of energy.”
Read my comments above.
@penny:
“As you say, our bodies fail, but are these things true:
1) Are our living bodies “living” because we consume/transform a portion of the energy “equivalent to that of the entire universe?””
Yes. Allow me to explain. The universe is a closed system. This is to say, because the universe interacts — not as a whole — with no other universe, the energy content of the universe is conserved, a constant, and the entropy of the universe always increases with every single interaction happening within it for any given time period. Now, every physical system also has a unique energy content associated with it. You can choose any system within the universe and measure this energy content for the chosen system. You can choose the Earth, you can choose a human body, etc. Because every system in the universe is open and capable of interacting with any other system in the universe as well, these interactions can change the configuration of the sum of forces and particles in both systems, and as such, they change the associated energy content. For example, if you take a transparent picture of a living body at any given time, you can see what all of the forces present in this body are, you can see all the particles and can measure all their positions and instantaneous velocities based on this picture you took at a given time. Once you have calculated all of the above, you can calculate what the energy content for this very specific system is. If this system were closed and interacted with nothing, then the energy content would not change. In other words, we would not be consuming energy in any form. However, this is bad. REALLY bad. We WANT to consume energy: otherwise, by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, our entropy would increase since we would be a closed system. Bodies are incredibly complex and complicated ordered configurations of matter, and if entropy increases, this order decreases, so we die. Luckily for us, we are NOT closed systems. We interact with other systems, such as the environment, the sun, other bodies, and ever ourselves. These interactions manipulate the sum of forces as well as the positions of the particles subjected to these forces such that the energy content of our bodies increases, and thus keeps entropy within the desired range for our bodies to mechanically behave the way they do: alive. Entropy is a function of energy, by the way.
“2) Is consumption/transformation of that original energy (many times removed) a diversion of entropy (to some other part of the universe)?”
Yes. If our energy content increases due to the change of the sum of forces and the position of particles in our body, then this means that the energy of content of the rest of the universe decreases, even if the change is insignificant relative to the total energy of the universe. Because of this interaction, the entropy of the universe as a whole, single system increases.
“3) Does consumption that enables the temporary complex organization of particles temporarily divert entropy, or the laws of the universe for a “living” form to “live”?”
Not only does it temporarily divert entropy, it changes it permanently. Once we increase the entropy of the universe by the act of living, we cannot decrease the entropy back to what it was. Again, this is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and due to the fact that the universe is a closed system. Although, IF another universe exists, if the multiverse hypothesis is true, perhaps in a million years we’ll’ve the knowledge and technology to make the universe interact with another universe and become an open system capable of increasing its entropy and changing its energy content.
If not, stop me now.
If so:
“4) Does access to surplus energy mean we have the capacity to be intentional with the powers and properties of the universe? Perhaps it IS metaphysical if my premise (points 1-3) are not incoherent or wrong somewhere 🙂
Thanks to anyone who answers this.”
I’m not sure I understand the question. If we intend to increase the entropy of the universe, then by intentionally consuming energy, we will do so (although, can we “intend” to consume energy? Does free will really exist? Food for thought 🙂 ). But if we intend to keep the entropy of the universe the same… well, that is impossible. See, if we decide to somehow not consume energy as living beings, we still cannot control the energetic interactions which happen outside of our galaxy and within the orbits of planets around stars. So we’re really stuck here with the universe’s entropic death, aren’t we?
@tourn:
“There is no way we will ever know…”
Actually, you cannot know this for sure unless you prove it by logic.
“…so we imagine and try to use our ultimately simple brains to understand things that are just completely beyond us. As an experiment think about the concept of infinity.”
We can understand infinity though. There are thousands of mathematical theorems dedicated to demonstrating properties of infinity. We’ve come a long way.
“Because it is an abstract idea that is mirrored in the real world it is next to impossible to wrap your head around. Nothingness is a similar issue. The absence of absolutely anything is just not something you could ever comprehend.”
Not entirely, but this is more plausible indeed.
“…because the minute you perceive it it become something if only a physical property that you are perceiving.”
Indeed.
“Please understand information is an abstract concept again. Lights blinking on and off in a recognizable pattern is information. Your computer is proof of that. As would be lights blinking to binary or Morse code. In the example of say radio waves that get trapped in a black hole we are talking about EMF that has changes in things like it’s amplitude or it’s frequency that could be construed as information. So let’s say you have a radio wave that gets trapped by a black hole. Well it’s not going to have the power or energy to escape. Even if it’s an intelligent bit of information that could think for itself (bear with me I know how bad this is) and it actually tried to turn away from the singularity and escape all the energy that it is using would be converted into other forms of energy eventually leading into heat if not directly to heat. Eventually that energy would be all converted no more movement could be made and any mass that the information, which is actually it’s carrier wave, had would be pulled into the singularity adding to it’s mass and density and creating a larger (by really really tiny amounts) gravity profile. All the energy is still there in different forms either heat or electromagnetic forces or even potential energy stored in the mass. So no it does not contradict the law of conservation of energy.”
A bit sloppy, but yes, essentially.
“To Tom Rose:
How is getting colder as you go up a mountain logically flawed? It’s all about air pressure on a mountain it is less meaning the heat energy is spread out.”
yes.
“To penny :
1. There is a lot of debate about what constitutes living and dead matter and no one really has a definition for it.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
is the definition but there are things that would be considered dead that grow and reproduce so it’s really kinda gray area.”
While it is true that controversy exists with this debate, I would say it is not as gray as you make it seem. The definition is that it has to satisfy ALL of the above properties for it to be considered alive. Whether it is ethically or scientifically practical to define it as such… well, that is where the debate lies.
“2. This isn’t how entropy works. For the topic of energy your thinking of thermodynamic entropy and it doesn’t fit within what you are talking about. It has to do with how heat transfers between molecules.”
I’d disagree. Heat is just the movement of kinetic energy content. Because entropy is a function of energy, entropy as explained in thermodynamics applies to all movement of energy content to a different system. It does fit well too. Look at my explanation above.
“3. You seem to be thinking of Schrodinger paradox either way the issues that crop up with what you seem to be thinking come from the second law of thermodynamics however that has to do with an isolated system which living beings are not.”
I already explained that. Consumption of energy as living beings, as posited by penny, is equivalent to the fact that we are not closed systems. Those two statements are equivalent.
“Either way your premise is very confusing and hard to follow. Angel was talking about the idea of potential energy. Thanks to the law of conservation of energy we know energy can’t be created or destroyed. That means that every bit of energy that is now ever was and ever will be is the same energy and all of it was at one point stored as potential energy in the singularity that was the big bang.”
I was talking about energy in general. But yes.
@penny:
“Living things are open systems but what happens if a living system is unable to take energy from its environment? Being open does not in itself presume access to energy. If an open living system is prevented from accessing energy from its environment, it succumbs to … starvation? Is this a variation on entropy?”
Yes. A living system which is unable to interact with its environment cannot consume energy due to mechanical failure, not because they are isolated – which they are not. As such, living systems in such a condition do die. Which makes sense, because the biological definition of life includes being able to interact with environment.
“I don’t mean to be woo woo or spiritual, but in fact the opposite: to be as reductionist as a person as ignorant as I am can possibly be, and then consider the implications. Is the body and the brain within it a physical object subject to the laws of thermodynamics, including the second law if it fails to secure energy from its environment? THANK YOU!!!”
Yes. Every system within the body, every organ, every cell, is subject to the law of thermodynamics. Technically speaking, any conceivable physical object which exists can be imagined as an isolated system from a mathematical view: even an atom! Although, I do have to clarify, the quantum mechanical version of the laws of thermodynamics are very different from what they are in classical mechanics, as we know them. But yes, in theory any of those systems COULD be isolated, and in the case that they were, we have mathematical information about them. But in reality, it is nearly impossible for a single to be in a situation where it cannot interact with anything, 99.9999999% of the time, it will behave like an open system, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics will not dictate the system to increase in entropy.
@ dina
“In a few words, matter and energy are programmed. As programmers cannot be part of the program, they are outside.”
There is no reason to think we are made of information since information isn’t a physical object in the same way that speed is.
@Thrdel:
““…Everything would be easier if you consider that the universe is quantized…”
Indeed , everything would be easier . I’m sure some people agree with you. But some are still hooked up to the idea that if you give someone a hammer , everything starts to look like a nail.”
This has no relevance to this discussion, not even metaphorically.
“Since we live in a digital age , everything seems to be information processing or IP.
Is anyone right ? And if so , who is right ?”
All of humanity establishes some fundamental assumptions from which we can create knowledge using our resources to learn and process information. Thanks to this, we have developed verified and rigorous tools which allows us to derive correct conclusions relative to these axioms. Now we know who is correct in theory, although, whether anyone at all actually uses these tools optimally can be a question for another discussion.
“Let’s put “…everything, even energy, is made of information…” under the microscope for a second.
Clearly there is information and there is information processing.
Energy and matter are clearly the same thing . E=mC² says exactly that.”
No. They are not the same thing. E = mc^2 means that there is a unique amount of energy content proportional to the mass content characterized by the inertial and intrinsic field properties of the particle. However, matter does refer to a specific type of particle, not all particles are matter, but all particles have energy.
“Our mind is the information processing entity.
Everyone understands that nothing can “exist” if the information is not available.”
Not necessarily. Nothingness has information carried with it. By definition, this information is a counterpart of the definition of somethingness. Although, because of this, it so happens that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because the information “to exists” itself implies somethingness.
“All we get from our “sensory inputs” is information . There is no way to prove that anything other than information exists.”
Actually, this is false. We cannot prove information exists, because we cannot prove our sensory inputs receive information. In fact, we cannot even prove our sensory receptors even exist.
““Reality” is just information being processed by our minds.
But what it means to process information ? Where’s the information coming from ?
Is there a programmer ? A god, nature , universal consciousness or whatever other name we choose to call it ?”
Not necessarily. Why there need be one at all?
“Apparently , processing information seems to be simply to simply attach meaning to it. For instance , a simple word , “one” , is nothing but information. Vibration ,frequencies . Some would assign a quantitative value , 1 as opposed to nothing or zero , some would assign the meaning of a person , human, etc.
What happened to the original information when meaning was assigned to it ? It just became more complex . The “programmer ” seems to be in this case , our mind, our consciousness.”
We assign information to reality, but even if our consciousnesses were absent, some intrinsic information would still exist for there to be received by an observer if it were to come into existence.
“If anyone remembers The Game of Life devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970 , proved how simple rules can give birth to such complex systems. Everything seems to go from simple to more complex. As if the information itself is evolving , expanding , becoming more complex.
Would it be completely senseless to assume that everything started with “to be or not to be” ? To exist or not to exist ?”
No. The universe could have began to exists with no reason or cause to. There was nothing preventing it from doing so because there was not something.
“This “reality” or “universe” we are so familiar with seems to have this binary property. Nothing makes any sense unless there’s an opposite.
What meaning would have the light without darkness or absence of light ? Life without death ? Existence without non-existence ? Something without nothing ?
Logically , in order for “non-existence ” to make any sense, something Must exist !
Information doesn’t seem to make any sense if it is less than binary.
Following that logic , this “verse” , “universe” , “reality ” , had no choice but to exist in order for non-existence to make any sense.”
Agreed. This is not scientific, but ontology is not a matter of science here.
“Same scenario for information processing. Non-processed information only makes sense as opposed to processed information. Simple as opposed to complex.
Is this such an abstract idea ?”
It is abstract, but fruitful
“Maybe we are not so different from one another , maybe we are ,after all, multiple instances of the same consciousness , going trough different experiences at the same time.”
Define consciousness and maybe this will make some sense.