Energy Lifeform

[Voyager275]

The iconic energy being. Possible or not?

[smjjames]

Some could claim souls to be said energy beings.

Really though, energy doesn't tend to organize itself in any form, like matter does.

Edit: I'm not trying to bring religion into the thread, just making a point in how do you define an energy lifeform. Your neural pattern separated from you could be considered an energy lifeform.

[magnemoe]

You might call an computer virus an energy lifeform.

As smjjames says energy don't organize itself so you need something it can organize itself in, something complex enough like an computer.

[lajoswinkler]

AI would be an informational form of life.

Energy is the capability to do work. As such, it can not form anything coherent.

However, neither matter can all by itself. It needs energy.

[Scotius]

On quantum level everything is energy . Therefore nearest energy lifeform is... you

[ouion]

I think energy being meant Plasma based life or noble gas based life.

Plasma based beings probably live in interstellar space and they are probably invisible to us as the universe is primary consist of hydrogen gas and plasma. So they could be common. Some probably can live inside stars and use nuclear fusion from the star as energy.

[klesh]

The iconic energy being. Possible or not?

Made of dark energy, I bet.

[lajoswinkler]

On quantum level everything is energy . Therefore nearest energy lifeform is... you

No, that's just a woo woo myth. It's not nearly that simple. On those levels, there are fields only, and those fields contain energy. Energy is not something you can experience. Only particles carrying it. Energy alone, there's no such thing.

I think energy being meant Plasma based life or noble gas based life.

Plasma based beings probably live in interstellar space and they are probably invisible to us as the universe is primary consist of hydrogen gas and plasma. So they could be common. Some probably can live inside stars and use nuclear fusion from the star as energy.

Plasma is fundamentally different from anything alive, and noble gases do not form stable molecules. Therefore no.

[Tex_NL]

The iconic energy being. Possible or not?

I think it's unlikely but until you find one the only definitive answer one could possibly give is: unknown.

[WinkAllKerb'']

are [Metaphor]=[Math] or [Math]=[Metaphor] make it short but plox don't forget something while doing so ; )

[windows_x_seven]

are [Metaphor]=[Math] or [Math]=[Metaphor] make it short but plox don't forget something while doing so ; )

What?

[Xannari Ferrows]

Absolutely possible. No question about that.

[AngelLestat]

It all depends on the enviroment..

We can not live underwater because we drown, we can not live in plasma or inside a computer.

So if you are asking can energy (without matter) live in our same enviroment, then a honest answer is "we dont know".

[Kinglet]

Well, "pure energy" does it exist. It always needs a medium to be held in. Some examples of that are: Movement of particles and atoms, gravitational potential, photons...

[Thomassino]

A big question is how could something like energy-based life even form. But if can be human consciousness separated from its body, it might be possible. But still its uncertain if it can be held in a state of "pure" energy.

[Dispatcher]

The iconic energy being. Possible or not?

We have limited senses, intellect, experiences, cultural duration and biological history, as a species and for life on earth in general. Thus, our conclusions are limited to those confines. So in this context, many things are "possible", even if they seem improbable. My opinion is that its best to claim that something is possible rather than not, until we have irrefutable proof otherwise. That goes for this question, and probably most reasonable questions of any type.

[lajoswinkler]

It all depends on the enviroment..

We can not live underwater because we drown, we can not live in plasma or inside a computer.

So if you are asking can energy (without matter) live in our same enviroment, then a honest answer is "we dont know".

This is not a question of living in a medium. It's a question of organism constitution. Plasma is a mixture of nuclei (or cations, depending on temperature) and electrons. As such, it is physically impossible for it to form higher associated structures. Its temperature prevents formation of atoms, let alone molecules. Life requires organization of matter and plasma is one of the best examples of extreme disorganization. It's contradictory to its composition, therefore you can say with realistic 100% certainty that such things are impossible.

Well, "pure energy" does it exist. It always needs a medium to be held in. Some examples of that are: Movement of particles and atoms, gravitational potential, photons...

Pure energy, what would that be? "Here, have a glass of capability to work". There is no such thing in our universe. There's also no pure matter, either. They're always mixed.

Photons are not energy. They are particles that carry a certain, quantified, amount of energy.

[WinkAllKerb'']

t1 t2 t3 t-to come *grumpf*

[AngelLestat]

This is not a question of living in a medium. It's a question of organism constitution. Plasma is a mixture of nuclei (or cations, depending on temperature) and electrons. As such, it is physically impossible for it to form higher associated structures. Its temperature prevents formation of atoms, let alone molecules. Life requires organization of matter and plasma is one of the best examples of extreme disorganization. It's contradictory to its composition, therefore you can say with realistic 100% certainty that such things are impossible.

How can you said that? when we can not even be agree on the energy definition.

E=mc2 --> this may give us a clue...

What we know about all the possible energy forms on the universe? In recent years we added the "dark energy" to our dictionaries but without definition yet.

Maybe all particles that we call matter are in fact tiny energy strings as string theory predict, and maybe they can generate many different ways of energy with curious properties..

Why it can not be a type of wave-energy information that use the atmosphere or medium to provide to it self an structure. You can organize matter at different patterns just using sound or other electromagnetic waves.. Energy can also interact with energy through interference.

Here many as me, we are saying "we dont know" as anyone with enoght knowledge to understand that we dont understand all would said.

But you come here with the biology book in hand as it was some kind of holy book claiming that is impossible.

I still think that you dont know yet what science or scientific method is about.

Edited July 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[pincushionman]

The concept of "energy being" seems to be based on some kind of idea that "energy" is somehow different from what we exprience every day, ignoring the fact that nothing happens to matter in the absence of energy, and likewise energy doesn't exist in the absence of matter to act on. Life as we know it can be described as organized self-manipulation of energy by matter - it certainly isn't "matter all by itself" that an "energy being" can be the polar opposite of.

[KSK]

How can you said that when we can not even be agree on the energy definition.

E=mc2 --> this may give us a clue...

What we know about all the possible energy forms on the universe? In recent years we added the "dark energy" to our dictionaries but without definition yet.

Maybe all particles that we call matter are in fact tiny energy strings as string theory predict, and maybe they can generate many different ways of energy with curious properties..

But he wasn't talking about 'all the possible energy forms in the universe'. He was talking about plasma and giving some good reasons why it's incapable of forming complex structures and therefore why 'plasma life' is impossible

Why it can not be a type of wave-energy information that use the atmosphere or medium to provide to it self an structure. You can organize matter at different patterns just using sound or other electromagnetic waves.. Energy can also interact with energy through interference.

Yes you can provided that you've either got multiple sound or radiation sources at the same frequency, or you've got some kind of reflecting cavity to set up a standing wave. Unless we're invoking an intelligent designer here, I find it extremely difficult to imagine how such a system would arise spontaneously, be capable of evolving to more complex systems and ultimately to a sufficiently complex system to constitute a living thing.

Here many as me, we are saying "we dont know" as anyone with enoght knowledge to understand that we dont understand all will said.

Which is technically honest but also a complete cop-out that shuts down any sort of reasoned debate before it's begun.

I still think that you dont know yet what science or scientific method is about.

Generating wild hypotheses is, at best, a very small part of the scientific method. Justifying those hypotheses by saying that they 'might be true because we don't know they're not true' is the complete antithesis of the scientific method.

Edited July 25, 2015 by KSK

[AngelLestat]

But he wasn't talking about 'all the possible energy forms in the universe'. He was talking about plasma and giving some good reasons why it's incapable of forming complex structures and therefore why 'plasma life' is impossible

first I mention plasma as an enviroment where humans can not survive... nothing else...

and you are mention "life" as it will be only "life as we know it" the only way of life.

Yes you can provided that you've either got multiple sound or radiation sources at the same frequency, or you've got some kind of reflecting cavity to set up a standing wave. Unless we're invoking an intelligent designer here, I find it extremely difficult to imagine how such a system would arise spontaneously, be capable of evolving to more complex systems and ultimately to a sufficiently complex system to constitute a living thing.

Equal difficult to imagine will be the concept that matter can organize by it self in complex structures that develope conscience, to a different intelligence form who has not evidence of this.

Make the relation from A --> B ignoring the billions of steps is so complex that never will have sense (with our limited intelligence) without true evidence.

Which is technically honest but also a complete cop-out that shuts down any sort of reasoned debate before it's begun.

get used to, that is how all science people talk or write.

And said that its 100% impossible does not add nothing either.

If I would have more evidence or knowledge I will use the words unlikely, probable, or with clarifications like "in the frame of our understanding I guess is impossible or possible", etc.

Generating wild hypotheses is, at best, a very small part of the scientific method. Justifying those hypotheses by saying that they 'might be true because we don't know they're not true' is the complete antithesis of the scientific method.

Dont change the context, he can not prove something is impossible.. The same that any scientist can not prove that unicorns or god does not exist.

I hope you understand this.. because I dont want to explain basic logic.

Edited July 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[sal_vager]

Id like not to have to step in and restore order in this thread today guys, arguing against each other is a great animosity generator but doesn't produce any progression or results, just heated egos.

Lets keep to facts about the topic at hand whenever possible, thank you.

[AngelLestat]

nobody is heating, we are just discussing. the only phrase that might looks like "bad" of my part is:

I hope you understand this.. because I dont want to explain basic logic.

but is not like that, I was being honest without any evil intention, I dont want to enter in that diverting the topic, when is so easy to search that on internet.

[KSK]

get used to, that is how all science people talk or write.

Which is nonsense. Yes, scientists will be careful to state the errors in their data and how those errors might affect their conclusions. They will also be extremely cautious about presenting their conclusions as absolute fact and point out other options that can't be ruled out or that would require further experiments to rule out. They may also present results that constrain a particular hypothesis, i.e. 'it might work but only if we can show x, y and z' or 'it doesn't work under these conditions but we can't rule out other conditions where it might still be valid.'

I've never yet seen a scientific paper presenting some wild idea without any sort of evidence or justification beyond 'you can't prove that this is wrong so it might be right.'

Dont change the context, he can not prove something is impossible.. The same that any scientist can not prove that unicorns or god does not exist.

Of course not. But this is normally taken as read. Using it as your sole justification for a hypothesis does nothing at all to disprove or prove that hypothesis. It doesn't advance the debate around that hypothesis in any way and for that reason is completely unscientific.

To use your unicorn example, we might reasonably have a discussion about the fossil record and how it presents no evidence for unicorns. We might then conclude the fossil record is too unreliable to rule out unicorns. We might point to other creatures with similar physiologies (for example narwhals) and speculate that unicorns might have evolved from a common ancestor. We might have an interesting discussion about how useful a single horn would be from an evolutionary point of view. From all this, we might eventually arrive at some idea about the likelihood of unicorns existing.

A meaningful discussion in other words. Not just a trite statement that 'you can't prove unicorns don't exist, therefore they might exist'.

So with all that said, does anyone have any ideas about what kinds of energy lifeforms could - or could not - exist?

Edited July 25, 2015 by KSK