Energy Lifeform

[Aanker]

The OP's question isn't that good, so providing a sufficient answer is difficult.

But no, an 'energy lifeform' (in the glowing orb fantasy creature sense) is impossible. I'm going to assume that the OP is basically imagining something like that. What we typically in common colloquial language refer to as 'energy' (and I know that this may be inaccurate from a strictly scientific viewpoint) is electricity, heat and maybe sound and light. Neither of these can contain themselves but instead disperse freely. Life needs to seal itself off from the chaotic environment it lives in, this so that it can securely and in an organized fashion store energy reserves (n.b. these are molecules, not pure energy), information and maintain structural integrity.

That's just the first problem. Life is not really so abstract that we can imagine it as being just about anything (like a floating plasma cloud). Life is, rather, the agent of organized matter and energy management, which in turn is possible thanks to complex chemical and mechanical interactions which do generate energy.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Aanker

[grawl]

#Very personal perception not based on any actual scientific knowledge incoming, please be critical

The consciousness is only a result of the complexity of our brain's neurons network, and how it reacts to events that are proposed to it.

Much like a computer actually. But an organic adapting one. The output greatly depends on what has happened before.

I think the right term is "deterministic".

Now, let's take quantum interactions between particles (like how they can be tied to each other in some conditions for example, or still unknown ones ). These might form some kind of network, comparable to the brain's neural net. That causes consciousness, on a level higher/lower than any level we could ever imagine I give you, but still...

So, to summarize it all, to me, "energy consciousness" is possible.

Life form is a totally different thing though. It's only definable in our scale (cellular, viruses, etc).

[vger]

I think if there's any such thing, like the kind we've seen in sci-fi, "energy being" would probably be inaccurate, and would technically be a life form that traverses more dimensions than we can perceive.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Life = Undefined.

Life as we know it = Irrelevant.

[AngelLestat]

Please sal, give us liberty to discuss this, is important, we can avoid many science discussion if we better learn how science is driven.

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.'

Ok, the problem is that you are changing all the context here.

Lets go one by obe:

Absolute facts are those that inside your very limited frame of study, there is not other variable that can enter in play to change or modify the results.

So is correct to say that something is possible or impossible if your frame of study is very limited and you know all variables involve. And you can make a ladder with facts to reach conclusion that can be taken as facts, but only in your frame of study where you control all variables.

There is not limited frame of study when we are talking on the misteries of the universe, energies or different life forms.

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.

But nobody here is making a scientific paper or claim... I remember you the topic question:

Topic title: "energy lifeform"

"The iconic energy being. Possible or not?"

See the difference?

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.

Science move forward, with one step in the unknown and the other in solid ground.

So there is not shame to talk a bit or try to imagine the unknown proyecting some thing we know, more if we are not making any claim.

From your point of view, we should said is impossible, then close the thread, so if anyone base on this hypothetical discussion has a real eureka finding the way how this will be possible, that door would be close.

....... ......

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

What?? again changing the context..

I said you can not prove that unicorns does not exist... period.

Then if something worth or not worth to talk about it, yeah it will depend on the evidence or theories you have, which might (or not) be enoght to at least ask few question about the possibility.

We dont have ships able to interstellar travel at respectable time frames. This is not enoght to discourage people to wonder "what if", and then try to strenght their theories with evidence to shape their ideas in something plausible.

But again... Nobody was making any claim here.. Not the OP or nobody in these 3 pages of discussion, the only thing we said was... "we dont know".

But for sure, something you can NOT said is.. "100% impossible".

Edited July 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[SciMan]

A layperson states "That's impossible."

A scientist states "There's a gigantic amount of evidence that states it hasn't happened, yet."

Both might be correct, but the scientist can quantify how "correct" their answer is, and usually estimate the chance of it being wrong.

I say energy beings don't exist in any form that we have been able to observe, or determine is alive.

The closest thing I could come up with would be some sort of plasma based life using magnetic fields as cell-walls, and even then I can't see it becoming more complex than single-celled stuff without having to live in the core of a star (which is unobservable to us so far).

A very big part of being a scientist is knowing what you don't and/or can't know.

I'd even say it's a bigger part of being a scientist than being able to do math.

It's absolutely that important. If you don't know what you don't know, you can think you know everything, but really know nothing.

What I mean is this: A scientist saying "I don't know" isn't "dodging the question" they're giving you the best answer they can with the information they have.

[KSK]

Please sal, give us liberty to discuss this, is important, we can avoid many science discussion if we better learn how science is driven.

Ok, the problem is that you are changing all the context here.

Lets go one by obe:

Absolute facts are those that inside your very limited frame of study, there is not other variable that can enter in play to change or modify the results.

So is correct to say that something is possible or impossible if your frame of study is very limited and you know all variables involve. And you can make a ladder with facts to reach conclusion that can be taken as facts, but only in your frame of study where you control all variables.

There is not limited frame of study when we are talking on the misteries of the universe, energies or different life forms.

But nobody here is making a scientific paper or claim... I remember you the topic question:

Topic title: "energy lifeform"

"The iconic energy being. Possible or not?"

See the difference?

Science move forward, with one step in the unknown and the other in solid ground.

So there is not shame to talk a bit or try to imagine the unknown proyecting some thing we know, more if we are not making any claim.

From your point of view, we should said is impossible, then close the thread, so if anyone base on this hypothetical discussion has a real eureka finding the way how this will be possible, that door would be close.

What?? again changing the context..

I said you can not prove that unicorns does not exist... period.

Then if something worth or not worth to talk about it, yeah it will depend on the evidence or theories you have, which might (or not) be enoght to at least ask few question about the possibility.

We dont have ships able to interstellar travel at respectable time frames. This is not enoght to discourage people to wonder "what if", and then try to strenght their theories with evidence to shape their ideas in something plausible.

But again... Nobody was making any claim here.. Not the OP or nobody in these 3 pages of discussion, the only thing we said was... "we dont know".

But for sure, something you can NOT said is.. "100% impossible".

I think we're talking past each other here, so I'm bowing out of this discussion before I say something that will get the thread locked. But as a final point - I am not changing the context and I remember the question well.

"The iconic energy being. Possible or not?"

All I am saying is, lets have some discussion as to why it's possible or not possible.

So there is not shame to talk a bit or try to imagine the unknown proyecting some thing we know, more if we are not making any claim.

Absolutely! And if anyone does make a claim, all I'm asking is that those claims be rebutted with something more substantial than 'we don't know'. That's an entirely fair and honest response but it doesn't get us very far. Let's at least try and extrapolate from what we do know. And if that leads someone to conclude that something is impossible then challenge the extrapolation, or challenge the allegedly known facts on which that extrapolation was based. Point out flaws in the argument and how they might lead to other conclusions.

In other words have a debate and don't just shut the debate down with a restatement of 'it's possible because we can't prove it's impossible'. That's all I'm saying - it's all I've ever been saying.

Aanker's last post was an excellent example. He makes a point and then backs it up with points that can be further challenged or discussed. Including his very good comment that "Life needs to seal itself off from the chaotic environment it lives in, this so that it can securely and in an organized fashion store energy reserves (n.b. these are molecules, not pure energy), information and maintain structural integrity."

Now there's something we can get our teeth into.

[Aanker]

A layperson states "That's impossible."

A scientist states "There's a gigantic amount of evidence that states it hasn't happened, yet."

Both might be correct, but the scientist can quantify how "correct" their answer is, and usually estimate the chance of it being wrong.

That's merely a philosophical consequence of the scientific method. Yes, in a scientific article exploring the possibility of energy-based life, the conclusion would be similar to yours in wording (albeit include the words 'extremely unlikely'). But we are in a layman forum, discussing an extremely layman question (heck, the OP formulates the question as 'possible or not?'), so the answers should be adapted to the format. From a practical standpoint, it makes no sense to leave the door open for misinterpretation. 'Energy lifeforms' are essentially impossible.

The closest thing I could come up with would be some sort of plasma based life using magnetic fields as cell-walls, and even then I can't see it becoming more complex than single-celled stuff without having to live in the core of a star (which is unobservable to us so far).

A planet is more likely to be regarded as life in that case. For non-charged particles, this magnetic shield will not serve as a barrier against the environment. A planet does at least have its crust to depend on in that case. But neither fulfill the other restrictions imposed on what passes as life.

A very big part of being a scientist is knowing what you don't and/or can't know.

I'd even say it's a bigger part of being a scientist than being able to do math.

It's absolutely that important. If you don't know what you don't know, you can think you know everything, but really know nothing.

What I mean is this: A scientist saying "I don't know" isn't "dodging the question" they're giving you the best answer they can with the information they have.

We're in a computer game forum discussing an easily rejectable proposal. I think we can relax a bit on the philosophical side of things.

PS. Once again, OP Q: energy lifeform, possible or not? A: not possible.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Aanker

[RainDreamer]

Isn't this like asking "Is fire alive?"

[ouion]

Plasma from other gases can form cell like structures as hypothesized in this articles explaining that early lifeforms on Earth are plasma or ion based lifeforms from lighting.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4174-plasma-blobs-hint-at-new-form-of-life/

[lajoswinkler]

Life = Undefined.

Life as we know it = Irrelevant.

Yes, it is frequently irrelevant to laymen because they know nothing about it.

Plasma from other gases can form cell like structures as hypothesized in this articles explaining that early lifeforms on Earth are plasma or ion based lifeforms from lighting.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4174-plasma-blobs-hint-at-new-form-of-life/

That article is a pretty decent pile of journalistic misleding wishful thinking, and you seem to be unable to see through it and. Most importantly, this is about cold plasma. Here is the paper, read all about it.

http://necsi.edu/events/iccs/2002/Mo01_LozneanuFixed.pdf

Those blobs are a simulation governed by basic electromagnetism and can not possibly be brought into any connection with stuff like Oparin's coacervates which are few steps from actual real cells and might've actually been a real thing during the transition of chemical to biological evolution.

Edited July 26, 2015 by lajoswinkler

[AngelLestat]

"The iconic energy being. Possible or not?"

All I am saying is, lets have some discussion as to why it's possible or not possible.

Nobody is against that.. you can said I believe is possible or impossible due these reasons.. But you can not said from a higher ground "is 100% impossible" as if it was writen in stone.

You can sent me a PM if there is something you want to clarify or you dont want to discuss openly..

Absolutely! And if anyone does make a claim, all I'm asking is that those claims be rebutted with something more substantial than 'we don't know'. That's an entirely fair and honest response but it doesn't get us very far. Let's at least try and extrapolate from what we do know. And if that leads someone to conclude that something is impossible then challenge the extrapolation, or challenge the allegedly known facts on which that extrapolation was based. Point out flaws in the argument and how they might lead to other conclusions.

Less far take us if we close the doors not being sure of the answer.

Again, there is nothing wrong to accept the things we dont know.. Maybe I was wrong to say "we", I should use "I", it will be more correct, but knowing how huge is the frame and all variables involve, I can said as fact that "nobody knows for sure".

I add many examples of how energy is super related to matter or how energy can arrange matter, also waves can transmit information and you may have interference patterns, etc. And it may be thousands of other reasons why we should not discard the possibility.

For example everyone with some science background it would thought that a tractor beam it would be impossible. But few years ago they discover that is possible (total pointless, but possible for particles).

Also I know that it does not help to said is unlikely or may be possible if that is all your statement and you dont said why. But if you add statements why you think that way, then people may also point flaws in those statements or come with other statements that might point the other way..

As last point.. the answer "we dont know" it contains information, the information that his/her question can not be propper answered yet.

Only religions make statements under lack of proofs, scientist has not problem accepting what they dont know.. is the first step to solve that lack of knowledge.

That misconception is why so many people hates science, they think scientist are arrogant claiming they know all the answers when in fact are the first to accept the things they dont know.

In other words have a debate and don't just shut the debate down with a restatement of 'it's possible because we can't prove it's impossible'. That's all I'm saying - it's all I've ever been saying.

Possible = "there is a chance" --> this also includes the negative.

Impossible = "there is not chance" --> this contains only the negative.

But the word "possible" does not add much info about the answer, so that is why you have many other words or sentences that may match better your opinion. I continue to choose "I dont know" as answer to this topic if you dont mind.

"Life needs to seal itself off from the chaotic environment it lives in, this so that it can securely and in an organized fashion store energy reserves (n.b. these are molecules, not pure energy), information and maintain structural integrity."

it lends itself to many interpretations and there is not any law either.

Then even if we agree with the first statement, he makes a second calling "molecules" as the only way to seal it self from the chaotic enviroment, which not sure if is the only possibility.

But if we remember all "energy life forms of movies or cartoons", they all were visible and contained.. this is a signal that they have some kind of interaction with matter, which does not change the fact its essence is energy.. the same as us.. we are matter, but also energy, electrical impulses travel throughout our body.

You can transmit an AI software with such pure energy.

That's merely a philosophical consequence of the scientific method. Yes, in a scientific article exploring the possibility of energy-based life, the conclusion would be similar to yours in wording (albeit include the words 'extremely unlikely'). But we are in a layman forum, discussing an extremely layman question (heck, the OP formulates the question as 'possible or not?'), so the answers should be adapted to the format. From a practical standpoint, it makes no sense to leave the door open for misinterpretation. 'Energy lifeforms' are essentially impossible.

That is the propper way to speak you like or not.. that is how the 99.9% of scientist speak. When they forget about this, they make serious mistakes, even when they think they have all variables under control.

For example, when the movie interstellar come out, Lawrence Krauss said that kind of time dilation was impossible at that distance from the black hole. But he dint take into account that it was a rotating black hole.

So where do you do more damage? when you said is impossible or when you let the door a bit open to possible mistakes?

--------------------------------Edit--------------------------------

I find another way without matter:

energy density bends spacetime.. so you might have a red of subatomic black holes, where the hawking radiation keeps them from collapse between each other, and the energy waves travel between the space between these, in close loop or energy circuits depending the mass and distance of each SBH.

Is hard to imagine how it will work, but the same is true for our complex body.

I am not making any statement, just pointing other possibility to seal or organize energy.

Edited July 26, 2015 by AngelLestat

[ouion]

I said its hypothesized