here is a little sci-fi ish topic for your guys, is the cocept of a powerful energy being to far fetched, if you know what i am talking about examples would be.
futurama episode where bender becomes a god
c'tan from warhammer
and a beer advert in england about guys in space meeting an energy being.
It's neither new nor interesting.
Any god would have to be non-corporeal (unless you imagine a God made from some sort of super-dooper non-degradable material).
Ultimately, life is patterns - organizations of matter, or energy, that fulfil the requirements of being alive (which vary depending on who you ask). Intelligence is the same concept - something must be organized to encode whatever information the intelligence "knows", and the algorithms for how it process that information. In our case, we're organized patterns of cells, but there's no intrinsic reason the structure of the pattern can't be chemical, electrical, or something even more exotic (like Clarke's super-intelligent crystalline structures).
The only issue is how easy it would be for that pattern to form, if you want to assume the being came about naturally. A bio-cellular structure like our is really easy to evolve, provided you're within a narrow band of physical parameters (it's not too hot or too cold, etc.), but a coherent electrical pattern that is self-maintaining, self-organizing and self-replicating... that's a little tougher to expect that it just naturally evolved.
The biggest problem with talking about "energy beings" is there's really no such thing as "energy". Energy is a fiction we use to describe unbalances in the universe. When we say a mass in motion has more energy than a mass sitting still, we don't literally mean that it "has" anything. We mean that in our current frame of reference there is an imbalance in how we would have to interact with the two objects. To put both objects in a box we have, we would have to do more work on the moving object... and we say this is because it has "more energy" that we have to take away to bring it down to the same state as the other object. But it doesn't really "have" anything, and we're not really "taking anything away"... we're just resolving the imbalance by tipping the galactic scale the other way (so the imaginary energy now appears to be somewhere else).
So talking about an "energy being" is about the same as talking about a "being made of pure distance", or a "being made of pure weight". Neither distance nor weight exist - they're just convenient fictions we use to explain the relationships between things that do exist.
As long as you have something you can make a pattern with, you can create a lifeform, or an intelligence out of that something. But energy is not a something, it is a measure of the relationship between two somethings.
-------------------------------
This is just an aside, but am i the only one who's noticed how barking mad Google's ad system is? ^_^; With the previous two posts in this thread, i got the following ads:
- Futurama
- Futurama Season 1
- Bender
- Greek Girls
Ok, i get the Futurama references from Bannik's comments about Bender... but "Greek Girls"? ^_^;
And then there was this one that almost made me cross-eyed:
| Quote: |
Autism God
Need Help For You Autistic Child? 40-Day Bible Guide For Parents!
FindingGodInAutism.com |
Excuse me? ^_^; | Bikerman wrote: |
It's neither new nor interesting.
Any god would have to be non-corporeal (unless you imagine a God made from some sort of super-dooper non-degradable material). |
I swear every time i read your posts its like you are out to get someone, you sound so angry/rude.
ps I say star gods and use the term gods because I have no idea of what to call them.
also its not about GOD its about having a lifeforms made of energy.... | Bannik wrote: |
| its about having a lifeforms made of energy.... |
Indi does have a good point against the possibility of such a thing though in that energy as a comparison.
I could almost imagine an energy-based being made of heat or electric energy, but it would need some kind of medium to exist in. We could still call them energy-based though, if all the organization was of energy in a more or less homogeneous medium, and there was no distinction between several of such beings except for the boundaries of their energy organization.
The convection cells formed in a non-uniformly heated gas or liquid would be a kind of energy organization. Perhaps such energy based beings could evolve from successively more complicated things like that. It would probably require a very steady source of energy for one thing. The other requirements I can't figure out right now.
Would something made of only say, photons, qualify as an energy based life form? (If such a thing were somehow possible) It would still be made of particles, but not matter in the way we are used to thinking of it.
Somehow, I can't think of any way that energy based beings would not be extremely fragile. Wouldn't any disruption of their energy flow destabilize and probably dissipate them?
Also, what about computer simulations? There have been some interesting simulations that could almost be called alive, but they exist only as a temporary organization of energy within a computer, and have no physical form. | Bannik wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | It's neither new nor interesting.
Any god would have to be non-corporeal (unless you imagine a God made from some sort of super-dooper non-degradable material). |
I swear every time i read your posts its like you are out to get someone, you sound so angry/rude. |
Angry? No, not at all. Rude? In what way? I make no personal comments, so why should you think I am rude? Is it because I don't treat your question very seriously? Do you think that your questions and opinions are so important that anyone who does not treat them with due reverence and seriousness is being rude? Interesting.
Needless to say, I disagree. Rudeness is difficult to define, to be sure, but I don't think my comments would qualify..^Well, it does seem that you spend of lot of the time shooting down ideas. Many of your posts could be summed up by saying "no, silly, that's not possible"
Not that this isn't an important thing to say, and useful most of the time. It is also usually correct, and there are a lot of truly retarded ideas floating around that need to be shot down.
I shoot down dumb ideas at times too, but usually, instead of doing that, I try to find some way that what could be dismissed as impossible would be possible, or at least play around with the idea a little before dismissing it. (As you could see from my previous post here)
Even when an idea is completely impossible, I like to play around with it a bit hypothetically for sheer entertainment value.
Well, you post what you wish to post, I'll do the same. I don't really care whether people regard me as dismissive or cynical, but I do care if they regard me as rude. I try not to be rude since I do not like bad manners and personal abuse. I don't try to humour or develop bad ideas since that has no interest for me, but I do try to educate when possible. In this case I think Indi did a better job than I.
In general terms it is important to 'shoot down' nonsense and pseudo science - that is how science works. I admit that I may possibly be a bit too 'keen' on some occasions and, if that is a fault, then I am indeed flawed. I hope, however, that I never indulge in personalising issues or making ad-hominem attacks, and if I do so then I would certainly wish that to be pointed out.
If you like to see an energy being in sci fi than you must look to this picture.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | It's neither new nor interesting.
Any god would have to be non-corporeal (unless you imagine a God made from some sort of super-dooper non-degradable material). |
I swear every time i read your posts its like you are out to get someone, you sound so angry/rude. |
Angry? No, not at all. Rude? In what way? I make no personal comments, so why should you think I am rude? Is it because I don't treat your question very seriously? Do you think that your questions and opinions are so important that anyone who does not treat them with due reverence and seriousness is being rude? Interesting.
Needless to say, I disagree. Rudeness is difficult to define, to be sure, but I don't think my comments would qualify.. |
well firstly i never said my question should be taken seriously and it doesnt sound like a serious question it was just a question but you instantly stated its neither new or intresting as though in some way i said it was,
