This Week's Questions
[posed by Ed D'U.]
Do you know?
[Question 1] Are "truths," energy sources? Or is the expression of truth the medium for releasing energy? Are lies devoid of energy; are they black holes? Is this why we feel depleted when we witness a lie? Moreover, is this why artificial plants feel so lifeless? Not even dead. Lifeless?
Are "truths," energy sources? Or is the expression of truth the medium for releasing energy. Truths are indeed energy sources. And at the risk of totally confusing you, they are also matter sources. Moreover, while we often refer to some mysteriously invisible thing we call, "energy," in actuality, "energy" is more the beautifully complex experience of a phase transition between these two states than the actual cause of any change. It's the "what happens" rather than the "why it happens."
Why then do we so often refer to energy as a thing in and of itself? In part, because the folks who most often teach us about energy tend to speak about it this way. They are, after all, physicists. Meaning? They tend to try to "physicalize" everything. Even God.
Then too there is the way they teach us that all matter "contains" energy. Does it? Not really. Although again, this is a beautiful metaphor.
In reality, Ed, there is no such thing as "energy," anymore than there is such a thing as "matter." These two "things" are simply two states of the same thing. Light. Which is, after all, the foundation of everything Einstein tried to teach us.
So what is energy then? Energy is simply the way we refer to what we imagine underlies change. In other words, we see change and imagine there must be something causing this change. Is there? Yes. But this cause is nothing separate from the process. It is the process. In other words, what we imagine to be the force behind change is merely something built into the nature of whatever is changing, rather than some separate underlying force.
In English? This thing we call "energy" is our inept way to imagine that behind "change," there is a "change agent." A change agent we call, "energy." Moreover, this in no way is a modern development. Rather, we have been speaking this way for thousands of years.
At first, of course, we personified this mysterious change agent. Hindi gods to Aristotle's "prime mover." Eventually though, as we became more and more obsessed with separating the mystery in life from the physically obvious, we concretized this divide by calling the mystery, "energy," and the physically obvious, "matter."
In truth, all that is really happening here is that the amazingly complex and beautiful fractal forms which make up our natural world are bifurcating and morphing between states. Translation. Energy and matter are simply changing states like steam and ice. In other words, they are really just the same thing only in different states.
As for your original question as to whether "truths" are energy sources, "truths" are simply any process in which our state changes from less visible to more visible. Or from less natural to more natural, if this is your focus.
Expressed as one of the most beautiful metaphors ever devised, truths are indeed, energy sources. And matter sources, as well.
Are lies devoid of energy? Are they black holes? Is that why we feel depleted when we witness a lie? Nothing in our natural world is devoid of energy. Thus the fact that lies can make us feel drained is more that we use the metaphor of energy to make visual what we can never see; intellectual fractals breaking down; transitions from a fractal state into a state in which there are more limited levels of detail; transitions from more levels of visible truth to less levels of visible truth; transitions from more consciousness to less consciousness.
In a way, then, we could say that "lies" are the "artificial flowers of the mind." Thus, like the emptiness we feel when we attempt to find depth in in an artificial flower, we feel empty when we hear people lie. Moreover, these ideas are not dead really. They are just shallow fragmented thoughts. And when we feel drained, we feel this because we have tried to find depth in an idea which contains limited detail.
Is that why artificial plants feel so life-less? Not even dead. Lifeless. As we spoke about in last week's column on symptoms as fractals, artificial plants feel dead and lifeless because attempting to visualize any non fractal object causes the mind to empty. Why? We simply go blank whenever we fail in our efforts to find more visual detail. Which is why so many people go blank trying to understand logic.
What I'm saying is, because logic is non visual, we usually go blank whenever we try to grasp it deeply.
Of course, there are exceptions, such as when we make logic visual, in flow charts, for instance. And while these charts can, at times, move us in the direction of understanding, for most people, they also do the opposite. They empty our minds even more as we again fail to find the visual depth of detail we expect to see.
In essence then, even artificial flowers assembled from natural components (like silk flowers) will cause our minds to empty. Why? Because at every joint, there is a non fractal transition. An abrupt transition. Moreover, each time we try to make sense of these bad spices, our minds empty. Why? Because we respond to seeing these unnatural joints like we do to a bad splice in a movie. Jarred and confused, to say the least.
Interestingly enough, even when we know we have just seen a bad splice, most of us still try to make sense of this transition. And herein lies the power of a lie. No pun intended. In other words, even when we know someone has lied to us, because we humans are programmed to search for the truth in ever greater levels of visual detail, we often give up and simply except what we've been told, knowing the whole time it was a lie.
What makes us like this? I'd guess, being fractally minded beings, we find it hard to believe something is not fractally based. Which, if you think about it, is a bit ego centric, don't you think? Moreover, since finding truth where there is none is impossible, whenever we try to find the fractal nature on an unnatural thing, we fail and go blank. We go into shock. And this holds true for everything from trying to find the beauty in plastic flowers to politicians' promises to trying to see the good in processed flour to processed hair.
In a sense then, because all things natural in our world are fractal, when we try to make visual sense of unnatural things (like the bad splices in silk flowers), our minds digress into chaos. Moreover, these digressions always feel bad to us, as digressing into chaos is the very nature of unconsciousness itself.
[Question 2] Is the change truths bring an expression of the momentum of these truths, or of the energy itself? Is a truth not expressed, an energy sink? Is this why we feel so invigorated when someone speaks the truth?
What is predicable, of course, is that these patterns of change will happen. As I said, this is simply the nature of our world. As well as that these changes will always be in part chaotic. And beautifully unpredictable.
In a way then, that we humans constantly try to regulate and control change makes us children playing god; not too harmful really, but a heck of a way to waste our time.
So is a truth not expressed, an energy sink? Is this why we feel so invigorated when someone speaks the truth? In a way, yes, Ed, an unexpressed truth is an energy sink. And a matter sink as well. You see, in essence, what we're talking about here is a hole in our visual ability, and no life exists in a hole. In effect, anything non visual equals an unconscious experience for us.
So is this why we feel so invigorated when someone speaks the truth? Indeed. Why? Because change is energizing, to use the energy metaphor.
Ironically, the nature of truth has been all around all the time. And when Socrates sought to know the nature of truth and failed, it was because he simply hadn't learned to recognize the fractal nature of things.
Then again, I never met Socrates. And he didn't write his ideas down. At least, if he did, none of these writings survive. Thus, perhaps he did know this about nature and we simply haven't read his words.
I'd like to think this is true, in fact. He was, after all, one of the greatest souls to grace our planet. Then again, many great souls who live today cannot see the beauty in fractals, and their not knowing remains a mystery to me. And yes, this is why we feel so invigorated whenever someone speaks a great truth. Energy and matter are switching states quicker than gravity on an amusement park ride. And when we are on the ride, wow, what a feeling.
[Question 3] Is energy a symptom, or is it the evidence of something else we can’t see. Is the wind moving the grass an expression of energy or is it energy itself? I realize that I can neither see nor accurately express this question, as I can neither define the hole nor the edge of the hole. I suspect that the moving grass is momentum and the energy source happened sometime and somewhere else. On the sun perhaps. But even the sun itself does not create its energy alone. It is feed by the debris in space, and by its own creation of energy. If the sun is an energy source, is all life on earth an expression of it’s momentum?
Is energy a symptom? No. As I said in question one, energy is simply our way of personifying change.
Is energy the evidence of something else we can’t see. Ed, there is no evidence until we make it visible. This is what makes electrical instruments like amp gauges so amazing. They enable us to analogously (and so, fractally) visualize what to us is normally beyond our visual range.
In truth, it's all made of light. Everything in our world. However, because the visual sensitivity range of our eyes is quite limited in relation to the range of light, we often "sense but cannot see."
In a very real way then, we could define energy as "everything we can actually or potentially sense but cannot see." And this definition is quite accurate, really. Moreover, it is also what make seeking the truth about energy so extremely frustrating at times, especially in cases wherein we have yet to discover a way to make this normally invisible stuff visible.
It is also important to remember that the limits of what we can potentially see is defined by the range in which light exists. No light. No world. Including, no "us." Thus we can definitely say that the limits of our world range from quantum particles to black holes. Why? Because in both cases, light breaks down into something else. Moreover, because we are made of light, we cannot see what is beyond light. Why? Because we ourselves cease to exist at that point.
Most physicists have yet to accept this limitation. As I've said, this is simply what happens when you try to physicalize everything. Which is probably what drives men like Brian Greene to posit such strange answers as that there are multiple dimensions of vibrating strings of energy. A safe guess to be sure, as we can never disprove his idea. Nor know it to be true either. Why? For the same reason we can't see into black holes or past quanta, These things simply lie beyond the limits of our world. Even beyond the measurement limits of our best analog gauges.
Is the wind moving the grass an expression of energy? Or is it energy itself? Neither. Wind is matter changing state. Thus the grass is the wind. And visa versa.
As for your thoughts that the sun supplies the energy behind this movement, I rather think that the sun's effect is more like an old time fireman passing a bucket in a bucket brigade. Yes, something is moving, but this movement is not caused by an energy. It is the energy. Which is just another way to say, something has changed. Been moved.
[Question 4] Is something alive if it creates its own energy? If so, is "emergence," life? Are Learning by Emergence and Learning by Extension examples of energy sources? Or are they the symptoms of expressed energy? Is the feeling of being alive the same as feeling energy?
So is emergence, life? Emergence is more like birth from chaos. Change expressed as a new, congealing, visually unique form.
Are Learning by Emergence and Learning by Extension examples of energy sources? Or are they the symptoms of expressed energy? All four states of learning are more like the symptoms change has happened. Or the evidence, if you prefer a less pejorative term.
Is the feeling of being alive the same as feeling energy? No. It's more like knowing you are the energy.
[Question 5] Do fossil fuels pollute because they are the release of momentum, as opposed to the creation of energy?
What makes us think this is so though is that the byproducts of using these fossil fuels are toxic to us. Why? Because they have temporarily become non fractal. Dis-integrated fractals. Fragmented, and shocking.
As for the nature of what makes these things shock us, it is simply that the beautifully fractal nature of these things has been temporarily disturbed. And what we see as waste is actually disorganized matter / energy. Which, in time, will reorganize all on it's own, with no interventions from us. An example of emergence as a natural process.
Unfortunately, we may not be around to see the beautiful results of this reorganization, because we may be unable to navigate the experience of sailing though the chaotically non fractal, period of shock. Why? Because all things tend to effect all other things. And because disintegrated matter / energy tends to provoke the same state in the things which surround it. Including in the beings initiating these fossil fuel disintegrations.
Nothing is wrong with all this really. It's all a sort of system of checks and balances, if you will. In other words, when we disintegrate fossil fuels, we disintegrate ourselves. Not a very pleasant experience for us, to say the least. However, for nature herself, it all turns out fine in the end, as she simply recycles us into the component parts for a new life form.
Finally, remember the physicist's maxim; matter can neither be created not destroyed. It simply changes form. And since matter is energy just in a different form, energy can neither be created nor destroyed either.
We, on the other hand, can do both. Why? Because it is our "form" which makes us who we are. No "form." No "us."