That is not what I said. What I said is the analogy is inappropriate; The assumption that because you can do different things in music that the same should be or even is likely to be true of energy. I am perfectly prepared to accept, in fact I am sure, we do not know everything about energy. but, as @Venusian Broon says, things aren't 'energy,' they have energy; particles have energy etc. and there's nothing that we have yet seen that suggests energy (a property of something) can organise itself independently of the things it is a property of.Did I say science should change its definition? I said science goes as far into describing the mechanism of nature as what science can do, based on the quantization of the photon, etc. It does a wonderful job. But do you not even accept the possibility that 'energy' may be more than that?
At the same time I have been careful to say that I don't reject anything, just that nothing we have so far been able to observe (and by observe I mean in such a way that it can be documented and reproduced) about energy suggests it can behave in this way. And therefore I think it highly unlikely that there might be some form of life consisting of pure energy.
I am always ready to change my expectations based on new evidence. But until I see such evidence I will maintain my stance of its unlikeliness.
Last edited: