Surely, philosophically, this scientific breakthrough is important:

Whilst watching one of world-renowned polymath Gregg Braden's many presentations online, he introduced the principle that the 'love field' is now recognised as a scientifically measurable energy.

There can be little doubt that love is a transferrable and experiential force. Animals become energetically linked by this universal force that possesses great power of influence. Is love the all-conquering energy at the core of Nature's generator? Without which, no resilient life would exist?

But it seems that science (and philosophy) is hard-wired not to recognise love's existence as a measurable form of energy. If all matter was energetically connected prior to, and during The Big Bang, Entanglement Theory dictates that all matter is connected on a quantum level.

The basis for my question relates to what causes species to strive to survive? Is it love? Is love the God Particle that science has quested for for so long? Bar rare exceptions such as selfless acts and suicide, animals love to live. Animals are hard-wired to want to exist. Moreover, to improve on the probability of survival through evolutionary forces. Is love the engine?

My idea is that if there is a force that innately compels all species to survive and devote themselves to the survival of others of the same species - and it is called love. Of course, my idea falls over when we consider children born from non-loving relationships, or people living with clinical depression, or psychopathic murderers. And these would be just a few examples of flaws in my thinking (hypothesis).

Nevertheless, in spite of the inevitable disruptions and adversities, it does seem that "love conquers all". Philosophically, discussing this is important ethically, metaphysically and aesthetically. Which is why, with so much evidence of obvious disruption and dividedness in 'The Love Field', could a lack of understanding endanger the survival of the Homo Sapien species? As humans rely less and less on the cooperation and coherence of others in our survival, could a lack of comprehension of the energies of love supply ever increasing adversity?

Of course, as an entirely self-confessed non-Academic thinker, I recognise my question is flawed on many levels - and - if you think about it - this is also important philosophically. Therefore, to clarify, in essence, what I am asking here is why the entrenched scepticism by the scientific establishment in relation to the possibility of better understanding love?

If it is being measured, it will be better understood and this is important to philosophy. If Love could be better understood, perhaps then, we would be more able to construct greater harmony in society and steer civilisation away from the increasingly significant risks of war.

  • 4
    "'the field of love' now being recognised as a measurable force. There can be little doubt that the force of love is a transferrable and experiential energy. " Do you really believe it? Sep 21, 2021 at 13:00
  • As you says, the assertion that "there is a divine at play that innately compels all species to survive and devote themselves to others" may be reasonable for the first part: "drive to survival" while is every day refuted fro the second part: "drive to devote themselves to others". Thus, from a correct scientific perspective, the hypotheses has been empirically refuted. Sep 21, 2021 at 13:03
  • Have you ever fallen in love, Mauro? What did it feel like? Was there an exchange of energy? A shift in resonance? And on what basis can you conclude that this 'idea' has been empirically refuted? To which empirical evidence or body of research do you refer? Sep 21, 2021 at 13:19
  • 1
    That is irrelevant... You are asserting that "it is a measurable force". In what way/condition? Sep 21, 2021 at 13:39
  • 1
    I prefer Howard Jones' view on the question of What Is Love. UK 80s music was about synth, and some of it was based on philosophy. In all seriousness, I could have written your question myself, and as could anyone who asks such questions. I have noticed how all things in existence exists, and all life seeks to survive - pro-creators in an universe of creation, all of it somehow interconnected and in equilibrium, e..g the sun, earth magnetic field, protection of atmosphere. "Love" may be that indefinable force ensuring procreation, the continuation of life and evolution. Love = Biochemistry?
    – user48972
    Sep 21, 2021 at 21:53

1 Answer 1


Science is not hardwired against recognizing love as a measurable force. If there were any empirical data in existence suggesting that it was a measurable force, you can bet there'd be a whole army of physicists studying it and taking those measurements because there'd be a Nobel prize waiting for the first one to prove that assertion true.

By the way, forces are not powerful. Darth Vader himself should have said, "never underestimate the power of the force times distance divided by time" in order to make the units consistent.

  • I totally agree, Niels Nielsen. Perhaps this thread is the butterfly's wings... Sep 21, 2021 at 20:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.