Love Gives Life
Love gives life, and I don’t say that flippantly. The nursery full of dead infants was a powerful and tragic proof to myself upon first reading about this in my college class. I struck me to know that love is the elemental element to living. Love, therefore, is not some romantic emotion, it must be a natural law to life, since, as you’ll learn soon, the lack of love leads to death. This underlining concept is understood through every recorded culture in we know of in history, and biblically speaking, this is referenced throughout scripture. So the evidence in nature not only testifies to that but leads to considering love an aspect of energy (in my opinion). Failure to understand love’s active component in life is literally fatal. Just as God is not an aspect to life (but inseparable to it), love is not just an aspect to life (but inseparable to it.) In order to avoid marginalizing love I’m going to lay this out scientifically, formatting this post as a scientific paper. I’ve done this not as tongue-in-cheek, but to show it to be true (to the best of my limited ability). Therefore, a note to the reader; don’t let the math block you, skim past what you don’t understand toward those areas that are understandable to you (superficial reading; if you don’t get it at first glance, just keep going. The words will still be there later if you are inclined to understand more.)
The Law of Love: An Empirical Model for the Sustaining Energy of Life
by Mr. E.
Abstract:
This paper argues that love is a natural law, observable and measurable in human survival, stability, and growth, which is based on strict rules of logic and observable science. Evidence from history, psychology, and physiology demonstrates that unconditional, exclusive, and constant care is necessary for life, while the absence of love produces measurable deterioration and death. Historical & clinical evidence shows near-zero affectionate care giving in the early months is associated with near-certain death or catastrophic developmental failure. These observations give scientific validity to the biblical concept of love, leading to the conclusion that love is not optional, but an absolute necessity for life.
Definitions / Terms:
[note to reader: this is where you can come back to understand the math]
Love, L (t) : a time-dependent scalar representing unconditional, exclusive, constant caregiving intensity over time t. L(t)can be normalized to the interval [0,1], where 0 = no caregiving/affection and 1 = full, consistent caregiving as defined by my criteria (responsiveness, tactile contact, warmth, feeding, eye contact, etc.).
S = source, such that energy (E) and mass (M) of the universe belong to S
Life is defined as that which comes out of the Source, also referred to as Existence, as a product of that. Living things are creatures with the breath of life in it, a sort of double portion of life; life in life.
U= internal energy of the system (for thermodynamics)
U = universe (context for later metaphysical argument).
Q= heat added to the system (energy transfer by heating)
W= work done by the system (energy transfer)
Δ is the symbol used to mean “change in.”
∃ = “there exists”
S = the “Source” (outside the universe)
∈ = “is in” or “belongs to”
∧ = “and”
∉ = “is not in”
Let a human infant be a system I.
Health index, H(t) : a continuous variable representing the infant’s physiological and developmental state (nutrition, growth, immune function, stress hormones, attachment score). Higher H = better prospects.
Survival (life) indicator S : binary variable, S=1 if the infant survives past a defined critical period Tc (e.g., first year),S=0 otherwise.
Neglect corresponds to L(t) near 0 over the critical early window.
God will be used to refer to the Source of Energy, Existence.
Q.E.D. (QED) = Quod Erat Demonstrandum (Latin). It means “which was to be demonstrated” or “what was required to prove has been proven.” Traditionally, it’s placed at the end of a mathematical proof, logical argument, or philosophical demonstration to signal that the conclusion follows inevitably from the premises.
Data / Evidence
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to everything inside our universe, but it cannot explain the origin of the universe itself. The law assumes a system already exists in which energy is conserved. Yet if energy cannot be created or destroyed within the universe, then the energy that makes up the universe must have come from outside of it. This points us toward an uncaused cause—a single source of existence beyond the boundaries of our universe. I will call this source Existence, and the life that flows from it is what I’ll call creation. I will refer to this source Existence, as God, and life itself is evidence of God’s sustaining presence.
While the first law of thermodynamics, ΔU=Q−W , means the total energy of the system (the universe) is constant, the problem then is if 
, then the existence of energy must be explained. Since energy cannot originate within a closed system, its source must be external. The conclusion therefore would say that 
where U = universe (closed system) S = source outside of universe, therefore Existence (God) = S. Put more simply, inside the universe energy is conserved. The universe itself has energy. Therefore, the source of that energy must exist outside the universe. The Source.
The law of conservation of mass (mtotal=constant), in a closed system, mass cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form. Example: ∑mreactants=∑mproducts. So, if the universe is treated as a closed system, then the total mass (M total) of the universe must remain constant. Combining both the first law of thermodynamics (E total=constant) and the law of conservation of mass (M total=constant) you can now see, as Einstein saw that E = mc2, that energy (E) and mass (m) are interchangeable forms of the same thing. So really, both laws are saying “all existence is conserved.” All life comes from the Source.
Theorem (Mass and Energy Together)
Given:
- ΔE = 0 (First Law of Thermodynamics)
- ΔM = 0 (Conservation of Mass)
- E = mc²
Therefore:
Δ(E + M) = 0
The total “existence-stuff” (energy/matter) cannot be created or destroyed inside the universe.
Conclusion:
∃Ssuch that (E + M) ∈ S ∧S ∉U
∃= “there exists”
S= the “Source” (outside the universe)
∈ = “is in” of “belongs to”
∧ = “and”
∉ = “is not in”
U = universe
Where S is an external source of both energy and mass is what I’m calling Existence (equal to the term God).
Δ is the symbol used to mean “change in.” So ΔE = 0 , means Change in Energy is zero, or nothing, saying energy cannot be changes (cannot be created or destroyed.) Thus, (S) Source equals (∃) Existence equals God – and life is that which flows out of God.
Life
There is no need to argue for the existence of life- we ourselves are the proof of that.
Theorem (Love → Life):
Human Survival in early life depends on receiving unconditional, exclusive, and constant care – what is being define here as love.
Let L(t) be the intensity of unconditional, exclusive, and constant caregiving (normalized to [0,1] ) given to an infant during the critical early window Tc . Let S denote survival past Tc. Then there exists a caregiving threshold 
such that
Where 
Proof (empirical):
Historical and clinical evidence consistently show that infants deprived of caregiving (L(t) ≈ 0) die with near certainty. Conversely, when adequate caregiving (L(t)≥ 
) is present, infants survive and develop normally. This establishes caregiving (what we call “love”) as a necessary condition for early human life. Since the effect is reproducible, observable, and measurable, the relation “love ⇒ life” functions as a natural law in biological development. QED.
Across history and clinical observation, infants deprived of love nearly always die, even when food, water, and shelter are provided. Examples include Frederick II’s language experiment, Dr. Chapin’s studies of institutional care in New York (where neglect led to nearly 100% mortality), and René Spitz’s work on anaclitic depression, along with Harry F. Harlow and Stephen J. Suomi’s experiment regarding the effects of isolation on macaque monkeys consistently show that not only do infants deprived of caregiving (L (t) ≈ 0 ) die with near certainty, but less than caregiving result in lower development. Conversely, when adequate caregiving ( L (t) ≥ 
) is present, infants survive and develop normally through developmental ages. This establishes caregiving (what we call “love”) as a necessary condition for early human life and continuing human development. Since the effect is reproducible, observable, and measurable, the relation “love ⇒ life” functions as a natural law in biological development. Thus, love is a necessary condition for human life.
According to Salimbene di Adam in his work Chronicle of Salimbene di Adam, he describes various notorious experiments conducted by Fredrick II, the Holy Roman Emperor in the 13th Century. One such experiment falls within this subject:
“Secunda eius superstitio fuit quia voluit experiri cuiusmodi lingiam et loquelam haberent pueri, cum adolevissent, si cum nemine loquerentur. Et ideo precepit baiulis et nutricibus ut lac infantibus darent, ut mammas sugerent, et balnearent et mupdificarent eos, sed nullo modo blandirentur eis nec loquerentur. | Volebat enim cognoscere utrum Hebream linguam haberent, que prima fuerat, an Grecam vel Latinam vel Arabicam aut certe lingiam parentum suorum ex quibus nati fuissent. Sed laborabat incassum, quia pueri sive infantes moriebantur omnes. Non enim vivere possent sine aplausu et gestu et letitia faciei et blanditiis baiularum et nutricum suarum.” [1]
English translation:
“His [Frederick II] second superstition was that he wanted to experiment with what kind of language and speech the boys would have when they grew up, if they spoke to no one. And therefore, he commanded the nurses and caretakers to give milk to the infants, to let them suckle, and to bathe and clean them, but in no way to flatter them or speak to them. For he wanted to know whether they would have the Hebrew language, which was the first, or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or certainly the language of their parents from whom they were born. But he labored in vain, for the boys or infants all died. For they could not live without applause and gestures and the joy of faces and the flattery of their nurses and caretakers.”
Centuries later, Dr. Henry Dwight Chapin was the first behavioral scientist who employed statistical procedures to uncover similar affects in the critical period for social development in institutionalized infants. At the turn of the 20th century, infant mortality in New York State Department of Charities, an institution for infants, approached 100%. His evidence suggested, overwhelmingly, that the 1st year of life is the most critical when normal conditions of child rearing are replaced by handling children in mass. That the first 6 months are more important than the second 6 months, and the first 3 months are more important than the second 3 months, to the point that upon the first few weeks an infant deprived of love will die. Those lucky enough to survive faced heavy delay in their cognitive development as compared to even the most miserable home situations where affection is applied (even where food and stable shelter was scarce). Dr. Chaplin emphasized the infants’ need for affection, which when missing or loss resulted in harm to the child’s life and development. Though he stated not having any hard data on those developmental affects, non-government orphanages were reporting significant amount of “retardation” in each age groups, that for many would improve in time, but appeared to never normalize. Jane Addams, an early form or a behavior scientist (referred to, at the time, as a “human observer”) observed it thus:
“We are told that the will to live is aroused in each baby by his mother’s irresistible desire to play with him, the physiological value of joy that a child is born, and that the high death rate in institutions is increased by the discontented babies whom no one persuades into living.”[2]
Of those that survived, many suffered severe developmental harm. Chapin along with his wife, Alice, created Alice Chapin Nursery in 1911, and through that, along with other volunteers, they were able to prove the opposite was true. When these abandoned babies were given love their development equaled that of babies in their natural homes. Two decades later René Spitz, a psychoanalyst in the 1930s and ’40s, also confirmed Dr. Chopin’s discovery when he documented that infants and children subjected to abrupt, long-term separation from their primary caregiver, develop, what he called, anaclitic depression. If affection was restored within three to five months, recovery was possible; but prolonged deprivation led to worsening symptoms, stunted growth, and in severe cases, death.
Spitz’s work, along with Jane Addams’s and Dr. Chapin’s emphasis on infants’ continued need for affection, was proved even in rhesus monkeys in later research on attachment and loss through Harry Harlow’s monkey love experiments.[3] Through his experiments, Harlow’s monkeys proved that when placed in total isolation for the first eight months of life, denying them contact with other infants or with any type of surrogate mother, they were permanently damaged. Harlow and his colleagues repeated these experiments, subjecting infant monkeys to varied periods of motherlessness. They concluded that the impact of early maternal deprivation could be reversed in monkeys only if it had lasted less than 90 days, and estimated that the equivalent for humans was six months. After these critical periods, no amount of exposure to mothers or peers could alter the monkeys’ abnormal behaviors and make up for the emotional damage that had already occurred. When emotional bonds were first established was the key to whether they could be established at all. [4]
Dr. Ben Benjamin in his article The Primacy of Human Touch[5] talks about the policy of coddling in hospitals today with infants in urgent care, and the increased survival rate as a result. But what was also interesting was that these volunteers, who gave their time to massage, touch, hold and rock these babies, were also gaining a benefit. They were found to be living longer, were healthier, and happier.
The Infant Cuddler Study: Evaluating the effectiveness of volunteer cuddling in infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome[6] shows a mutual benefit between both the child and the nurturer. The role the nurturer played in that baby’s life gave them purpose, increasing their reason to live, which conscious or subconsciously motivated them to take better care of themselves. Giving love to one needing love resulted in receiving love. Like Newton’s third law, where it describes the mutual and simultaneous interaction between an object and a second object in its surroundings, this loving touch results in acceptance that brings fulfillment to both objects involved in the interaction. Love cannot be complete unless it’s accepted.
Discussion
It is important to distinguish between faithfulness of duty and love itself. The caregivers in the New York institutions were not unfaithful to their duties; providing food, cleanliness, and shelter with consistency. Yet faithfulness alone is proven insufficient for life. Love requires relational attachment, which demands exclusivity. An infant cannot form a sustaining bond with a system or a rotating staff, no matter how well-intentioned or diligent. Care becomes life-giving only when it is unconditional, exclusive, and constant, because these conditions allow for attachment. Without attachment, care remains mechanical, and life deteriorates despite faithful provision.
The data, both historical and scientific, makes the truth unmistakable: life depends on love. This dependency is not emotional sentiment but measurable reality. The evidence demonstrates that love expressed as unconditional, exclusive, and constant care, directly sustains biological life and mental stability. Its absence, whether through neglect or hostility, produces measurable deterioration.
Where love is absent, whether through simple neglect or outright hostility, the result is deterioration of both health and the very will to live. These observations confirm that love behaves as a natural law: it has consistent cause-and-effect outcomes that can be observed, tested, and predicted.
Unconditional, exclusive, and constant care supports life because it connects emotionally the giver and the recipient, providing both energy to their will to live. Disconnect that from one’s primary caregiver, as shown by Spitz and Harlow, adversely affects that will to live, among other developmental processes. Like Newton’s third law, where it describes the mutual and simultaneous interaction between an object and a second object in its surroundings, this loving touch results in acceptance that brings fulfillment to both objects involved in the interaction.
This principle directly reflects the biblical principle as 1 John 4:19 states “We love because He first loved us”. The life-giving nature of love originates from its source, God, who “is love” (1 John 4:8). When this “divine” (outside of Universe) pattern is broken, life deteriorates. As our physcial body requires love for life, so too does our non-physical “body”, our conscience. The biblical story is exactly that, that “God so loved the world [which is refereing to people] that He gave is only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus (Yeshua) went on to say, as recorded in John 15:5, that “Apart from Me you can do nothing”, as Jesus (Yeshua) is the connection between man and Existence, meaning the Eternal One (God), and separation from him is separation from the source of love- this is separation from life, referred to as everlasting death. Like a fractal what we see in the physical has self-similarity to the non-physical since matter is not made of matter.
In this, the testimony of nature and the witness of Scripture converge. What biology measures through developmental health, and what physics expresses through reciprocal forces, Scripture has long declared through moral law: love is the foundation of all life. When Yeshua quoted Leviticus 19:18 saying, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39), it was not a suggestion for moral idealism, but a command rooted in the structure of existence itself. The greatest commandment was reported to being “Love YHVH [Yahovah] your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5), which is inseparable from the second, because both reflect the same natural order of life’s sustaining energy, love.
Biologically speaking, and spiritually speaking, love, therefore, is not optional for the human experience; it is elemental to it. Where love flows, life flourishes. Where love ceases, life withers. This is not merely theology—it is physics, physiology, and psychology in agreement. Love gives life. Q.E.D.
References:
[4] https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm
[5] https://benjamininstitute.com/public/media/pdfs/the-primacy-of-human-touch.pdf