The cosmos is ever present, but the agent who manages the potency of all symbolic truths within is like a candle in a draft. You may know what it is that combusts but the flame still dances in the wind.

So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? — Gnomon

:roll: Misplaced concreteness? Occam's Razor?

This is a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? Energy is non-thing concept, it's a knowable-but-not-seeable relationship between things. Energy is unreal & unbound Potential or Probablity that temporarily takes on actual bound forms (matter), causes change of shape or position, and then returns to its unreal immaterial state as latent possibility. Matter dissolves as energy dissipates, but only the Energy is conserved, in its formless form. — Gnomon

It isn't a 'physics seminar', yes, but if one uses the concepts of physics, it is seems to me correct to point out if they aren't used well.
In the case of energy, I believe you're reading too much in that physical quantity.

Even if you interpret it in a realist way, i.e. if you interpret 'energy' as a real property of something in the physical world 'out there', you can't neglect the fact that energy is defined as a property of something. That is, energy is always defined in reference to a physical system. So, it doesn't seem the case that 'energy' somehow is more ontologically fundamental than physical systems. Being a property, it is difficult to understand in which sense energy could 'exist' without any physical system.

However, one can also interpret energy in a non-realist way, i.e. as an useful concept that we use to make predictions, just like we now do with classical forces.

Note that this isn't a direct criticism on your own metaphysical position. It is just an observation on how careful I think we should be in interpreting physical quantities in a metaphysical way.

Can you imagine the number 5 without reifying it as something concrete? — Gnomon

To be fair, I don't think that mathematical entities should be treated like physical quantities. For one, I believe that while mathematical truths are timeless and non-contingent, physical theories are, in part, human inventions. This doesn't mean that they do not give us genuine knowledge but we should be careful to not confuse the 'map' (the conceptual apparatus of a physical theory) with the 'territory' (physical reality).

:up: :up:

In the case of energy, I believe you're reading too much in that physical quantity. . . . .
Note that this isn't a direct criticism on your own metaphysical position. It is just an observation on how careful I think we should be in interpreting physical quantities in a metaphysical way. — boundless

As you say, I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. If this was a Physics forum, that interpretation --- as a non-physical Qualia --- would be inappropriate. However, Please note that I never said or implied that Energy is not a physical Quantity. In philosophy though, we don't measure ideas in terms of numbers, but of meanings. Physically, Energy is measured in units of change : before & after difference*1, not in terms of substance. In philosophy, Causation & Change are measured in terms of information value*2 (meaning), not thermodynamic units.

I'm currently reading a book by Federico Faggin, who is not a philosopher, but a scientist : the inventor of the first practical microprocessor. However, this book, Irreducible, is about a philosophical worldview. Specifically, the nature & role of Consciousness in the real world. In his first two chapters, though, Faggin makes a philosophical distinction between Physical Reality and Quantum Reality. He says, "we experience and know the physical world around us, as well as our inner world, through Qualia." He goes on to divide Consciousness into three categories : perception, emotion, and qualia. He notes that "the third category is thoughts, although most scholars do not regard thoughts as qualia." Then he discusses how the human mind translates private immaterial meanings into public words that other humans can understand. "We are so used to the automatic reification of thoughts into symbols that we have stopped noticing the 'quale' which is the sentient experience of a thought."

Your comment seems to be implying that we should express units of Energy in physical Joules, instead of metaphysical meanings. However, I'm not a physicist, so in my philosophical thesis, I look at Energy from a different perspective*2. I take an abstract concept, which is invisible & immaterial --- known only by its effects on matter --- and represent it in concrete metaphors & analogies. That's the opposite of reification*3. Therefore, I am not denying that Energy has physical effects in the Real world*4. I'm merely noting the metaphysical*5 implications of that causal power in the mental meanings of human conception. On this forum, I do have to be very "careful" when I discuss distinctions between Physics and Meta-Physics. :smile:


*1. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. Therefore, if you reduce energy to its essence of Information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Reify : to represent something abstract as-if it's concrete.
Note --- In my post I was not reifying an abstraction, but just the opposite. Some people tend to imagine abstract Energy as-if (counterfactual) a material substance : "misplaced concreteness". Instead, I was Idealizing & generalizing the causal forces of the cosmos in terms of philosophical metaphors & analogies.

*4. Yes, energy is real, but it's best understood as a fundamental property of matter and fields, not a physical substance you can hold; it's the capacity to do work, always conserved (never created or destroyed), and manifests as motion (kinetic), stored potential, heat, light, and mass itself, allowing us to see its effects (movement, heat, light) even if energy itself isn't a tangible "thing" like a ball.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+real

*5. Meta-Physics :
Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. — Gnomon

:sparkle: :roll: wtf

If I already possess that divine "information", I am not aware of it. :smile:

That was precisely my point, we are not aware of it, but our soul is, or perhaps our spirit. It might just be our outer, more physical, self conscious self which isn’t.
Anyway, for me it is a meditation, or contemplation technique. The idea that to realise truth, I don’t need to go anywhere, to do anything else. I’m already at my destination (the answer, the truth) if I could but know it, but realise it. Human nature implores us to do things, to go places to achieve things, it’s programmed into us as a survival technique. In a sense that takes us away from the inner truth. The reason people go into monasteries and retreats is to reverse that process and return to their inner selves to some degree.

Your comment seems to be implying that we should express units of Energy in physical Joules, instead of metaphysical meanings. However, I'm not a physicist, so in my philosophical thesis, I look at Energy from a different perspective*2. I take an abstract concept, which is invisible & immaterial --- known only by its effects on matter --- and represent it in concrete metaphors & analogies. That's the opposite of reification*3. Therefore, I am not denying that Energy has physical effects in the Real world*4. I'm merely noting the metaphysical*5 implications of that causal power in the mental meanings of human conception. On this forum, I do have to be very "careful" when I discuss distinctions between Physics and Meta-Physics. :smile: — Gnomon

You're free to use the word 'energy' in a way that is different from the way it is used in Physics. However, you might encounter a problem when you try to equate the two concepts or say that they are equivalent in some sense. I was just pointing to this.

Ironically, I actually believe that a 'non-realist' view of physical quantities actually is a problem for some forms of 'metaphysical physicalism'.

You're free to use the word 'energy' in a way that is different from the way it is used in Physics. However, you might encounter a problem when you try to equate the two concepts or say that they are equivalent in some sense. I was just pointing to this.

Ironically, I actually believe that a 'non-realist' view of physical quantities actually is a problem for some forms of 'metaphysical physicalism'. — boundless

Have you ever looked at the concept of Energy from a philosophical perspective? You ought to try it sometimes. It might broaden your understanding of Philosophy itself. Humans have been puzzled by the mysterious invisible cause of physical change for thousands of years. Primitive notions of Animism*1. imagined that living things were motivated by some spiritual agency, similar to the invisible wind that causes trees to sway & tremble as-if internally energized.

The ancients viewed Causation as purposeful. But modern Physics*2 imagined Energy as some intangible eternal property/quality of inert temporal matter that could be quantized (a quart of vacuum) for practical applications. 19th century pragmatic Science conveniently ignored the ultimate Cause of Change, and focused on the proximate instances of Transformation. Do you think we should not equate Energy with such creative processes as Metamorphosis (form change) and Evolution (physical change over eons of time)?

Ancient Greeks began to formulate primitive ideas about Causation & Change that would later influence modern physics. For example, Plato talked about dunamis (dynamics) and energeia (power). Even pragmatic Aristotle*3 characterized what we now call Energy, as un-actualized Potential seeking to become real in a process-of-becoming called Telos (purpose or goal).

Modern Physics uses the same old terms, but avoids any teleological or philosophical implications. Early on, quantum physics imagined Energy as tiny billiard balls, called Photons. But eventually, scientists were forced by the evidence to define the fundamental level of physics, not as tiny particles of matter, but as wishy-washy waves in a universal Field of potential (statistical) mathematical relationships.

Practical Physics is content to say that "sh*t happens", as long as it can quantize each event. But Theoretical Philosophy goes beyond observations of what happens to ask "why?" Are Energy & Causation & Transformation "unreal"*5 for you? :smile:


*1. Animism is a worldview, often found in indigenous cultures, that believes spirits or souls inhabit all things—living and non-living, like animals, plants, rocks, and rivers—giving them a spiritual essence, volition, and power, contrasting with Western ideas of separate mind/matter, and viewing the world as interconnected, where appeasing these powerful spirits through rituals maintains balance and well-being. It's seen less as a specific religion and more as a fundamental way of relating to a world full of conscious, experiencing entities, where human life and natural phenomena are deeply intertwined, influencing health, fortune, and history.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism

*2. In physics, energy is the fundamental property of matter and systems that quantifies their capacity to do work or cause change, existing in diverse forms like kinetic (motion), potential (stored), thermal, chemical, or electromagnetic, and crucially, it's a conserved quantity, meaning it can transform but never be created or destroyed, only converted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+physics

*3. In philosophy, "energy" (from Greek energeia) originally meant activity, actuality, or being "at work," a concept developed by Aristotle to describe something in motion or fulfilling its function (telos), contrasting with potentiality (dynamis). While modern physics defines energy quantitatively (ability to do work), philosophical uses remain broad, encompassing mental/spiritual forces (psyche), vital life forces (pneuma, ka), and the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, linking to ideas of consciousness, being, and transformation beyond just physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+physics

*4. Causality in philosophy explores the fundamental relationship where one event (cause) produces another (effect), investigating what makes this link real, how we know it, and its role in explaining the world, moving beyond mere correlation to understand necessary connections, agency, and purpose, a concept debated from Aristotle's Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, Final) to Hume's skepticism about observing actual force, highlighting its importance for logic, science, and understanding reality's progression.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+of+causation

*5. Metaphysics isn't "real" in the sense of a tangible object, but it's a fundamental, "real" branch of philosophy exploring the nature of reality (existence, mind, time, causality, etc.), using logical reasoning, not empirical science, to ask questions science can't always answer, though some critics find its abstract speculation unfruitful compared to scientific reality. Its reality lies in its existence as a field of study and its foundational role in shaping how we understand the world, not in providing provable facts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+metaphysics+reality
Note --- Physics explores Nature, while Metaphysics (philosophy) explores Human Nature.

Physics, not controversially, only exists as in the mathematic formal science and scientific rationalism and is not ever a fertile ground. Philosophy encompassing all phenomena of human existence is in the form of notions of existence abstracting to mental and spiritual determinants derived from the term you use animism which also encompasses life forces emanating from biological being, environment, tribe and culture.

For me, those who posit the scientific rationalism of an unrelated knowledge discipline are both ignoring of what they ever read of philosophy and culturally subverting the philosophy field by rehearsed heresies genuinely undermining the forum for refined intellectual discourse.

In defending philosophy culture and debate, it necessarily profits the course of philosophical inquiry by setting strict boundaries against proselytes of rational formal science and any of their verbal positing.

The force any argument gains socially and its political right is mediated by the strength of spirit towards certain ends regulated by the appropriate reception committee.

Forensically, I ask who it is and who it is not wise than to speak other than the concerns of the human sphere of existence?

Have you ever looked at the concept of Energy from a philosophical perspective? You ought to try it sometimes. It might broaden your understanding of Philosophy itself. — Gnomon

Yes, but I'm still convinced that you're reading too much into the concept. Note however, that this doesn't mean that your metaphysical outlook is 'off' or anything.

But modern Physics*2 imagined Energy as some intangible eternal property/quality of inert temporal matter that could be quantized (a quart of vacuum) for practical applications. — Gnomon

Nothing in here and in the reference you quoted go beyond the 'realist' interpretation that is admissible in physics. But despite the appearances it isn't like a 'potential' in the metaphysical sense.

Also, it isn't the only interpretation is admissible in physics. You can also think as a purely conceptual tool that is useful to predictions etc.

Ancient Greeks began to formulate primitive ideas about Causation & Change that would later influence modern physics. For example, Plato talked about dunamis (dynamics) and energeia (power). Even pragmatic Aristotle*3 characterized what we now call Energy, as un-actualized Potential seeking to become real in a process-of-becoming called Telos (purpose or goal). — Gnomon

I dispute the fact that these philosophers had what we label as 'energy' in mind when they talked about 'dynamis', 'energeia' and 'potentiality'. These concepts might have inspired later physicists to develop the concept of 'energy' but they aren't necessarily referring to the same thing.
Also, this doesn't mean that these ancient concepts are wrong.

Modern Physics uses the same old terms, but avoids any teleological or philosophical implications. — Gnomon

Yes, hence the confusion. Actually, I believe that physicists themselves should be more careful in how to explain the concepts they use.

For instance, one might try to say that a 'seed' has the 'potentiality' to become a 'plant'. However, in this potentiality the concept of 'energy' as it is used by modern physics has no role. Rather the Aristotelian concept is more similar to a controversial concept that has been advanced by David Bohm and Basil Hiley, which you might find congenial as it is more similar to how you think about 'energy': Active Information.

I say 'controversial' because it is unclear if such a concept is amenable of scientific research or if it still purely philosophical.

Yes, but I'm still convinced that you're reading too much into the concept. Note however, that this doesn't mean that your metaphysical outlook is 'off' or anything. — boundless

Again, you seem to be afraid of crossing the Enlightenment line between Science and Religion. But Philosophy is similar to Religion only in its focus on the non-physical (mental, spiritual) aspects of the world. Philosophy has no Bible and no Pope. So each thinker can be a rogue priest. My childhood religion was antithetical to Catholicism, in that it downplayed rituals & miracles, and focused on reasonable verifiable beliefs. I still retain some of that skeptical rational attitude, even though I no longer congregate with those of "like precious faith". In fact, Faith is a four-letter word for me.

Nothing in here and in the reference you quoted go beyond the 'realist' interpretation that is admissible in physics. But despite the appearances it isn't like a 'potential' in the metaphysical sense. — boundless

Before I retired, my education was mostly Pragmatic & Realistic. And my only college course related to philosophy was Logic, but that was a math requirement, and not very philosophical. Even though I am now exploring some Idealistic concepts mainly associated with Philosophy, most of my reading sources are professional scientists, not academic philosophers. But if I "go beyond" the bounds of materialistic Physics, my direction is influenced mainly by astro-physicists (cosmologist), such as Paul Davies, and Quantum physicists, such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Max Planck. If you are interested enough to invest some time, I can show you how 17th century notions of practical Potential became idealized & philosophized in the 20th century*1. :nerd:

I dispute the fact that these philosophers had what we label as 'energy' in mind when they talked about 'dynamis', 'energeia' and 'potentiality'. These concepts might have inspired later physicists to develop the concept of 'energy' but they aren't necessarily referring to the same thing.
Also, this doesn't mean that these ancient concepts are wrong. — boundless

Of course, the primitive philosophers 1500 years ago, did not have the detailed scientific knowledge of the 21st century. So, their concepts were more general & visionary than our modern technical details. So, as you say, "those ancient concepts are not wrong", but they are more philosophical than physical. Speaking of "physical" can you define Dynamics, Energy, and Potential in material terms --- without using abstract philosophical notions such as "capacity", "ability", "causal" & "essence"? What is Energy made of? Where can I find Potential in the real world? :wink:

Yes, hence the confusion. Actually, I believe that physicists themselves should be more careful in how to explain the concepts they use. . . . .
I say 'controversial' because it is unclear if such a concept is amenable of scientific research or if it still purely philosophical. — boundless

Again, you seem "careful" to draw a hard line between Physics and Philosophy. But, especially since the quantum revolution, Physics was forced, by the Uncertainty Principle and the indeterminacy of quantum phenomena, to resort to philosophical reasoning for descriptions & interpretations of the real world's ideal foundation*4. Physics is no longer purely mechanical, nor purely philosophical, but a complex adaptive system of both. :cool:


*1. The word "potential" maintained its core meaning of "possible as opposed to actual" across both the 17th and 20th centuries, but its usage evolved significantly, particularly with its development as a specific scientific term in the later period.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+17th+century+20th+century
Note --- That "later period" was the era when Einstein's Relativity, Shannon's Information, and Quantum Physics revolutionized the science of Physics. Possible does not "go beyond" Actual & Real, it is a priori and Ideal. Potential is not a physical thing, it is a Metaphysical concept.

*2. Energy : In essence, while energy's definition (ability to do work) remains, quantum physics reveals its granular nature, probabilistic behavior, and mathematical description through operators and wave functions, revolutionizing our understanding of the microscopic world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+quantum+physics

*3. Yes, quantum physics is deeply intertwined with philosophy, especially the philosophy of physics, because its strange findings (like superposition, non-locality) challenge our fundamental understanding of reality, causality, and knowledge, forcing physicists and philosophers to debate interpretations of what the math truly means for the universe, moving beyond simple "shut up and calculate" to explore profound questions about what exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+is+philosophy

*4. Quantum idealism connects quantum physics's strangeness (like wave-particle duality and measurement problems) with philosophical idealism, suggesting reality isn't independent but depends on observation or mind, proposing that physical properties only manifest upon interaction. While early founders like Bohr and Heisenberg hinted at this, modern physics often uses decoherence to explain collapse without consciousness, though some philosophers and physicists still link quantum phenomena to mind-dependent reality or information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+idealism