It was not my idea to cast Energy in that fundamental role. It was that "weirdo" Albert Einstein. — Gnomon

Not. Even. Wrong.

Einstein's special relativity (SR) treats energy as the first component of a four component vector, called 'four momentum' (the other three are linear momentum). So, it is pretty weird to think that acording to Einstein energy is 'fundamental' when it is a component of a more comprehensive physical quantity if one takes seriously the theories for which he is most famous. — boundless

:up: :up:
.

I saw that quote as part of a larger quote attributed to Einstein that clearly doesn't seem to be genuine. — boundless

Yes, the "quote" is an attribution, and probably a paraphrase of several opinions in Einstein's writings*1. If it doesn't agree with your personal worldview, you can ignore it. I linked to the "quote" to illustrate my own understanding of the role of Energy in the world. Specifically, that everything you see & touch, and interpret as Real is made of invisible intangible Energy*2. :smile:

PS___ Years ago, without knowledge of that specific quote, my Enformationism thesis concluded that Matter is slowed-down Energy, and that Energy is the carrier of Information. Does that make any sense to you?


*1. The popular quote, “Everything is energy and that's all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. This is not philosophy. This is physics,” is widely attributed to Albert Einstein. It highlights the idea that aligning with a specific energy frequency directly influences one's reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=everything+is+energy+quote

*2. However, the quote appears to be a popular New Age or metaphysical paraphrase rather than a documented, direct quote from his writings. . . .
While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ".
https://www.google.com/search?q=everything+is+energy+quote+source&client=firefox-b-1-

If it [knowledge, sound reasoning] doesn't agree with your personal worldview, you can ignore it. — Gnomon

:zip:

While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ". — Gnomon

Energy is a conserved measure within existence.

In physics, energy is: A conserved quantity; Associated with time symmetry; A bookkeeping measure of change.

Via Noether’s theorem: If the laws of physics are invariant under time translation, energy is conserved.

Energy is a property of dynamical systems.

People think energy is fundamental because: Everything seems reducible to energy transformations; Matter can convert to energy (E = mc²); Energy is never destroyed. Even vacuum has zero-point energy.

But energy presupposes: Time; Dynamics; States that change.

If time did not exist, energy would not even be definable.

Energy depends on: A system; A Hamiltonian (generator of time evolution) ;Symmetry of time; A spacetime structure.

So energy is derivative of: The structure that allows time translation symmetry.

Which means something deeper exists: Spacetime (or whatever underlies it); Causal structure;The rules that define what counts as evolution.

Modern physics hints that more primitive than energy are: Causal structure; Information constraints; Quantum states; Symmetry principles; Relational structure.

Energy is: Fundamental within physics; Universal across phenomena;Conserved because of symmetry.

Perhaps, the recent insistence on seeing 'energy' as a sort of metaphysical 'entity' that somehow is foundational of 'reality' is due to what, in my opinion, is a misinterpretation of Einstein's mass-equivalence that rests on a further misinterpretation of what 'mass' is. — boundless

I get the impression that philosophers who hold a Materialist worldview, prefer the black & white Certainty of the ancient (6th century BC) notion of Atomism (fundamental particles of matter) to the fuzzy gray Uncertainty of the 20th century view of Quantum Physics : that intangible Math (fields) and invisible Energy (forces) are more fundamental than quotidian Matter*1*2*3. What Mass is, is a mathematical measurement of the Energy content of Matter. It can be expressed in terms of Newtons of Force, as in the atomic bomb.

I guess you could say that my uncertain view is post-materialist & post-quantum & post-modern (i.e. 21st century). To each his own : preferences, personal taste, and opinions. Below are some physicist's (not philosophers) opinions. :joke:



*1. Einstein's assertion that energy is fundamental stems from his 1905 formula, \(E=mc^{2}\), which established that mass and energy are interchangeable manifestations of the same entity. This principle dictates that matter is essentially "frozen" or highly concentrated energy, making energy the foundational component of the physical universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Einstein+energy+is+fundamental
Note --- That universal "entity", underlying matter/energy, is sometimes equated with the boundless Higgs Field.

*2. Before the equation, scientists treated mass and energy as separate and distinct properties. The equation revolves around the theory of mass-energy equivalence
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/einstein-formula.htm

*3. Mass is considered both a foundational physical quantity (measuring inertia and resistance to motion) and a complex metaphysical concept, rooted in historical debates about substance, extension, and the nature of matter. It bridges physics, via intrinsic properties like the Higgs mechanism, and metaphysics, which explores the ontological status of "stuff" and its properties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mass+is+a+metaphysical+concept

Energy is: Fundamental within physics; Universal across phenomena; Conserved because of symmetry. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Energy must be conserved because the Big Bang provided the universe with a limited supply, that cannot be created or destroyed within the bubble of physical reality : only recycled. :nerd:

While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ". — Gnomon

Again, one should be careful to not attribute quotes to Einstein or other figures. This too appears to be a 'new-agey' commentatry of sorts. You can find Einstein's quotes about, say, his belief about the illusoriness of the distinction between past, present and future (which, in a way, accords quite well with a literal interpretation of his best known theories, special and general relativity) but these kinds of statements misrepresents his views. Also, in my opinion, they show an insecurity of those who feel the need to attribute to Einstein or other top famous scientists quotes that they never said (to be clear, I'm not accusing you of this. I'm accusing those who 'concoted' these quotes from their own reading of Einstein's theories).

Years ago, without knowledge of that specific quote, my Enformationism thesis concluded that Matter is slowed-down Energy, and that Energy is the carrier of Information. Does that make any sense to you? — Gnomon

TBH, no precisely because I don't think that 'matter is slowed-down energy' but that energy is a properrty of something 'material'. I agree that contemporary physics doesn't give us the same picture of 'matter' as in Newtonian mechanics for instance. Indeed, I don't think that physics in general gives us a metaphysical picture.

There are some results in physics, like Bell's theorem, that appear to have some metaphysical readings, by excluding some metaphysical models, but even in these cases one has to be careful to avoid to 'overreach' in metaphysical conclusions.

Honestly, I'm just saying that it is better to follow the example of someone like Georges Lemaitre who refused to say that the theory of Big Bang 'proves God' (despite being a Christian). Physics remains a fascinating subjects even if one isn't convinced that it 'proves' or 'disproves' a given metaphysical view.

I get the impression that philosophers who hold a Materialist worldview, prefer the black & white Certainty of the ancient (6th century BC) notion of Atomism (fundamental particles of matter) to the fuzzy gray Uncertainty of the 20th century view of Quantum Physics — Gnomon

And yet, ironically, someone like David Bohm, who wasn't certainly the stereotypical 'materialist', never accepted a probabilistic interpretation of QM, just saying. The world isn't so black and white as you are assuming here.

What Mass is, is a mathematical measurement of the Energy content of Matter. — Gnomon

This is better. If, however, energy is 'contained' in matter, you have to ask yoursef: can energy exist without a 'container'? If not, energy isn't more fundamental than matter.

Think about this point. It is essential to my critique. Energy (or even the more comprehensive quantities like the four-momentum etc) is always defined as a property of something else and not an independent entity on its own.

It can be expressed in terms of Newtons of Force, as in the atomic bomb. — Gnomon

Nope, an explosion is a sudden release of energy not a (single at least) force.

Again, one should be careful to not attribute quotes to Einstein or other figures — boundless

I am careful about quotes from any authority figure, because people will interpret the words in the context of their own beliefs. . . . and that includes Materialist interpretations of Einstein's "god" quotes*1. :wink:

the theory of Big Bang 'proves God' — boundless

I don't think the BB proves the Christian God. And I don't buy the New Age interpretations. But, I have to agree with those who say it does look exactly like a creation ex nihilo*1 event. So, anti-Christians have postulated a variety of creative counter-interpretations of the astronomical evidence, to "prove" hypothetically (without evidence) that our physical universe could have always existed, and had the potential for creation of New Worlds : e.g. Multiverse theory. :chin:

David Bohm, who wasn't certainly the stereotypical 'materialist', never accepted a probabilistic interpretation of QM, — boundless

Yes. But his attempts to make Quantum Physics seem more deterministic --- by postulating hidden variables and intelligent pilot waves --- have not convinced many of his fellow physicists. And after many years, no evidence for occult determinants. However, interest in Bohm's work has experienced a revival in recent decades. And my thesis acknowledges some of his less radical ideas. :meh:

This is better. If, however, energy is 'contained' in matter, you have to ask yoursef: can energy exist without a 'container'? If not, energy isn't more fundamental than matter. — boundless

You need to be careful about asking questions that may not have the answer you expect.*4 :joke:

Energy (or even the more comprehensive quantities like the four-momentum etc) is always defined as a property of something else and not an independent entity on its own. — boundless

It was Einstein who defined Energy as "fundamental"*5. And photons are massless, hence matterless*6. :nerd:
Note --- If you click on the blue addresses below, you will find links to the sources of the summaries.


*1. Albert Einstein held a "cosmic religion" view, rejecting a personal, anthropomorphic God in favor of a pantheistic, orderly universe. He admired Spinoza's God—the harmony and beauty of natural law—believing science and spirituality were complementary, non-dogmatic, and interconnected. He often expressed awe for the mysterious and felt humanity's purpose was to understand this cosmic, lawful order. (Wikipedia)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einsteins+new+age+views

*2. Creatio ex nihilo remains a foundational, concept that bridges scientific, observations of a beginning with, theological interpretations of, a creator, while, quantum cosmology attempts to provide, physical, explanations for how such, an, event could, occur.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+creation+ex+nihilo
The Big Bang theory suggests the universe had a definitive beginning roughly 13.8 billion years ago, where space, time, matter, and energy originated from an extremely hot, dense state, superficially resembling creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+looks+like+creation+ex+nihilo

*3. Beyond Simple Materialism: Bohm’s philosophical views were not straightforward, notes PhilSci-Archive. He was, in fact, not a "Bohmain" in the modern, strict sense, as he later moved away from strict determinism to argue that both causality and chance are fundamental.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bohm%2C+who+wasn%27t+certainly+the+stereotypical+%27materialist%27%2C+never+accepted+a+probabilistic+interpretation+of+QM%2C

*4. Yes, energy can exist without a physical, material "container."
Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves) travels through empty space without needing a container. Furthermore, energy exists in vacuum fields, and gravitational fields can contain pressure (like in stars) without a physical barrier.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+can+energy+exist+without+a+%27container%27%3F

*5. Energy is generally not considered independent of matter, as they are fundamentally linked, but energy can exist without massive matter. Energy is a property of physical systems, such as fields and particles (photons), which can travel through empty space, while matter is defined as substances with mass. The relationship is best understood via [E=MC^2], showing energy and mass are equivalent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+independent+of+matter

*6.Einstein's [E=MC^2] reveals that energy is more fundamental than matter, as matter is effectively a highly condensed form of energy. Energy can exist without mass (e.g., photons), but all mass has an inherent energy equivalent. Matter can be converted into pure energy (as in the sun), and energy can create particles, making energy the foundational "stuff".
https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+energy+more+fundamental+than+matter&client=firefox-b-1-

[E]nergy is a properrty of something 'material'. I agree that contemporary physics doesn't give us the same picture of 'matter' as in Newtonian mechanics for instance. Indeed, I don't think that physics in general gives us a metaphysical picture.

There are some results in physics, like Bell's theorem, that appear to have some metaphysical readings, by excluding some metaphysical models, but even in these cases one has to be careful to avoid to 'overreach' in metaphysical conclusions. — boundless

:fire:

Modern physics hints that more primitive than energy are: Causal structure; Information constraints; Quantum states; Symmetry principles; Relational structure. — PoeticUniverse

:100:

@Gnomon :eyes: BAD PHYSICS + poor reasoning —> WOO-of-the-gaps (i.e. pseudo-metaphysics) :sparkle: