EnFormAction : the power to transform potential Form (design, essence, information) into actual Shapes (structure, matter, hylomorph) and vice versa. Which is what Einstein's equation spells out : (E = MC^2).

What we experience locally as Mass (matter) is proportional to the speed of light, which slows-down to form particles of rest-mass-matter. — Gnomon

:roll: :rofl:

Energy — Gnomon

Energy is an accounting number, its conservation suggesting some deeper structure.

Energy is an accounting number, its conservation suggesting some deeper structure. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I suppose it's accounting for physical changes that would otherwise seem like magic. Give it a mundane name, and it sounds more technical, and seems less spooky. In my thesis, I call that "deeper structure" EnFormAction*1. Scientists & philosophers have for many years attempted to account for the otherwise inexplicable evolutionary emergence of Life (animated matter) and Mind (thinking matter) with a variety of hypothetical postulations : ancient Greek vitalism, Eastern Chi or Prana, Bergson's elan vital, Schopenhauer's will-to-live, and more recently Whitehead's Process philosophy (evolutionary change over time).

But all of these motivating & transforming forces seem similar, in causal effect, to the modern notion of physical Energy (power, ability, potential, capability), in various invisible intangible forms : gravity, photons, vacuum energy, virtual particles, etc. So, I lump them all together into the concept of EnFormAction*2. Note the Cosmic Mind interpretation below that may be relevant to the OP. What makes the world go round : energy or conatus? :smile:


*1. The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. EnFormAction :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

# Some people said that energy doesn't exist physically and it is not fundamental, but it is a relationship between other fundamental things.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/484707/does-energy-exist-or-is-it-just-a-relationship-between-other-fundamental-things

Some people said that energy doesn't exist physically and it is not fundamental, but it is a relationship between other fundamental things. — Gnomon

Energy is a beauty and a brilliance,
Flashing up in its destructance,
For everything isn’t here to stay its “best”;
It’s merely here to die in its sublimeness.

Like slow fires making their brands, it breeds,
Yet ever consumes and moves on, as more it feeds,
Then spreads forth anew, this unpurposed dispersion,
An inexorable emergence with little reversion,

Ever becoming of its glorious excursions,
Bearing the change that patient time restrains,
While feasting upon the glorious decayed remains
In its progressive march through losses for gains.

The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism). — Gnomon
Could you please explain how and why this is the case? Does it make sense? — Corvus

No. It doesn't make sense to me. That's why I posted the reference to Noetics (study of sentience & intellect) in the OP. I was hoping that someone else could explain how they know that the Cosmic Mind is transmitting thoughts into human brains. So far, no-one has commented on the Noetic angle, but merely continue the ancient & everlasting Idealism vs Realism arguments that make-up the bulk of diametrically opposed TPF threads. Panpsychism*3 is not exactly the same as Noetics, but quite a few serious secular scientists have publicly stated that they accept it as an axiom for cracking the Hard Problem of Consciousness. My personal Noetic nut-cracker is EnFormAction*4. :smile:


*1. From OP --- Background : I recently finished Dan Brown's new novel, Secret of Secrets, and enjoyed the intellectual thrill ride completely. Spoiler Alert! : If you are not familiar with the book, I'll reveal the "secret" hidden in plain insight : human consciousness, and its alter ego The Mind, is not generated by the brain, but is instead a signal from out there somewhere*2b. If so, what are the special "Noetic faculties" of the human animal*3? Are these spiritual signals the distinguishing factor of homo sapiens?
Note --- The notion of the human brain receiving broadcasts from the universal Mind is merely a fictional device used by Brown to serve as the spooky "secret" in his novel. But Noetics is a real philosophical position postulated by real people. But, as I said in the OP : " I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars."

*2. Noetics and idealism are related philosophical concepts concerning the nature of reality and knowledge, with idealism being a metaphysical stance and noetics a branch of philosophy focused on the mind and intellect. Noetics is often explored within an idealist framework.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+vs+idealism

*3. Scientists and philosophers are increasingly exploring panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, not just complex brains, to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness, though it faces challenges like the "combination problem" (how micro-consciousness forms macro-consciousness) and lacks direct experimental proof, with some physicists and neuroscientists supporting it as a valid scientific avenue for integrating mind into matter, while others remain skeptical, calling for concrete physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

*4. "Enformaction" isn't a standard English word but appears in philosophical discussions (especially on The Philosophy Forum) to describe the concept of information as potential or the power to change form, linking energy, form, and action in a metaphysical sense, suggesting information is the underlying "structure" or "ideal" behind physical reality. It's used to explore how abstract data (like ideas or memories) can manifest physically (on paper, hard drives) and vice versa, emphasizing that the physical carrier (paper, disk) matters less than the information itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=enformaction
Note --- This is an AI version of my concept of EnFormAction, not in my own words.

Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. — Gnomon

Nope. Not the point. The profound point is that there are real degrees of reality.

Energy is a beauty and a brilliance, — PoeticUniverse

Energy per se is devoid of intelligence. What you’re seeing is the projection of your own mind.

The problem with 'energy' is that it is defined in physics as a property of physical objects and physical systems. And while, for instance, in experiments it has been observed that energy is conserved while particles are not (e.g. an electron and a positron are annihilated and photons are generated), the same goes for electrical charge. The total charge remains the same but electrically charged objects can be annhilated and generated. However, despite this, nobody would say that 'charge' is some fundamental substance.

In the same way, energy is not a substance that composes matter. To make an analogy is like saying that coins (physical objects) are made of money (energy).

Perhaps the confusion is due to an interpretation of mass-energy equivalence. However, not even mass can be reasonably interpreted as a substance even if the concept is first presented in that way. Mass is best interpreted as either the resistence of an object to change its velocity (inertial mass) or a measure of how strongly interacts gravitationally (gravitational mass, which has an analogous tole to electric charge in electromagnetic interactions). So, the mass-energy equivalence doesn't 'prove' that mass or energy are underlying substance but it is an equivalence of two physical properties.

BTW, Merry Christmas to all!

In the same way, energy is not a substance that composes matter. To make an analogy is like saying that coins (physical objects) are made of money (energy). — boundless

:100: Yes ... Merry Xmas.

I was hoping that someone else could explain how they know that the Cosmic Mind is transmitting thoughts into human brains.

Well the way I envision this is that I consider the idea that separation is illusory. In which case there is no requirement for anything to be transmitted. The information is already at its destination. In a sense our whole world, body, brain, mind is an elaborate mechanism preventing us consciously accessing the information that we already know. If we knew it (the information), it would have let the cat out of the bag and the whole edifice of our world would become an irrelevance and lose all meaning and necessity. ( there is an esoteric version of this, in which the world is a construct for the very reason of obscuring the information from us, that we arrive at the information ourselves, through our own ingenuity).

So a spiritual narrative would be that souls are incarnated into a training ground (our world), so as to develop a wide range of skills and abilities prior to returning to heaven. Where they will enrich the experience of heaven. That truth is veiled from them during this period for the purposes of the training.
There is a more sophisticated version of this and there are varieties found in most religions. I could go into considerably more detail, but I would be loath to bore people.

Thank you for your reply it helped me with context, as I often find myself getting into discussions between philosophers about other philosophers and their philosophical ideas without having read their work myself.
It’s like a foreign language, where I’m sure I’m thinking about the same ideas, but in a foreign language and need interpreters.

No problem! Thank you for your question. It helped me to clarify my own thoughts on these matters.

Yes, it’s weird the way that happens.

Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. — Gnomon
Nope. Not the point. The profound point is that there are real degrees of reality. — Wayfarer

My comment was a response to your post about philosophical notions on the Reality vs Ideality of Potential vs Actual*1. I was simply referring to a common scientific/philosophical position on a practical distinction between objective observed concrete Knowable Reality and subjective imaginary abstract Hypothetical Concepts .

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. The mundane implication is that Potential is functionally not-yet-real, but I made no assertion about its parallel existence in an immaterial invisible realm of Platonic Forms. Which I don't envision as a higher plane of existence, but merely a concept about a possible unknown source of ideas for the human mind. Perhaps a mythical Cosmic Mind as in Noetics.

But your Point is that reality is a simultaneous multi-level phenomenon??? Is that similar to the belief that there are "degrees" or levels-of-reality*2 that are obvious to our physical & technological senses, and other realms (parallel universes?) that are invisible and occult, except to extra-sensory perception, or through the eyes of Faith? Sadly, I seem to be blind to Hyperreality*3. :wink:


*1. From Wayfarer post above :
"In the... paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses."
Note --- That sounds like an arbitrary assignment to a category, not a verifiable class of "things".

*2. "Degrees of reality" refers to philosophical ideas that existence isn't all-or-nothing, but rather a hierarchy where some things are "more real" than others, often based on independence (like Plato's Forms vs. physical objects) or structure (like Descartes' substances vs. modes). These concepts vary, ranging from objective vs. subjective views (scientific facts vs. beliefs) to layered realities (personal, social, physical) or even spiritual levels (Plotinus's God, intellect, soul, matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality

*3. Hyperreality describes a state where simulations and representations become indistinguishable from, or even preferred over, genuine reality, a concept developed by Jean Baudrillard in postmodern culture,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hyperreality

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. — Gnomon

Wooooooooooo :sparkle: :lol:

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. — Gnomon

The comparison to a 'spiritual belief' misses the mark because energy is a strictly defined physical property, not a metaphysical posit. While it isn't a 'tangible substance' like a rock, it is inextricably linked to matter via e=mc². It has measurable physical effects, including gravity.

Furthermore, the discovery of quanta proved that energy isn't just a 'postulated force'—it exists in discrete, countable units (which is what 'quantum' means!) We don't just 'believe' in energy; we calculate it to ten decimal places to make your smartphone function.

But your Point is that reality is a simultaneous multi-level phenomenon??? — Gnomon

There are degrees of reality. Take a look at the Wiki article on The Analogy of the Divided Line from the Republic. The 'higher' knowledge comprises facts that can only be grasped by reason. They're not phenomenally existent as are material particulars.

Getting back to the paper I mentioned, which mentions Heiseberg's invocation of Aristotle's 'res potentia'. Heisenberg revives the Aristotelian concept of potentia (or dynamis), suggesting it is the most accurate philosophical description of what a quantum state really is.

Heisenberg’s treatment can be summarized as follows:

1. The "Middle Ground" of Reality

Heisenberg contends that a quantum wave function (the mathematical description of a particle) does not represent a "thing" in the traditional sense, but rather a tendency for something to occur. It's a probability distribution, meaning that the answer to the question 'does the particle exist' is not an unequivocal 'yes' or 'no' but a range of probabilities that it does. (This is what scientific realists such as Penrose can't accept.)

• Classical View: An object is either here or there.
• Heisenberg's "Potentia": In quantum mechanics, a particle exists in a state that is "something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event."
• Ontological Status: He describes this as a "strange kind of physical reality" that is more than a mere possibility (an idea) but less than a hard fact (an actuality). And this is an objective tendency inherent in nature, not just a result of incomplete knowledge of some pre-existing state of affairs.

2. The Transition from Potential to Actual
Heisenberg uses Aristotle’s distinction between potentiality and actuality to explain the "measurement problem" (often called the collapse of the wave function). He breaks down a physical experiment into three distinct phases:

• Preparation (Translation): We translate a classical setup (like a particle accelerator) into a mathematical probability function. This function represents the potentia—the list of all things that could happen.
• Evolution: The system evolves according to quantum laws. During this time, the system remains in a state of potentiality. There is no "actual" position or velocity, only a shifting distribution of possible outcomes.
• Measurement (The Act): When an observation is made, the "transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place." The interaction with the measuring device forces the potentia to manifest as a single, concrete event. An outcome is 'actualised' or 'manifested'.

3. Energy as Primary Matter

Here is where energy enters Heisenberg's picture, where he links the modern concept of energy to Aristotle’s concept of matter (hyle, the 'raw material' of the Universe.)

In Aristotle’s view, 'matter' wasn't a collection of tiny bricks (atoms, per Democritus); it was a 'substratum' that lacked specific form but had the potential to become any form.

Heisenberg argues that energy is the modern equivalent of this primary matter. Energy itself is not any particular thing, but it can be actualized into different forms—such as an electron, a proton, or a photon—depending on the physical conditions, and thence into the elements of the periodic table, and the whole three-ring circus of existence.

energy isn't just a 'postulated force' — Wayfarer

When one gets tired, it isn't that one is low on energy, but that one is low on useful energy - the kind that the muscles need. The quality of energy can decay, but never its quantity.

For everything that ever happens,
Including life and all our questions,
Meaning every single event ever gone on,
Of both the animate and the non,
Is but from a single theme played upon.

This then is of the simplest analysis of all,
For it heeds mainly just one call—
That of the second law’s dispersion,

The means for each and every occasion,
From the closest to the farthest range—
That which makes anything change.

These changes range from the simple,
Such as a bouncing ball resting still,
Or ice melting that gives up its chill,
To the more complex, such as digestion,
Growth, death, and even reproduction.

There is excessively subtle change as well,
Such as the formations of opinions tell
And the creation or rejections of the will,

And yet all these kinds of changes, of course,
Still become of one simple, common source,
Which is the underlying collapse into chaos—
The destiny of energy’s unmotivated non-purpose.

All that appears to us to be motive and purpose
Is in fact ultimately motiveless, without purpose.
Even aspirations and their achievement’s ways
Have fed on and come about through the decay.

The deepest structure of change is but decay,
Although it’s not the quantity of energy’s say
That causes decay, but the quality, for it strays.

Energy that is localized is potent to effect change,
And in the course of causing change it ranges,
Spreading and becoming chaotically distributed,
Losing its quality but never of its quantity rid.

The key to all this, as we will see,
Is that it goes though stages wee,
And so it doesn’t disperse all at once,
As might one’s paycheck inside of a month.

This harnessed decay results not only for
Civilizations but for all the events going fore
In the world and the universe beyond,

It accounting for all discernible change
Of all that ever gets so rearranged,
For the quality of all this energy kinged
Declines, the universe unwinding, as a spring.

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. — Gnomon
The comparison to a 'spiritual belief' misses the mark because energy is a strictly defined physical property, not a metaphysical posit. While it isn't a 'tangible substance' like a rock, it is inextricably linked to matter via e=mc2. It has measurable physical effects, including gravity. — Wayfarer

My point was that Energy is logically inferred, not physically observed. I was not implying that it is not a real phenomenon. But over many centuries, various "energies" have been postulated or dismissed as spiritual (metaphysical) forces. Personally, I don't think in terms of spiritual forces*1, or deeper essences, or degrees of reality. However, I do use the term "physical energy" as an instance of a Universal Causal Force*5 in the world : EnFormAction. Which I label as metaphysical*4, because it is inferrable, but not observable. It's intended to be a science-based update to ancient spiritual speculations.

In my reply to I noted : "Scientists & philosophers have for many years attempted to account for the otherwise inexplicable evolutionary emergence of Life (animated matter) and Mind (thinking matter) with a variety of hypothetical postulations : ancient Greek vitalism, Eastern Chi or Prana*2, Bergson's elan vital*3, Schopenhauer's will-to-live, and more recently Whitehead's Process philosophy (evolutionary change over time)". :smile:


*1. Spiritual energy is an invisible life force connecting all living things, known by names like prana, chi, or life force, felt as a subtle vibration influencing physical, mental, and emotional well-being, fostering peace or depletion based on balance. It's seen as a deeper essence of life, linking individuals to the universe and a greater purpose through practices like self-care, compassion, and connecting with nature, art, or community, often managed through energy centers like chakras
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spiritual+energies

*2. In Hinduism, Prana (प्राण) is the Sanskrit word for "life force" or "vital energy," the universal principle that animates all living beings, flowing through the body in channels (nadis) and associated with breath, which is a primary way to absorb and control it. It's considered the subtle energy that fuels our physical, mental, and spiritual existence, categorized into five vital airs (Vayus) like Apana, Samana, Vyana, and Udana, with practices like Pranayama (breath control) used to balance and direct it for health, focus, and spiritual growth.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prana+hinduism

*3. Élan vital (French for "vital impetus" or "vital force") is a philosophical concept by Henri Bergson describing the creative, driving force behind evolution, an inner push that makes life complex and diverse, diverging from simple matter and mechanical processes. It's a dynamic, non-physical energy that propels living organisms to adapt and grow, contrasting with materialistic views and influencing ideas on consciousness, creativity, and the spirit of life itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=elan+vital

*4. Gravity waves, both atmospheric (in fluids like air/water) and spacetime ripples (gravitational waves), are fundamentally physical phenomena, described by physics, but they intersect with metaphysics in deeper questions about the nature of spacetime, quantum gravity, and reality itself, especially when trying to unify relativity and quantum mechanics. While the observation and description are physics, interpreting their ultimate nature (e.g., is spacetime truly a "thing"?) delves into metaphysical realms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gravity+waves+physical+or+metaphysical

*5. Federico Faggin "Vital Force" refers to the theories of physicist and microprocessor inventor Federico Faggin, who posits that consciousness is fundamental to reality, not a byproduct of matter, and is the "vital force" driving the universe, explaining quantum physics and free will. He developed Quantum Information Panpsychism (QIP) suggesting consciousness is a primary quantum phenomenon, with matter as the "ink" it uses to know itself, bridging science and spirituality
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=faggin+vital+force

energy isn't just a 'postulated force' — Wayfarer
When one gets tired, it isn't that one is low on energy, but that one is low on useful energy - the kind that the muscles need. The quality of energy can decay, but never its quantity. — PoeticUniverse

misinterpreted my reference to Energy as a "postulated force"*1, analogous to "spiritual energy"*2. That was not intended as a religious assertion, but simply as a philosophical (metaphysical) concept. Over the years, scientists have postulated the existence of things they couldn't demonstrate. For example Einstein's postulate of curved space sounded silly, but it's now accepted by physicists as a "basis for reasoning"*3. Likewise, some religious believers postulate the existence of ghosts, as a basis for "belief", even though the only evidence may be vague wispy light reflections or spooky sounds.

Energy, even in the form of photons, is invisible & intangible until it is transformed into matter. But it is capable of causing phenomenal changes in the real world. So, what you mean by "quality of energy" may refer to the distinction between "free" (causal) energy and "bound" energy (matter). In my own thesis, Energy is described as a "shape-shifter" : changing form from qualitative Potential to quantitative Actual and back again.

Free Energy (useable, available, potential) is also associated with mental processes*3, such as Inference & FreeWill. Likewise, my notion of Universal Causation (EnFormAction) applies to both physical Energy and metaphysical Inference. So, when your muscles get tired, available physical/material energy (e.g. ATP) has been transformed into motion, and then into waste energy (CO2 & H2O). But the latter are only Potential (metaphysical), not Actual (physical) Energy, until a causal transformation recombines them via form change. :nerd:


*1. Postulate : a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
Planck's Quantum Postulate
Bohr Model Postulates
Conservation of Energy
Schrödinger Equation Postulates
In essence, "energy is postulated" means these core ideas about energy's behavior are fundamental assumptions upon which larger, successful physical theories are built, often confirmed by experiments
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+postulated

*2. "My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts."

*3. The free energy principle is based on the Bayesian idea of the brain as an "inference engine." Under the free energy principle, systems pursue paths of least surprise, or equivalently, minimize the difference between predictions based on their model of the world and their sense and associated perception.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22free+energy%22+faggin

Free Energy
The wind is free, the machine is not.
You ether build, or pay a lot.
If you look, and really see.
Nothing is, truly free.

By Josefh Lloyd Murchison

Imagine if this passage, we said:

412a11, It is bodies especially which are thought to be substances subjects, and of these, especially natural bodies; for these are sources of the rest.

('The rest' incidentally being artifacts, parts and properties, relations, etc).

So, here, 'subject' is nearer in meaning to the original 'being', and it gives the whole phrase a subtly different meaning, with the caveat that 'subjects' is also not exactly right. But it is arguably nearer the mark that 'substance' (IEP explains where that translation originated.) — Wayfarer

While I appreciate the work of Sachs as a translator and interpreter, the following from the article is problematic:

To Aristotle, this means that being is not a universal or a genus. If being is the comprehensive class to which everything belongs, how does it come to have sub-classes? — Sachs

If there are good reasons not to consider Being as a class, the different ways it is spoken or thought of will not be sufficient instances of being parts of that class which is not a class.

The problem is parallel to the way actuality and potentiality are considered as central to the way mortal beings come to be but Aristotle says we can only explore through analogy.

In any case, this all seems tomfoolery against simply pointing to natural beings as prime candidates for "beings being what they are."

The problem with 'energy' is that it is defined in physics as a property of physical objects and physical systems. And while, for instance, in experiments it has been observed that energy is conserved while particles are not. . . . .
In the same way, energy is not a substance that composes matter. — boundless

Yes. Energy is the cause of physical change, while material particles are the things that are in flux. Change >>> Time ; Matter >>> Space. The initial state of the Big Bang theory required two pre-bang things that can't be accounted for : Causal Energy and change-regulating Natural Laws. Both must be pre-existent in order to explain the something-from-nothing event*1 that Cosmologists have calculated by back-tracking current events. So, if Cause & Laws pre-date the space-time bubble we now inhabit, then for all practical purposes, they are eternal. Hence, Energy must be "conserved" because it is essential to the continuing existence of the physical universe.

And yes, Energy is not a physical or material substance, but a quality or property of the world that transforms & sustains the stuff we, and the world, are made of*2. Aristotle knew nothing of modern physics, but he inferred from his observations of Nature (Phusis) that the "stuff" of reality (hylomorph) is a combination of tangible Matter (raw potential : e.g. clay) and knowable Conformation (Platonic Form ; design pattern : sculptural intent). Therefore, Energy is the immaterial power (essence) that causes Matter to take-on different forms.

The physical Universe is known to be temporary, but the metaphysical Cosmos may be eternal*3 (i.e. the source of Cause & Laws that powered and enformed the Big Bang). The OP noted that the philosophy of Noetics postulates that the eternal Cosmos is the "Mind of God". And that the cosmic Mind somehow transmits Ideas (morph ; form) into human Brains (hyle ; matter). I can understand that as a philosophical metaphor, but how could we confirm that spooky notion as a scientific fact? Is Energy a signal from Cosmos to local minds & matter? :wink:



*1. The Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an incredibly hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago, marking the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy, but it doesn't fully explain what caused that initial state or what existed "before". Modern physics suggests "nothing" isn't truly empty; quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum might have seeded the Big Bang, or theories like cosmic inflation describe the rapid growth from a near-nothing state, with ideas like the "Big Bounce" suggesting a previous universe's end catalyzed ours
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+something+from+nothing

*2. Substances : primary realities ; qualities, quantities, etc., depend on them for existence.
Matter : The physical stuff, changeable, potential.
Form : The essence, structure, or universal definition that makes something what it is
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+substance

*3. "Space-time bounded by eternity" suggests a concept where the vast, four-dimensional fabric of the universe (space-time) isn't infinite but exists within a greater, timeless reality (eternity) or that all of time and space exist simultaneously as a fixed "block," challenging our perception of linear time, often explored in physics (eternalism) and philosophy to reconcile the universe's existence with timeless concepts of God or ultimate reality, implying our experienced time is just a slice of an ever-present whole.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=space-time+bounded+by+eternity

Continuing on the topic of Being not being understood as a class or kind, the following from Bernadette captures an important aspect of Aristotle pursuing "being qua being""

Each of Aristotle's three most theoretical writings begins with a critique of his predecessors; but whereas the second books of his Physics and On Soul present his own definitions of nature and soul respectively, the second book of the Metaphysics seems to be nothing but a series of questions. Nature and soul are there regardless of what anyone might say about them (cf. Physics 193a3); but without perplexity there is nothing to metaphysics. Metaphysics seems to be the only science that in asking questions discovers all of its own field, and so, in completing philosophy, somehow returns philosophy to its origin in wonder. Perhaps, then, being is not just in speech a question (ti esti}; and that which was sought long ago, is sought now, and forever will be sought is precisely what being is. — Seth Bernadette, The Argument of the Action, 19: Essays on Greek Poetry and Philosophy

↪Gnomon
I was hoping that someone else could explain how they know that the Cosmic Mind is transmitting thoughts into human brains.
Well the way I envision this is that I consider the idea that separation is illusory. In which case there is no requirement for anything to be transmitted. The information is already at its destination. In a sense our whole world, body, brain, mind is an elaborate mechanism preventing us consciously accessing the information that we already know. — Punshhh

According to the Buddha, my Reality is an Illusion based on a misinterpretation. Presumably, the Reductionism of modern Science constructs an illusory, yet practical, model of reality, that allows humans to control Nature for their own ends. Hence, for practical purposes, in the physical world, we don't need to know much about the ghostly metaphysical Ideality that supposedly surrounds us. Knowledge of Metaphysical Truths is only useful for arguing with other philosophers about True Reality. Ideality is how we imagine how the world ought to be.

I'm currently reading Federico Faggin's, Irreducible, which also posits that Mind (Consciousness) per se is the true Reality. He calls that universal Mind : The One*2, which is defined as the Whole of which we human persons are a minuscule particle. It's as-if the metaphorical One is an ocean and I am a sentient molecule of water, ignorant of its own all-encompassing habitat. Or another metaphor is that The Cosmos is like a sentient being, and I am just a single semi-sentient cell in her body.

However, lacking a direct revelation from the Cosmic Consciousness, my local physical & mental reality is all I can know for sure. Which is why I no longer accept the Judeo-Christian-Islam scriptures as evidence of a higher reality : they don't speak directly to me. So I would have to accept their Holy Word on blind faith. The scriptures explain that my own self-conceit is what "prevents" me from conceiving of The Cosmic Self. I can accept The One as an allegory --- God knows or realizes Herself via humans --- but not as an actual loving Being. If I already possess that divine "information", I am not aware of it. :smile:


*1. In Buddhism, the "illusion"isn't that nothing exists, but that our perception of reality is fundamentally distorted by ignorance, leading to suffering (dukkha). Key Buddhist illusions include the belief in a permanent, independent self, clinging to impermanent things as lasting, and seeing the continuous world as static. By understanding these misperceptions through practices like meditation, one can dismantle the ego and realize interconnectedness, achieving liberation from suffering.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=buddha+illusion
Note --- I have my little aches & pains, but very little emotional suffering. So, my attempts at meditation didn't provide much Moksha. And I'm too close to The End for the impermanence of life to be scary.

*2. "The One" : refers to physicist and inventor Federico Faggin's theory of consciousness, where "the One" is a universal, holistic quantum field that is the fundamental basis of reality, desiring to know itself through self-reflection, with individual consciousnesses as points of view within this unified field, bridging science and spirituality through concepts like love and unity. Faggin, known for inventing the microprocessor, experienced a profound spiritual awakening that shifted his focus from materialist science to consciousness as the ground of being, exploring how mind and matter interconnect.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=faggin+the+one
Note --- Faggin obviously has broad & deep knowledge of Science and Philosophy. But how does he know what the universal quantum field "desires"? Can I choose to accept or to block Mystical Knowing?

Energy is not a physical or material substance, but a quality or property of the world that transforms & sustains the stuff we, and the world, are made of — Gnomon

Chaos may temporarily recede,
Quality building up for a need,
As when cathedrals are built and formed,
And when symphonies are performed,

But these are but local deceits
Born of our own conceits,
For deeper in the world of kinds
The spring inescapably unwinds,
Driving its energy away—
As All is being driven by decay.

... the Whole of which we human persons are a minuscule particle. It's as-if the metaphorical One is an ocean and I am a sentient molecule [drop] of water, ignorant of its own all-encompassing habitat. — Gnomon

:up: à la Spiniza's substance (natura naturans (i.e. "the Whole" ~ physical laws)) and modes (natura naturata (e.g. universes, bodies, minds)).

Rödl’s ‘science uberhaupt’ comes to mind.

And, Happy New Year

And yes, Energy is not a physical or material substance, but a quality or property of the world that transforms & sustains the stuff we, and the world, are made of*2. Aristotle knew nothing of modern physics, but he inferred from his observations of Nature (Phusis) that the "stuff" of reality (hylomorph) is a combination of tangible Matter (raw potential : e.g. clay) and knowable Conformation (Platonic Form ; design pattern : sculptural intent). Therefore, Energy is the immaterial power (essence) that causes Matter to take-on different forms. — Gnomon

While I agree with hylomorphism (in a broad sense), I disagree with you that 'energy' is so special as a property. Why not, say, angular or linear momentum which are also important conserved quantities?
I wouldn't 'reify' energy as I wouldn't reify any other physical quantities.

And even if one accepts that there is a 'flux'* in events, I wouldn't say that what 'causes' this flux has been identified by physics as the physical quantity 'energy'.


*Note that Special and General Relativity even suggest, if taken literally (and the validity of General Relativity is a good argument to take it as one, even if I do not necessarily agree), that there is no 'flux' and time arises only when a reference frame is defined. What is real, is 'spacetime'. So the distinction between past, present and future would collapse. Personally, I believe that this view of time, 'eternalism', isn't 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' but I respect those who say that.

Happy New Year to all!

Happy New Year.

My last Rödl quote of the year:

In Metaphysics Γ 3, Aristotle announces a principle—indeed, the first principle—of the science that he has introduced in Γ 1 as the science of what is insofar as it is. In the course of the book, he expresses this principle in various ways. On the one hand he says it is impossible that something both be and not be (adding all the qualifications known from the sophistical refutations). On the other hand he says it is impossible to hold that something both is and is not. Aristotle gives no indication that he takes these formulations to represent different principles. Rather, his manner of writing suggests that he thinks it a matter of course, not requiring explicit mention, that these are ways of saying one and the same thing. It has been presented as a sign of the superior acumen of modern philosophical thought that it has been able to distinguish in Aristotle’s text two principles: a principle of being, an ontological principle, and a principle of thought, a psychological principle. In truth, this is not a sign of the intellectual maturity, but a manifestation of the corruption of modern philosophy by psychologism. — Self-Consciousness and Objectivity: Rödl. An Introduction to Absolute Idealism (pp. 149)

This is a two-for-one as Rödl acknowledges the influence of Kimhi in saying this.

To All (wherevver you are): *Happy New Year*

I wouldn't 'reify' energy as I wouldn't reify any other physical quantities. — boundless

:up: :up:

I wouldn't 'reify' energy as I wouldn't reify any other physical quantities. — boundless

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.

Energy is an abstract ethereal concept, which is easier to conceive in the form of material metaphors or physical analogies. For example, Gravity was long imagined as-if a pulling force on an invisible rope, But the falling apple was not attached to a rope. So Newton defined his unseen force in abstract mathematical terms, and Einstein re-imagined it figuratively as curved empty space, even as he redefined it as a geometrical ratio. Can you imagine the number 5 without reifying it as something concrete? :wink:

THE GRAVITY GRID IS IMAGINARY. We reify what we know but can't see.