Postulate 1 part 2
I was thinking. . .
The relationship between mass and energy given by Einstein has a peculiar effect in quantum physics. Taking two very small particles, accelerating them nearly to the speed of light, and running them into one another oftentimes produces new particles - with more mass than the original. The kinetic energy of the collision results in the creation of new mass. Sometimes, however, one of the particles "ceases to be" creating a release of energy - in proportion to the mass (according to the equation). So I got to thinking: what is the definition of energy?
So I grabbed a science textbook from the bookshelf:
Energy: the ability to do work.
If this isn't the most post hoc definition I have read, I'm not sure what is. But then I started thinking like (in the manner of) Aristotle in reference to the pre-Socratics. When talking about Thales, Aristotle uses "all is water" to show the glimmer of truth - that matter must be able to become things, and the mutability of water makes it an attractive choice. So how do we look at the bad definition and pull some gem of wisdom out of it? Then it became very clear. Ability. Potency. To do. Resolved to act. Energy, in this translation, becomes "the potentiality resolving to act in work." Cumbersome, to say the least. Again, looking at the first paragraph here, energy can also become matter. So it doesn't just do work. So we can re-write our new definition as: "the potentiality resolving to act in work or becoming matter". But then again, what is work?
Work: The amount of energy transferred into or out of a system, excluding energy transferred by heat conduction.
Okay, here's the vicious circle rearing its ugly head. Perhaps no headway can be made. But if we forget the textbook definition for a moment, and think about the mathematical representation, or equations for work: Work = Force multiplied times distance. Interesting, so work is a moving thing. Example, if I wanted to pick up a keg of beer, and run up a flight of stairs, the work done would be the weight of the keg (the force of "gravity") multiplied by the height of the second floor (the distance up I carried the keg). So it looks now that work is a moving of material things. How does that fit into our newer definition of energy?
Energy is the potentiality resolving to act in moving matter or becoming matter. So then energy is a principle of change (in the Aristotelian sense). My only question then is whether energy is the potentiality or the resolving to act. If we then take up the first option, energy becomes a sort of "universal potentiality" - that which can become all things. But I don't think that this is exactly correct. In the second case, energy becomes synonymous with Aristotelian motion. But I also think that this is incorrect. Maybe we should re-write our definition again. Boldface words are used in the sense of the Physics of Aristotle, brackets to conjoin an idea. Energy is the [potentiality resolving to act] in change. Using change to replace local motion and substantial change simplifies our definition. I think that if we consider "potency resolved to act" as one thing it also clears up things. But again, potentiality resolving to act means motion in the Aristotelian sense (with attendant qualifications, of course). So does that mean that we have come upon it? Energy is the motion in change. Energy is the changing in change. Energy is the whereby change can occur. Energy is prime matter . . .
