## Redefinition of Energy?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Eodnhoj
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm

### Redefinition of Energy?

The below argument observes that numbers possibly have physical elements as wavelengths. If this is the case, then the nature of energy must be redefined.

Argument Set 1

1) All structures, whether physical or abstract must manifest stability because all
structures require stability to maintain structure.

2) All stabilizing dynamics, whether physical or non-physical, must have a degree of reflective properties to maintain itself. These reflective properties manifest
further possible stability.

3) As all structures require stability, all structures require a degree of reflectivity to maintain structure. This manifests
further possible structures.

4) All reflective acts are acts of flux that manifest inherent stability of a structure while simultaneously manifesting new structures.

Argument Set 2

1) "1" is equal in definition to a structure because "1" reflects a degree of stability in both form and function, and is a stabilizer.

2) "1" can be observed has a highly primitive structure, because it is deficient in definition as all definition is an inherent flux.

3) All structures that lack definition must be inherently self-reflective so as to manifest stability.

4) All stable structures have a degree of self-reflectivity; therefore "1" is self reflective.

5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of "1" are equal to the propagation of "1". This is through the manifestation
of rational numbers as complex structures of one.

ex: 1≡1≡1 = 3
1≡1≡1≡1≡1 = 5

6) These complex structures of "1" self-reflecting are equivalent to rational numbers.

7) All reflections of "1" manifests as further possible "1"'s equivalent to rational numbers.

8 ) All flux is curvature; therefore all rational numbers, as reflections of "1", are curvature of "1" reflecting upon itself.

Argument Set 3

1) The "line" is equal in definition to a structure because the "line" reflects a degree of stability in both form and function, and is a stabilizer.

2) The "line" can be observed has a highly primitive structure, because it is deficient in definition as all definition is an inherent flux.

3) All structures that lack definition must be inherently self-reflective so as to manifest stability.

4) All stable structures have a degree of self-reflectivity; therefore the "line" is self reflective.

5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of a "line are equal to the propagation of a "line". This is through the manifestation
of wave functions as complex structures of the "line".

ex: ⟺≡⟺≡⟺ = ⇶
⟺≡⟺≡⟺≡⟺≡⟺ = ⇶

6) These complex structures are equivalent to a wave functions/forms.

7) All reflection of lines manifests further possible lines equivalent to wave functions.

8 )All flux is curvature; therefore all wave functions/forms, as reflections of the line, are curvature.

Argument Set 4

1) The line is equal in definition to "1" because the line is reflective in structure to "1".

2) The line is equal to "1"; therefore all rational numbers are wavelengths.

3) All wave functions/forms are equivalent to energy as a flux; therefore all rational numbers reflect energy.

4) As all rational numbers are abstract; All Energy has abstract qualities.

5) As all energy is physical; All rational numbers have physical qualities.

6) The reflectivity of the abstract and physical is equal to a unifying dimension or dimensional ether.

Lyonbyte
Posts: 44
Joined: February 11th, 2013, 12:50 am
Favorite Philosopher: Kant
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

### Re: Redefinition of Energy?

Interesting set of arguments. Although some points are very unclear to me and were not elaborated, I do get the general idea of what you're doing, and its at least someone clear what you're aiming at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you to be elaborating a causality or dependence between abstract form, idea, reflection, which includes number etc., and concrete determinate structure, especially that of the physical world. Your last set makes something like this clear in that "rational numbers have physical qualities", "energy is physical", "the reflectivity of the abstract and physical" is unified in some way which remains to be further explained. Very good. However, I might ask what this all aims at. What is the culminating ontology here? Perhaps you are undertaking a synthesis of the age old opposition which has seemed unresolvable for so long between the varieties of idealism and materialism, . . .between monisms and dualism, as between the various everything that descended from the positivism of the Vienna Circle to attack all metaphysics, and everything that rose from the attempts to resolve the problems of Kant in the philosophical contortions Hegel, Heidegger, etc. . .in sum, some way to affirm both Platonism and naturalistic and naive realism at the same time in a kind of synthesis.

One other thing that occurs to my mind, beyond the fact that I desire to see these arguments elaborated and applied, is the question of the ontological status of both matter and energy. This might be the same as asking what is the universe at bottom. But then it seems indecent in a way to ask such

-- Updated April 20th, 2017, 6:47 pm to add the following --

Another question that comes to mind was one that arose once when I was making an argument for idealism. I was claiming that the laws of the universe are more "real" than their phenomena, . . .this was going back to the old argument seen in the Vedic philosophy and also in Spinoza's work that the cause contains more reality than the effect. The phenomena are mere appearance, changing, etc. whereas the cause being the rational structure underlying all phenomena is what is truly real. How might your argument relate to this old proposition?