I'm still at a loss of what energy is, it seems impossible to define. Perhaps because I try to see it in terms of cause and effect. We assume that energy is contained in matter, that energy manifests through the translation of mass into energy. Thus at a fundamental level all experience points to a relationship between energy and matter. In fission, there is mass lost, in fusion there is mass lost, even in combustion mass is lost. Is that mass simply the conversion to energy? Then you have to wonder, what caused mass to exist in the first place, what imbued matter with this crystalized energy? Some energy had to be expended to produce such a process.
For one thing energy is "zero sum" at the universal scale. The fundamental principles described by the CTMU are required to show how a universe can be "zero sum", resolving the problem of "something from nothing".
Briefly, "nothingness" is synonymous with "boundlessness", which (as I interpret it), is analogous to a "primordial black hole", per the standard "Big Bang" model. A black hole is mathematically defined as a "point", hence its without boundary, while "primordial" implies no external conditions. Given its self-containment, and presuming its "infinite mass", and since a static mass = "potential energy", the "boundless nothingness" has "infinite potential energy", from which an observable universe can be derived, as the required manner of "self processing" per a complex system capable of generating life as we know it.
Essentially, what the CTMU model does is describe reality as a "self simulation", whereby things like "energy" and "forces" can be reduced to a fundamental sort of "programming", one whereby "perception" is the model of the program. A model unambiguously exhibits truth-values of a theory (language) in a given domain. In the theory/domain "reality", the model is perception. We perceive regular patterns, and so we use terms like "forces" or "energy" along with math and measurments to describe regular and/or predictable patterns.
No model of "force" has been commonly adopted, outside of "materialism", which has been categorically refuted by QM. Per materialism, force is transmitted solely by direct contact between solid bodies, a notion at-least intuitive, if ultimately false at the quantum level. No other model of "force at a distance" has ever manifested prior to the CTMU.
As for "energy", it's just the transfer of "force", which as no common definition outside the CTMU. Per the CTMU "simulation" model, each quantum-level state is derived via reflexive feedback with the overall "entangled" universe. The appearance of forces and energy amounts to the regularity of state-changes, ie "syntax", of a self-processing universe where perception being the "model" (truth-revealer), some regularity and/or transformability is required were a large number of separate observers can exist.
"...the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution (reflexive read-write functionality)." CTMU
So there is no energy per-se, it's just an expression, which translates into another expression? We are all in this loop of harvesting and expending this energy. As you state, energy is simply a measurement of a perceived but incalculable natural phenomena. Motion, translates to force, translates to work, translates to power over time. Again these are conventions for a process which appears to amount to accomplishment. If the universe is already finished and perfect, what is left to do? To what extent are we just passengers in our bodies?
If the universe is already finished and perfect, what is left to do?
Essentially, realizing the absolute nature of the universe and thereby the nature of the self. Realization of the absolute isn't optional for a "self contained, self processing" universe, but such a realization requires perception, and must be novel to the perceiver. In other words, to realize the absolute, one must first not realize the absolute, or else there's no "freedom" involved.
Imagine building a machine that does some task "X". The machine has no "free will", in fact it can't really do anything but task "X". Now imagine building an AI which can do all sorts of tasks, and setting it to the task of learning how to do task "X".
For the AI to learn task "X", it must first NOT know anything about task "X". If it already knew about task "X", then it would be akin to the machine which performs task "X", and wouldn't be considered "intelligent", even in the limited sense. However if the AI bot knows nothing of task "X" one day, but then knows about it later, we can say it's learned something.
Humanity is in the same predicament. Essentially, we all realize the "Absolute" by default, but the trick of "free will" is that we don't know that we realize the "Absolute", or else we'd just be like the machine built to perform a task but w/o intelligence.
(post is archived)