What is energy?

>this shit definition

These would denote forms of applying force, no?

The concept of energy in modern physics really ultimately comes from Aristotle by way of Scholastic Philosophy and Leibniz, and developed further by other physicists, who weren't so well trained in philosophy as Leibniz was.

Apparently Aristotle invented the words energy and potency in the Greek (based)! He needed a new word for his concept. The word ergon (work, activity) already existed so he invented the word energy based on the Greek word for work or activity. The Greek language is apparently that malleable (like German). So energy, more commonly translate as actuality, from Latin actualitas, would mean a thing's activity. Seeing coupled with its twin concept, potentiality, actuality would mean the thing's becoming or doing that which it can possibly be and do. I don't know story behind the word potency or potentiality, but the Greek word for it is dunamis, and it has to do with movement. In Aristotle's philosophy everything that is movable has potentiality in it, whereas some thing that would be pure actuality (like Aristotle's God, the unmoved mover) would be immovable.

In Physics, when you raise a stone above the ground you supply it with gravitational potential energy (this would roughly relate with Aristotle's potentiality) and when you release it, that potential energy converts to kinetic energy (this would somewhat relate with Aristotle's actuality). That's more or less it. The two systems are not reducible to each other, other than by a coincidence of names. Too bad physicists don't receive training in philosophy, otherwise there could have been a dialogue.

>modern physics
By modern I mean the physics of the modern era. I know physics call "modern" physics that which developed in the 20th century and "classical" physics that of the actual modern era, but that's just historical ignorance on their part and fuck them.

mc^2

Energy in physics bears little relation the Aristotle's concept of energeia, which might to translated as activity/actuality. Energy in physics can be understood as a measure of the capacity to do work, and is closer the Aristotle's concept of potency/potentiality.

>The two systems are not reducible to each other, other than by a coincidence of names
Philosophers do like to speak of physics like they understand it

Examples please

Brush up on your general relativity. It's all frame-independent energy, man.

Surely you're not arguing from a position of high school physics?

What exactly in that post do you disagree with?

Interesting explanation, the only thing I would like to add is that for Aristotle "motion" and "change" are synonymous. So not only is the unmoved mover not able to be pushed/pulled/etc, but all change is impossible in it.

Holy shit how has no one quoted Feynman here.

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."

Energy is just the 100% abstract axiomatic constant to which all of our physical equations refer. There is some feature of the physical world such that it remains constant. But we can describe some of its features with equations.

>well better go see what Aristotle is spewing today
>energy?
>becoming energy?
>energy relating to potentiality and actuality?
>people actually eat what this dude shits
>imma go step on his pillows and masterbate