When a boulder rolls down a mountainside, physicists can describe how it will hit the ground by summing all of the forces working on it as it rolls. But also, they can get the same answer simply by subtracting the amount of energy that the boulder has at the top of its journey compared with at the bottom. And why should that be? Why does it work to skip thinking of the world as full of cause-and-effect?
It’s intuitive that adding up all of the forces pushing on it should give us an answer, but how do we intuit what it means just to have a change in energy?
That is the subject of my book The Energyists: how Lagrangian dynamics and mutual biasing create new understandings of mind, ethics, and complexity. It is about how to look at problems in terms of the presuppositions of energy rather than the presuppositions of forces and causation. And that is the perspective which I hope to bring to an online discussion of philosophy.
For instance, the world as described by energy is full of potential (as in potential energy), not just action and reaction.
Welcome to the Souls of Lagrange. There are over a dozen faces pictured in the rocks. (And the point is to realize that it takes an observer before they are completely “really there”).