Ontological status of energy and work

ABSTRACT 

The ontological status of energy and work is examined through a historical and philosophical lens, tracing the concept from Aristotle's energeia (actuality or being-at-work) and dynamis (potentiality) to modern physics. While classical and contemporary physics treat energy as a conserved, relational, frame-dependent scalar quantity—a bookkeeping device tied to time-translation symmetry (Noether's theorem) rather than a substantive entity—work emerges as a more concrete, measurable process of energy transfer and change.

Drawing on Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actuality, Joule's disproof of caloric theory, Feynman's emphasis on energy as a numerical invariant, and quantum field theory's vacuum fluctuations, we argue that energy remains abstract and derived, lacking independent ontological standing. In contrast, work—as ceaseless activity, transformation, and actualization—claims greater ontological primacy: it is the observable, causal driver of motion and change, from Big Bang expansion to vacuum pair production/annihilation and the Casimir effect.

Metaphysically, absolute nothing (beyond physical vacuum, devoid of fields, logic, or possibilities) proves inherently unstable, as its denial of structure leads to contradiction and necessitates emergence of flux and minimal structure (possibility and logic). This primordial instability drives the formation of graded levels of nothing toward stable configurations, grounding existence in perpetual work/energeia rather than static potentiality or abstract relations.

Physics' ontological agnosticism, while empirically sufficient, leaves explanatory gaps that philosophy must address by privileging work as the fundamental condition for being, resolving tensions between stasis and change in a process-oriented ontology.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

The concept of energy has a deep and fascinating history. The word energy is derived from Greek ‘energeia’ translating to activity / operation in English. Aristotle is considered to be the first documented user of this term. 

Energeia itself made of 

en = “in”

ergon = “work, deed”

In his works Aristotle talked about potentiality (dynamis) and actuality (energeia or entelecheia). 1

He defined potentiality (dynamis) as the capacity to change or do something (e.g., a seed can become a tree) and actuality (energeia) as the fulfillment or being-at-work of that potential (the tree growing or fully grown).

For Aristotle, energeia meant active being or realization. His idea of Prime mover as a thing of pure actuality (energeia) with no potentiality made it the cause of motion and change in the universe without itself changing. 

Through successive centuries many great philosophers and scientists studied energy. 

Leibniz described energy as “vis viva” (living force), proportional to mass × velocity^2 (mv^2). He believed this quantity represented the true measure of a body’s power to act or produce effects. 2

James Prescott Joule decisively disproved the idea of energy as a substance(caloric) and established that energy can be created from work. Joule disproved the caloric theory by showing that heat is not a substance, but a form of energy.

In his experiments (like stirring water with paddles), he showed that mechanical work always produces heat, and the amount of heat depends on the work done, not on any stored “caloric fluid.” This proved heat can be generated continuously from work, contradicting caloric theory and establishing the mechanical equivalent of heat.

His experiments later led to the formulation of the famous law of conservation of energy (first proposed by French philosopher Émilie du Châtelet) which states that for a closed system energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed from one form to another. 

Modern scientists like Noether 3 brought forth the concept of symmetry and proved mathematically that conservation of energy is a consequence of time translation symmetry i.e the laws of physics remain unchanging over time. 

Einstein proved the equivalence of mass and energy and introduced an energy momentum tensor, a key component in Einstein's field equations in general relativity. 

Energy appears predominantly in physics. There are several forms of energy. But what is energy actually? Is it something real or is it just an abstract/mathematical term? 

MODERN PHYSICAL VIEW 

In modern physics energy is not a thing or a substance but more of an accounting term. It is conserved across physical transformations but does not have any existence of its own. It's known from the effects that it causes. 

Richard Feynman understood energy 4 as a quantifiable numerical property of matter and interactions, a conserved quantity that transforms between forms, rather than a "thing" with physical substance, emphasizing its role in describing how things change, not what they are made of. According to him, science describes the relationships and behaviors of energy, but lacks a fundamental definition of its essence.

Across classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and relativity, energy is: A conserved quantity associated with time-translation symmetry(via Noether’s theorem), A scalar quantity (or time component of a 4-vector in relativity).A bookkeeping invariant that allows prediction of dynamics.

From this prevailing physical view a relational ontological view emerges that energy is a property, not an entity. 

Energy is a derived, relational property of physical systems, not a fundamental ontological object. Energy is a numerical value assigned to a system’s state. It depends on:choice of reference frame, choice of zero point (only differences in energy matter for physical changes though absolute value may change depending upon the baseline chosen) and symmetries of the system

It has no independent existence apart from the system it characterizes. 

Quantum theory reinforces this non-substantial view. In quantum mechanics: Energy is obtained from the Hamiltonian operator. Energy eigenvalues label states. The Hamiltonian generates time evolution. 

But energy is not observable in the same sense as position. It does not “exist” independently of the quantum state and measurement context. 

This further supports the view that energy is a parameter of dynamical structure, not an ontic object. That is no existence of energy separate from the system. 

While energy remains an abstract concept, work is something that is real ,physical and measurable. Work is a cause of change. 

Energy in modern terms is defined as capacity for doing work whereas work is the real change that is produced. Although energy is derived from ancient Greek ‘energeia’ its meaning most closely resembles work as it denotes activity ,realisation of potential . Some describe the term energia as being at work. 

In modern science both work and energy share the same units but mean different things and are applied differently. Energy being the capacity and work being the transfer of energy that puts things into motion. This can be related with aristotelian prime mover which is described as pure actuality. In Aristotle’s terms, work can be seen as a way of actualizing potential—turning what can be into what is. 

But that doesn't really explain whether work can be existent on its own. Like energy work appears to be connected to a system. Work is done on an object or on a closed system to change its state making it closely tied to the system. But there is one aspect of work that grants it existence. Its capacity for transformation. 

In modern cosmology it is the work done by the big bang that gives rise to particles and fields. Without the big bang there would have been no system to begin with. 

Consistent work is done to maintain the state of the universe ,that is ,its temperature. All particles emit black body radiation which can be seen as a remnant of the original work done by the big bang and subsequent particle interactions. Although the uncertainty principle predicts continuous motion of particles, the fact is that this motion is measured when all the particles in the universe are already immersed in thermal radiation. For a true demonstration of motion without work it will be essential to experimentally prove motion of electrons at absolute 0 in absence of any thermal radiation. This is impossible in conditions that are present in the observable universe. 

So Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle might not necessarily be a fundamental truth rather a systemic response that emerges due to consistent work that leads to motion of particles. 

So far we've considered work on a cosmological and particle scale. But our conclusions hold on a macro level as well. 

Newton's laws require work to be done on an object to change its kinetic energy and also to change its potential energy. No object acquires kinetic or potential energy without any work. 

This is true even for a vacuum that doesn't have any objects or particles. Vacuum does work on objects as demonstrated by the casimir effect and lamb shifts in atomic spectra. 

In Physics this is expressed as work done by vacuum fields that take the expression 

Eq 1 describes the net work as an integral of hamiltonian energy density change,eq2 describes total hamiltonian energy density (which is simply the sum of potential and kinetic energy of the field per unit volume)

This holds true even if vacuum is viewed as a complete abstract information space.

Even then it would have informational entropy implying work needed to preserve its state. Eq 3 represents information entropy and eq 4 represents the entropy change per bit of information.

At 0K that state will be preserved inside the fields which will have zeropoint energy 

METAPHYSICAL INCOMPLETENESS OF PHYSICAL THEORIES 

Physics is not really concerned with metaphysical questions. When experiments prove a theory it's accepted as a truth without necessarily satisfying the entire causal chain. And this works. But from a philosophical point of view it becomes important to define and explain both the nature and cause of things.

Physics can afford to be agnostic (or instrumentalist/structuralist) about ontology because its success metric is empirical accuracy: predict outcomes, match data (Casimir force, Lamb shift, vacuum fluctuations via renormalization), and move on. It doesn't need to commit to what "really" exists beyond the math: whether quantum fields are substances, structures, information, or mere calculational devices? Whether virtual particles are real entities or perturbative fictions?Whether zero-point energy is "stuff" or a symmetry artifact? As long as the equations work and experiments confirm, philosophy's deeper "what is it?" questions are bracketed.

But philosophy cannot remain agnostic without consequences. Leaving ontology unresolved creates real problems:

Explanatory gaps in why the world is dynamic at all: If fields/energy are abstract/relational (no primitive "stuff"), what grounds the perpetual activity we observe (Casimir attraction, vacuum fluctuations, pair production/annihilation)? Physics describes how it happens but sidesteps why existence entails ceaseless flux rather than stasis.

Then there is the question of priority of actuality over potentiality: Pure potentiality (dynamis) can't sustain itself—energeia (actuality, being-at-work) must be primary. Modern physics' relational energy + agnostic fields risks reducing reality to frozen abstractions or infinite potentials without a driver. Elevation of work (measurable process, transfer, change) as ontologically basic resolves this: activity isn't an add-on; it's what keeps "nothing" (or vacuum) from collapsing into true stasis/instability.

Broader implications: This agnosticism spills into cosmology (e.g., "something from nothing" debates via vacuum fluctuations or tunneling), causality (quantum indeterminism vs. metaphysical necessity), and even theology/philosophy of mind (if reality is ultimately relational/abstract, what anchors concrete existence?).

Philosophy should demand a coherent ontology where work (as energeia, ceaseless actualization) holds primacy—measurable, causal, transformative—over abstract conserved quantities or fields. This revives Aristotelian process insights in a modern key: no pure potentiality lingers; existence is flux, and work is the ground that physics implicitly relies on(Casimir force, vacuum fluctuations, pair production/annihilation as activity) but philosophically under-acknowledges.

Denying this primacy leaves reality hanging on unobservable or reified abstractions, whereas privileging work resolves the Aristotelian tension between dynamis and energeia by making actuality (being-at-work) fundamental.

If we strip away virtual particles (as mere tools) and measurements (absent in pure vacuum), what "grounds" the fluctuations/change? Physics answers: the structure of quantum theory itself(commutators, quantization). This structure begs for a deeper ontological explanation—why does nature enforce non-commutativity and perpetual activity?

METAPHYSICAL VIEW OF WORK

Metaphysically work is a bit more complicated to understand if we start from vacuum as the metaphysical description of vacuum tends to go beyond physical vacuum. While a physical vacuum is empty space with nothing but quantum fields ,metaphysically true nothing is the absence of fields and even logic and possibilities 5. However these descriptions of nothing are unstable as denial of logic creates a condition where a thing can be and not be simultaneously 6. Giving rise to a situation where quantum field-like states emerge leading to production of particle antiparticle pairs and this is exactly what happens in total vacuum. 

Metaphysically for something to exist it must continuously do work or more generally it must be workable. Without activity there can be no existence. The whole universe is in a constant flux. Change happens continuously. Being can't be in a stasis. For something to change work must happen. This view was shared by Greek philosopher Heraclitus. Parmenides opposed him but later philosophers like Socrates integrated both change and fixed form into their philosophy. The matter was finally settled by Aristotle who agreed that change is essential through his concepts of potentiality and actuality. 

Nothing can't be in an inactive state because if it's inactive its existence ceases. Instead it needs to do work that amounts to nothing. It exists in a constant state of flux. 0,denoting the state of nothing can be obtained in infinitely many ways. 

Work/workability becomes a necessary condition for something to exist. 

For example, an unmoving object is workable. You can transform a stationary stone into a statue by doing work on it. 

From a physics point of view it does work too as blackbody radiation even if it is completely still. 

Similarly for absolute nothing to exist it must be either workable which it can't be because it's non material or it must do work itself which leads to no net change. Workability on nothing is impossible but it can do work on itself that is self cancelling and does not change the nature of nothing.

This implies nothing is an active state constantly doing work that cancels itself so nothing can remain. This activity grants it existence.  

This description of nothing is very close to Aristotle's prime mover which is also non material but with one key difference that unlike prime mover,nothing is active ,always working and has creative power. It's not something towards which all objects move rather a source from which all objects emerge. It's not conscious but spontaneous and unfolds as it's nature dictates. 

CONCLUSION

The journey from Aristotle's energeia—actuality as being-at-work—to the modern scientific understanding of energy and work reveals a profound continuity beneath apparent rupture. While physics has demoted energy to a relational, conserved scalar—a powerful but abstract accounting device tied to time-translation symmetry and frame-dependent choices—work stands out as the more ontologically robust reality: the measurable, causal process of transformation, transfer, and actualization that physics constantly invokes yet rarely elevates to foundational status.

Energy, as capacity or potential, remains derivative and never truly pure; it exists only in relation to systems, symmetries, and choices of reference. Work, by contrast, is concrete activity: the Big Bang's primordial expansion, the ceaseless virtual-pair fluctuations of the vacuum, the measurable force of the Casimir effect, the ongoing entropy production that sustains cosmic temperature, and every macroscopic change governed by Newton's laws. It is the bridge between what can be and what is—the realization of potential that Aristotle identified as essential to being itself.

Metaphysically, the instability of absolute nothing (a void devoid even of logic, possibility, or structure) demands resolution. Such a state is incoherent and self-undermining: its absence of any principle of stability forces the emergence of minimal structure—possibility and logic—as the least contradictory configuration. From this primordial instability arise graded layers of "nothing" that progressively acquire form, culminating in the dynamic, field-structured vacuum of physics. At every level, existence is sustained not by static substance or frozen potential, but by perpetual work: ceaseless activity that prevents reversion to contradiction or stasis.

Thus, philosophy must supplement physics' necessary agnosticism by granting ontological primacy to work—understood as energeia, flux, process, and actualization. In a reality where pure potentiality cannot endure and absolute stasis is impossible, work is not merely a phenomenon; it is the fundamental condition for anything to be at all. The universe is not a collection of things that happen to move; it is an ongoing act of work.

Existence is work. And work is existence.

REFERENCES 

1 Potentiality and actuality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality 

2 Vis viva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva

3 Noether's theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

4 Conservation of Energy

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

5 “Levels of Nothing” by Robert Lawrence Kuhn

https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-lawrence-kuhn/

6 Nothing, properly understood

https://github.com/akshatjiwansharma/bhu/blob/master/philosophy/nothing-properly-understood.md