Akshat Jiwan Sharma

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, causa...

In his book do aliens speak physics physicist Daniel Whiteson asks thought provoking questions on the nature of reality and casts doubt on our current physical understanding of the universe.  What if our theories don't describe true reality? This is an important question to ask and one that has been asked by many philosophers. It forms the basis of ontology a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality.  It is true that scientific theories describe a subset of reality and it's difficult to apply them outside of their domain. Particles physics can't predict hurricanes yet.  Aliens may choose different assumptions and come up with different theories. It would challenge our understanding of reality but won't change reality itself.   From a philosophical point of view it might be helpful to remove the foundations upon which our theories rest and see what remains. If you can get rid of that too then it's not fundamental. If you can't then it is. ...

This post is a response to an article "You are how you act" In which the author prescribed faking virtues until one becomes good. This is an important topic that allows us to see how different philosophers shaped America's moral and political philosophy.  https://boz.com/articles/you-are-how-you-act Rousseau was famous for saying that man is born free and is everywhere in chains. He advocated for self rule and formulation of laws by the people. Yet after hundreds of years of democracy (thousands really) the corrupting influence of social norms has not really been remedied. Inequalities still exist,corruption still happens and social institutions that were once liberating become oppressive over time. His ideal of self governance has not been realised as most nation states have adopted a representative democracy. People don't really make the rules. They just handover the power to someone else who makes them on their behalf. It's certainly right that Franklin believe...

ABSTRACT This paper challenges the prevailing philosophical view that “nothing” cannot exist and is merely a logical or linguistic placeholder. It argues that such denial is internally inconsistent. If logic is valid for establishing the existence and properties of 'something' and 'nothing' is defined as its logical negation, then 'nothing' must be granted equal standing within that logical system. Denying the reality of 'nothing' while using it as a necessary concept undermines the coherence of the very logic used to define 'something' Moreover, the claim that thinking about 'nothing' transforms it into 'something' confuses conceptual representation with instantiation. Thinking about nothing does not bestow attributes on it.   'Nothing' is not a thing with properties, but a logically and metaphysically distinct state,a condition devoid of attributes that must exist in order for 'something' to be intelligible. This...

My thoughts on a stimulating discussion of YouTube on whether there is a real external world out there or is it something we can never know?  https://youtu.be/HOEFxD5mSLc?si=eXouSVBnMukch4hh SUMMARY Main Question: Is there a real external world, or is reality dependent on consciousness  Mr. Deepak Chopra's View: -Observer-independent reality is unprovable Consciousness is required for any perception of reality. -Reality is a "species-specific qualia gestalt"—our experience shaped by our biology and consciousness. -Therefore, what we consider "real" is subjective and constructed by our minds. -I Am the Universe.  COUNTERARGUMENTS TO CHOPRA’S VIEW  1. Consciousness is not required for all physical processes:    - Non-conscious objects (e.g., stones, water) undergo changes (like evaporation or movement) regardless of being perceived.    - The sun affects unconscious things—proof that it exists independently of conscious observation. 2. Consciousness ...

Because change happens. No beginning and no end imply timelessness. In this view the universe always existed. Timelessness would imply no evolution.  Many philosophical ideas have this concept of timelessness. Ancient Eleatic philosophers, Parmenides and Zeno were famously supporting this view that there is no change. Change is an illusion.  Heraclitus, a pre-Socratic philosopher took the opp view that world is driven by constant change and famously said that you can't step into the same river twice.  Their views had strong influence on Socrates,Plato and Aristotle who tried to reconcile change and permanency. For example Socrates conceptualised a world of senses and a world of forms In eastern philosophy as well there are similar thoughts in which reality is said to be permanent and unchanging and the world which is changing is said to be an illusion. It is real but not the ultimate reality.  This view strongly contradicts with what we observe. The universe is const...