The Wondrous Conservation of Energy Principle

The words “The Conservation of Energy Principle” form what is almost certainly the most sustaining, profound phrase in the English language yet our Anglosphere teachers rarely unpack its deep meaning. It features in few, if any, of our National/State Education Frameworks.
This article outlines how, when understood and used with care, this great axiom has the potential to generate wonderful meaning in our lives. This is because the principle provides us with an invaluable tool for evaluating the sustainability of our language and behaviour.

This said, words alone fail to express the grandeur and wisdom of this great principle of physics. People of every culture since time immemorial have reflected on and attempted to communicate its sustaining messages to their peers and future generations. Words being insufficient, they have employed multiple modes of expression, including music, dance, mime, sculpture and, above all, the careful, contemplative actions of their daily lives.

All our existence involves paradox and accordingly The Conservation of Energy Principle is a paradoxical statement. For instance, the principle speaks of continuous change being a constant, of all potential being active and of no form of energy being energy. This article is about our wise use of words and acknowledging their limitations.

Those limitations, in particular the inability of our thought process to transcend paradox combined with the ingenious trickery of the ego, make this discussion challenging. So words may cloud our communication, confound this endeavour and fail us.
At such times it is helpful to remain mindful that we have other wordless modes that can better enable us to express and transcend paradox. When all modes are used in concert, they have proven power to sustain societies through millennia of continuous transformation. They can express the wisdom of all the cells in our body – every cell being a formation of wisdom of the Conservation of Energy Principle that has sustained their cellular form for billions of years.

“‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.” The Buddha (Dhammapada, verse 277.)  
“Conditioned” means “created, generated, formed”.

It is probable you feel familiar with the idea of “The Conservation of Energy Principle” from your Science lessons at school. Perhaps you trusted your teachers knew what they were saying? Perhaps you can recite its statement by heart but have never reflected on its meaning? Perhaps it seems such an obvious truth you have decided that no reflection is needed?
The following Wiki statement is typical of the Anglo notions of “The Conservation of Energy” engrained in us.

This Wiki definition is notable for its exclusive language on a range of levels. We will briefly discuss the meaning of six of the phrases as a prelude to providing a more enlightening description of the ways of the universe.

“In physics”
Physics here is defined as a branch of science. This is a very narrow definition because both “science” and “physics” are understood to be an exclusive, amoral way of thinking, “a department of knowledge”.

A more inclusive definition is that physics is a moral way of being in which we interact with all according to the ways of the universe.
Physics is lived knowledge in all our affairs.
Physics is the learning~practicing of the ways (principles) of the universe, all of which involves paradox

“The law” (versus “the principle”)
The difference between the “law” and the “principle” is subtle though each evokes a very different world to the other. One world tends to be divisive and exclusive – that of the ego. The other tends to be connective and inclusive – that of compassion.

Screeds, mind-numbing screeds have been written debating the difference between these two words. It is debated in silos labeled “physics”, “science”, “mathematics”, “law”, “philosophy”, “education” and more. There are books, academic papers, articles and treatises galore debating the difference, each reflecting in exclusive way the viewpoint of the discipline or silo involved. There is even a book titled “Principles of Law – A Normative Analysis”.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=law
https://www.etymonline.com/word/principle#etymonline_v_19525

The etymology of “law” and “principle” indicates they arise from very different origins.

“Law” is from PIE legh “to lie down, lay (what is right”), giving us Old Norse “lag” “something laid down, that which is fixed or set”. It is significant that Indo-European languages are relatively inclusive and people were careful use different words for “a specific law” and tended not to speak of “the law”.

“Principle” is from PIE “per” meaning “in front of, before, first, chief” + “kap” meaning “to grasp”, giving us Latin principium (plural principia) “a beginning, commencement, origin, first part,” in plural “foundation, elements,”
By the 1500s the meaning of two words is being confused as in principle: “ a law or truth on which others are founded” and then the sense of “a right rule of conduct” (1530s).
Then in 1802 we have the conflation of law with principle, as in the meaning “Scientific sense of “general law of nature…”

This conflation and confusion reflects a culture becoming more acquisitive and exclusive i.e. losing compassion and becoming more ego-driven. It is consistent with radical social change – this period being the advent of the English Combustion Revolution.

In terms of psychology and moral development, laws are extrinsic constructs to our being and have no inherent moral value in guiding our behaviour. Laws can easily become the prime domain of the ego and be used to enforce addiction, waste, pollution, slavery, genocide and other atrocity.

Above all, to create and speak of a universal “law” is to deny our essential uncertainty and fallibility in this human form amidst the universal transformation.
By contrast, to speak of a universal “principle” tends to remind us in humility and inclusiveness, thus increasing our ability to inquire of and acquire better ways to act in accord with the ways of the universe.
A man (human being) may know the laws of mathematics pertaining to the destrictive impacts of jet flight and yet lack the principles to care for Earth’s atmosphere.

“Energy”
Energy here is defined as “a quantity that denotes the ability to do work”, an exclusive concept arising from English attempts to harness the power of steam engines in the 1800s. It is significant that “work” is defined as any activity that adds wealth to The Crown, an amoral notion that, in general, excludes the vital contributions of women, children and elderly people and that demeans both the majority of people on Earth and the planetary systems that sustain Mankind.

“It (energy) is said to be conserved over time.”
This statement is exclusive in that it does not say energy is conserved, only that it is said to be conserved.
It also excludes our human role amidst the continuous, universal flux and the fact our notion of time determines how energy is manifest. See Power =Energy/Time

“this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed”
This statement is exclusive in that it assumes energy is something extrinsic, something apart from us, something “out there”, something we mortal beings can in some way change.
Also no human being can know the limits of energy with certainty. We can only know it is as bounteous as the universe(s).

“it (energy) can only be transformed from one form to another.”
This statement is similarly exclusive, alienating and delusional as the last one. We human beings cannot transform energy. We can only change, conserve and destroy the forms it may be manifest in.
It is a common belief in our Anglosphere culture that a form of energy can be “energy”. This makes non-science of the principle and generates delusional behaviour.

“form”
The statements use of the word “form” is exclusive to the extreme. Wiki suggests there are only about 14 forms of energy whereas in reality there exist countless myriad forms of energy. Perhaps the authors mean types, classes or perspectives of energy or of forms of energy?

In summary, the above Crown English statement of the Conservation of Energy Principle bears all the hallmarks of the ego. It is fundamentally exclusive and lacking compassion.

The Conservation of Energy Principle
(A More Compassionate Statement)

First, observe how this statement is about a principle, not a law.

Second, compassion being inclusiveness, we are careful to seek the most inclusive definition of the word “energy”.Whatever word we choose, it will fail to communicate that which is unimaginable. We are attempting to speak of the vast unknown and unknowable, the immense possibilities.

It is possible our English language has a word that maximally expresses that meaning of “mainy or all possibilities”. That word is “potential”.

Potential arises from the Proto-Indo-European root “poti” meaning “powerful; lord”, which gave rise to Latin potens “powerful,” from potis “powerful, able, capable; possible”, which in turn gave rise to Latin potentia “power, might, force”

The word began losing much of its transcendent meaning in the late 14c when “potential” began be used in a more exclusive way – meaning “possible” (as opposed to actual), “capable of being or becoming”.

To be continued