Do you really believe that life is just a "machine?"
Sodium and carbon are each elements; and we know that they are classified in the periodic table of the elements in terms of their atomic parts. That is, there's something more basic in nature than elements: subatomic particles, ultimately quarks.
You wrote, "Energy... Matter is simply a form of energy." On the face of it, that appears to be true. But what does this statement actually tell us about matter? Einstein proposed an equivalence of mass and energy, the famous equation E = MC2 of his paper on special relativity (1905). Yet strictly speaking, mass is a property of matter, not matter itself. The equation does not directly describe particulate matter, nor does it appear to have much to say about massless particles (photons).
You wrote:
Matter is a form of energy and isn't a principle. A principle is a statement regarding a property of some element of reality. Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force. I don't think the word reduce is an appropriate term to refer to nature's fundamental animating force.I'm not sure I can agree with your definition of "principle" here. It seems that what you're describing here is more like an attribute or property. A principle is defined as a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption, and as such is expected to have universal, not contingent, application (attributes are contingent and specific).
We are not necessarily looking for an arbitrary fifth force in nature. The missing pieces of the physical picture may not be forces at all, but relations.
I get the distinct impression that you think we can simply assert that "Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force" and be done with it. But putting it very crudely, what tells the energy where to go, and what to do?
And I outright disagree with you here: "[Physics is] also complete, in that all objects and processes can be seen as arising from the physics itself."
Living systems are based in physics because they are in part material systems but they do not entirely "reduce" to physics. The causal or organizational structure of life forms is what sets them apart from non-living systems in nature (which are essentially simple, or as Robert Rosen put it, mechanical). And this structure is not a physical or material phenomenon.
Thank you so very much for all of your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!
You're noting and catagorizing parts and placing them in heirarchical order. What's important to note and what's been missed is that those elements have properties which are essential to the machinery that provides for the functions of life and for that machinery to necessarily appear in the world in the first place.
"Einstein proposed an equivalence of mass and energy, the famous equation E = MC2 of his paper on special relativity (1905). Yet strictly speaking, mass is a property of matter, not matter itself."
The equation is a statement of the equivalence of matter and energy. Mass is measure of the energy tied up in the interaction of energy with the Higgs field. Mass is a measure of the energy which is referred to as matter, it is not simply a property of something else.
"A principle is defined as a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption, and as such is expected to have universal, not contingent, application (attributes are contingent and specific)."
It can be a law, but not an assumption, and never doctrine. Doctrine is simply something that's declared to be so and assumptions are arbitrary.
"The missing pieces of the physical picture may not be forces at all, but relations."
Relations of what?
"I get the distinct impression that you think we can simply assert that "Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force" and be done with it. But putting it very crudely, what tells the energy where to go, and what to do?"
The energy behaves according to it's nature, or essence. There is nothing, or anyone that "tells it what to do".
"And I outright disagree with you here: "[Physics is] also complete, in that all objects and processes can be seen as arising from the physics itself.""
As far as objects and the assemblies of physical elements that give rise to functional capacities go, conservation of energy holds. That's a principle and a physical law that must be broken, or was never true if what I said is not true. In order for there to be any weight to a disagreement with what I said, evidence must be provided that the conservation of energy principle does not hold in general.
"Living systems are based in physics because they are in part material systems but they do not entirely "reduce" to physics.
Not because they are part material systems, but because life requires the physical machinery that provides for the functions of life. W/o that physical machinery, there is nothing that provides fur the funcitons of life. If you htink there is, you're simply returning to some other alternative machinery that's providing for the functions of life.
"The causal or organizational structure of life forms is what sets them apart from non-living systems in nature(which are essentially simple, or as Robert Rosen put it, mechanical). And this structure is not a physical or material phenomenon."
Rosen is simply making claims that physics is incomplete w/o any evidence whatsoever. Claiming that physics is incomplete in order to inject an arbitrary and unphysical 5th force is not science. There is nothing different between the living and the nonliving and there is no additional force, or "relation" necessary for life to exist. All that's necessary is that there be a physics that provides for the machinery that provides for the functions of life.
"Do you really believe that life is just a "machine?"
No, but w/o the machinery of life, there can be nothing to provide for the functions of life. No machinery- no life!