Energy is the ontological primitive of Materialism not Matter

[AshvinP]

We need to differentiate between physics and metaphysics. Physics is relational as it deals with behavior. Materialism is metaphysics. They claim the ontological primitive is matter. But when you try to find this matter you end up with energy which is a mathematical abstraction. Unless I am missing something, at this point in time I don't see how materialism has an ontological primitive.

I think physics is gradually becoming more aligned with metaphysics (idealism) as it goes deeper into abstractions and we end up with "fields" and "energy" and "strings" which harmonize to manifest the world. If we take such concepts and recognize they are useful fictions to represent dynamics of mental activity in relation to idea-beings, we bridge much of the gap. Of course, all of this remains abstract until we actually experience the reality of such idea-beings and their activity, but having the intellectual concepts ready-at-hand will help us in such experiences.

[Jim Cross]

When Materialist/Physical Realists say that matter is the ontological primitive, this is strictly incorrect.
The ontological primitive in a Material Metaphysics is energy.
Energy is the one substance that explains everything in material metaphysics.
Matter is explained in terms of energy.
Not everything in a physics has mass but everything has energy.
You cannot explain energy in terms of something else because you get into a circular argument.
The reason why I think it's important to state this is because then we avoid using particles or field disturbances, etc, to describe the ontological primitive of Material Metaphysics.
Energy is defined by quantities such as mass, charge, spin, frequency, etc.

The claim is then that this perceived universe is in consciousness since, according to
analytic idealism, it consists of particular patterns of excitation of universal
consciousness. The universe is thus in consciousness for the same reason that
ripples are in water.

’ Stronger still, insofar as what we call ‘matter’ can be parsimoniously construed as
phenomenal patterns of excitation of mind, matter is on an epistemic par with
mind and can, in principle, be reduced to the latter, for both already reside in
the same ontological domain

[SatChitAnanda]

The best that I can come up with after further thought is that Quantum fields are the ontological primitive for materialism. But then you can't explain consciousness and are left with a dualism or the hard problem. If on the other hand you say quantum fields is actually consciousness and matter is what consciousness looks like across a disassociated boundary then you have monism and no hard problem. The physics doesn't change but the metaphysical implications are humongous. That I think is an interesting place to end it.