Why isn't kinetic energy considered a fundamental force like the other four?

[Runner 1]

I don't see how the scenario you describe justifies/evidences your statement.

What I would like to show you is that the difference between the two is the entropy in those two scenarios. It is the difference of entropy that is fundamental, to which both energy and force are 'emergent' and which are the concepts we use to 'codify' and comprehend the change of entropy in a dynamic system (that would otherwise be too difficult to manage mathematically, if we were only to talk about entropy).

Put it another way - without any change of entropy (actual, or incipient) there is no change of energy or motion, thus there is no force.

Huh? I'm pretty sure my point doesn't need entropy to explain what force is. Force describes the interaction of particles, mediated through the exchange of virtual bosons. Perhaps you could clarify?

Also, to what scenario-verified statement are you referring? The only statements I made described only the scenario I presented. Are we in some sort of syntactical recursive loop here?

 

[cmb]

I don't understand what you are saying, so I'll leave it there...

 

[Runner 1]

I don't understand what you are saying, so I'll leave it there...

Okay, I think I see what you were trying to say. "The statement" you were referring to was "the difference between the first and second universe is..."? Is this correct?

I was a bit inaccurate. Let me change it to "The difference between the original particle's behavior between the first and second universe is... "