TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time

[Gnomon]

I do not believe it can be done. . . . . You see, it appears to me that energy can exist without taking the form of a particle, but a particle cannot exist without the energy that forms it. This leads me to conclude that whatever energy is, it is a more fundamental entity than the form of the particle. It appears to be some kind of disembodied quality that is not a property of particles, but a property of space from which particles emerge.
Does that make any sense? — punos

Maybe. The Energy of an electron is described as "charge". Which is a metaphor for filling a wagon with a load of wood, produce, etc. That "disembodied quality", its causal value or voltage, is imagined as an inherent property of the particle, but where does the causal charge come from? One notion is that the energy "load" is extracted (particleized) from the potential of empty space (quantum field). But the response below says otherwise. Ironically, fundamental physics, dealing with invisible stuff, is mostly described in mathematical symbols or philosophical metaphors. It's all over my head, literally and figuratively.


An electron does not gain its charge from "empty space"; it inherently carries a negative charge as a fundamental property of its existence, regardless of the surrounding environment, including empty space.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... mpty+space

[Gnomon]

Since the Eternal has no input point,
It’s Everything, linear or all-at-once. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Infinite, unbounded, undefined Potential is Everything, Everywhere, All-at-once. Simply BEING. But our matter-bound minds can only imagine All-Possibilities as things : static or linear or flowing.
BEING (G*D) is necessary, since we are here to think about it. Non-being is self-negating.

[Gnomon]

This perspective is based on the idea that particles like electrons and positrons are not isolated entities but rather parts of a symmetric whole that has been separated by some measure. — punos

So, when the neutral potential electron is unplugged from the whole universal system it splits into a positive & negative charge ; pro & anti-matter??? Who or what does the separating? Is the separation physical or conceptual??? How does this plugging & unplugging fit into Whitehead's Process Philosophy?

I tend to take the imaginary cosmic Whole for granted. like G*D, because my personal experience is limited to parts --- stars, planets, particles --- that I can envision plugging-together to form a Whole Cosmos. Symmetry means "to measure together". And a measurement is a mental operation. So, it's all an idea in a mind, hence Idealism?

PS___Please pardon the philosophical rambling. Maybe that's what happens when you un-plug from the system : you become an isolated part that is attracted to your counter-part, and ultimately to the super-symmetric Whole. But the journey back to the whole is what we call Life?

[Gnomon]

I forgot to mention that this underlying symmetry seems to philosophically resemble the neutral substance proposed in neutral monism. I propose that this is one of the resonant connection points between physics and metaphysics, particularly with some version of neutral monism.
Perhaps a suitable name for this kind of monism could be "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" (NQPM). — punos

I had never heard of "Neutral Monism", so I Googled it. If the Monistic Entity (Singularity?) is "neither physical nor mental", what is it? Spiritual ; Essence ; Substance? Is the "Neutral Entity" G*D?

Is "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" an extant philosophical concept, or did you just make it up for this thread? Sometimes it's hard to tell if Google AI is just riffing on a theme, or finds information that is out there in the Net. The overview just refers back to "Neutral Monism". But the AI definition sounds like a Whiteheadian notion.

Again, how would you plug this neutral notion back into Process Philosophy or Process Theology?

Note : a Monistic Materialism adherent would say "you lost me at Metaphysics". But I'm philosophically-open to meta-speculation, as long as it has some grounding in empirical reality.


Neutral monism is a philosophical theory that posits that reality is made up of a neutral entity that is neither physical nor mental. It's a type of monism, which is the idea that all of existence is unified
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ral+monism

"Neutral Quantum Process Monism" refers to a philosophical concept that suggests the fundamental reality of the universe is a single, neutral underlying process that is best understood through the principles of quantum mechanics, where both mental and physical phenomena emerge as different aspects of this single process, rather than being separate entities
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ess+Monism

[Gnomon]

The fundamental issue which makes process philosophy counterintuitive, is that we cannot properly conceptualize a process, or activity without something which is active. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's why Materialism is more intuitive for most people. And it may be why a philosophical concept like Whitehead's rational Process Theory may never become the basis of a popular religion.

While researching Process and Reality, I recently came across this article :

Why should we prefer 'process philosophy/ontology' against the traditional 'substance theory/ontology' in metaphysics? — Metaphysics of Science
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofSc ... yontology/

This essay notes that Substances are "independent entities" defined as the "bearers of properties". But can they really be "independent" of the Universal System (physics) and of the process of Cosmic Evolution (property change)? Also, are the Properties (Qualia?) themselves also Substances, or subjective observations of mental changes due to sensory inputs? Can we separate a Property Bearer from its Properties and the observer? If so, by what criteria can we rate one or the other as Primary or Preferable? Seems like Substances and Qualia go together like birds of a common property.

One assumption of Substance Theory (Materialism) is "that change is just an appearance/illusion or if it’s real, it is entirely derivative or secondary at best". But, are "properties, relations, and events" processes or substances? Is Energy, as the cause of change, illusory? Scientists typically define Energy by what it does (change over time : processes) instead of what it is (substance). Likewise, Quantum Physics long ago gave-up on finding the ultimate particle (Atom). So they now define the ultimate something as a "field", which is simply an empty place in space where some change happens.

The article concludes with this question : "Why should we be willing to give up such a long tradition with substance theory in favour of this “newer” paradigm?" Personally, my answer is that the choice between Substance & Process theories depends on what you intend to do with it --- so to speak. Pragmatic Science will get practical here & now results from being guided by the Substance worldview. But Philosophical Speculation (investigation) may get closer to the ultimate universal Truth of Reality, by following the Process worldview to see where it leads in time & taste.

IF THE WAYWARD PATH LEADS INTO THE DARK DANGEROUS WOODS, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER TAKING AN ALTERNATIVE PATH. BUT ON WHAT BASIS WOULD YOU CHOOSE? THAT'S PHILOSOPHY.
FQDaI1DXIAI47Rq.jpg

[Gnomon]

Gavin Giorbran — PoeticUniverse


“Physicists and cosmologists have long questioned whether a state of perfect
symmetry ever existed in the past, we just haven't ever considered it as a possible
future. We have been convinced instead, because we observe a measure of
randomness that the order of the universe is simply winding down. But if anything
it is winding up! Everything is enfolding together. The final state of zero
which the universe has been evolving toward since the very dawn of time is
simply the native state of the Universe. It is the timeless whole. It is truly everything
forever. And we aren’t really becoming, we are already there. The universe
we know, the past, the future, and the infinity of other universes, all exist simultaneously.
We are inside that whole. We are a part of the native state of zero,
part of the eternal present.”
― Gevin Giorbran, Everything Forever : Learning To See Timelessness

Entropy seems to be aiming at ultimate nothingness. But Zero is just the flip-side of Infinity. GG seems to be imagining deChardin's Omega Point, not as cosmic death, but a new beginning. I don't know if he's right, but he has a poetic way of expressing the physics of space & time.

[Gnomon]

From the perspective of the model i'm currently working with, i believe the answer is primordial time (also known as timeless time).Primordial time is a non-physical process/substance that yields physicality. I explain this temporal logic in a little more detail below: — punos

I'm not familiar with the notion of "Primordial Time" as a "non-physical process". And I can't imagine a temporal process that does not involve physical objects : e.g. Darwinian Evolution. Our intuition of Time and Process is based on the changes we observe in the material world. But we also create Metaphors from that sensory experience to explain apparent changes in mental states over time : alterations in mood, behavior, thought patterns, and level of awareness. Can you explain "timeless time" in an example that is not an oxymoron*1?

On a possibly related topic, another thread "Underlying Reality" for Husserl*2, "J" says "that there is some thing or process – a “flow” -- that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions. This flow can be characterized using descriptions such as “texture,” “consonance,” “dissonance,” and “affordance.” This doesn't turn on a light bulb in my head. But it does remind me of Whitehead's notion of Process, which seems to mean something like the Life-path of the Cosmos, as interpreted by cogitating creatures.

As an untutored amateur who has learned most of his Philosophy from skimming this forum, I know nothing of Husserl*3. So most of the vocabulary of that thread is over my head. Do you see any parallels between your "non-physical process that yields physicality", and Husserl's "flow, that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions"?


*1. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two words with opposite meanings.


*2. "Underlying Reality" for Husserl
. . . . . that there is some thing or process – a “flow” -- that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions. This flow can be characterized using descriptions such as “texture,” “consonance,” “dissonance,” and “affordance.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... or-husserl

*3. "Husserl is primarily known for his analyses of intentionality, perception, temporality, embodiment, and intersubjectivity, for his rehabilitation of the lifeworld and his commitment to a form of transcendental idealism and for his criticism of reductionism, objectivism, and scientism"
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/di ... 7-0210.xml

[Gnomon]

Considering:
(non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived. — 180 Proof — punos

FYI. As I understand it, ↪180 Proof's worldview is Immanentist & Non-Idealist & Antitheist & Absurdist, among other metaphysical beliefs (i.e. unprovable). So any implication of intentional or theistic or teleological evolution is not just Outlandish & Alien, but also preposterous, ridiculous, unrealistic, non-sensical, stupid, and metaphysical. That's why he slyly & covertly treats the postulator as an idiot, who implicitly should be banned from posting on a Scientism forum.

Ironically, Whitehead's "foundational insights" were primarily derived from the non-classical & paradoxical implications of Quantum Physics*1*2*3*4. Which also inspired a lot of mystical New Age religious notions. But also some novel scientific offshoots, such as Systems Theory, Complexity Theory, and Statistical Mechanics, as well as some unorthodox philosophical directions such as Holism, Creative Evolution, Information Science, and Process Physics. Since the Enlightenment turn toward materialism/empiricism evolved into dogma, some pragmatists view any theoretical philosophy as woo-woo mysticism.

Although Whitehead was a remarkable mathematician, apparently he was not a hard-nosed logician, or empirical scientist. Instead, like many mathematicians --- going back to Pythagoras, Pascal, and Ramanujan --- he seemed to view the world from the open-minded perspective of an artist or mystic*5. Yet, some insist that Physics and Mathematics have no place for mysticism*6. Mysticism is not the same as revealed religion though. Instead, mystics feel that the world has aspects that are concealed from the rational mind, hence can only be known by alternative means, such as intuition. Besides, I've seen no evidence that Whitehead was a practicing mystic (extravagances & frenzies) following any traditional path, as the "woo woo" accusation implies.


*1. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory :
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

*2. Newtonian physics is unable to deal with such abstractions as energy, whereas quantum physics is able to deal with these abstractions.
https://brainly.com/question/32280009

*3. Newtonian mechanics doesn't contain matter and quantum mechanics never contains Newtonian paths without decoherence.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... -mechanics

*4. Whitehead's process theory, as outlined in his book "Process and Reality," shares significant similarities with quantum physics by viewing reality as fundamentally composed of interconnected "actual occasions" which are essentially events or processes rather than static objects, mirroring the quantum idea that matter exists as waves of probability until observed, emphasizing the dynamic and relational nature of reality at its core; this connection has led some philosophers to see Whitehead's philosophy as potentially compatible with the underlying principles of quantum mechanics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... um+physics

*5. This means that Whitehead is looking at the world not as a philosopher of science (that is, with the eyes of reason) but as an artist or a mystic.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/am ... .39.3.0005

*6. "No word in our language — not even 'Socialism'— has been employed more loosely than 'Mysticism.'" - Ralph William Inge

"Religion is to mysticism what popularization is to science". ___Henri Bergson

[Gnomon]

I think the mystic and the rationalist are two sides of the same coin, like the left and right hemispheres of the brain, and the dichotomy between Eastern and Western modes of thought. I like to think of myself as a kind of 'logical mystic', or a "mysic of logic". The mystic tends to get a gestalt image of the whole process but misses the logical details, while the rationalist tends to focus on minute details of the whole process but misses the big picture. This is similar to the relationship between reductionism and holism; one needs both to grasp the comprehensive logical picture. We must bring to bare the whole of our minds on the whole of the mystery. There is a key, and i do believe it can be found (certain keys have already been found), but it is like a needle in a haystack. The solution might be to burn the heystack to ashes in order to reveal the key within — punos

I agree. Personally, I am much more Left Brain logical than Right Brain intuitional. On another forum I was once described as "too logical" (Spock-like). But I am aware of my emotional/intuitive deficiencies, so I try to learn from the experiences of others. Perhaps, like math-minded Whitehead, my natural analytical-reductive tendencies do not leave much room for Mystical thinking. But he seemed to see the necessity for a Holistic perspective, in order to make sense of apparent Quantum Paradoxes, such as wave-particle duality*1. Most pragmatic physicists are content to imagine that they are dealing with objective particles instead of subjective processes. But philosophers are searching for meaning instead of manipulation.

In my effort to learn about alternative ways of seeing the world, I am currently reading a book by British physicist David Peat, who was influenced by Werner Heisenberg and David Bohm to interpret quantum physics holistically*2. Peat resolved to learn about what he called "indigenous science", by making an in-depth study of American Indigens. Whose worldview is obviously more mystical than his own Western science and philosophy. As he describes their "science" it does include such mystical notions as human-like Energies & Forces that are not in the vocabulary of Western physicists. For example wooden masks are imagined to have personalities of their own. I can accept that as an as-if metaphor, rather than an as-is fact.

↪180 Proof's own analytical-reductive inclinations (Naturalism vs Supernaturalism ; Immanent vs Transcendent) seem to cause him to interpret my openness to alternative worldviews as woo-woo Mysticism. However, I think my base philosophy is much closer to his own Spinozan "p-naturalism"*3. Except that the Big Bang beginning of space-time, and the non-quantized*4 Energy-Process foundation of Reality, have forced me, and maybe Whitehead, to look at Nature from a more Holistic-inclusive perspective. I can generally agree with Spinoza's 17th century deus sive natura, in which Nature was assumed to be eternal. But 20th century cosmology has found evidence that space-time had an inexplicable beginning point. So the intuition of ancient cosmologists allowed them to correctly reason that a process of contingencies (billiard balls) logically required a creative input of momentum (the shooter).

My "key" to a holistic understanding of both Physics and Metaphysics is what I call BothAnd philosophy*5.


*1. "Physicists ask if the nature of quantum reality lies within the elementary particles {things} themselves, or if these are not merely the material representations of something deeper . . . . Rather, they were the surface manifestations of underlying quantum processes."
Blackfoot Physics, by David Peat
Note --- I don't think this perspective is woo-woo mystical, but it is holistic and process-oriented instead of object-oriented : waves vs particles.

*2. The implicate order is a theory by physicist David Bohm that describes a deeper, interconnected reality that underlies the physical world. Bohm believed that the implicate order is the source of all that exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... cate+order
Note --- Taken together, the Explicit (manifest ; observed ; apparent) and Implicit (hidden, occult, inferred) perspectives provide a way to understanding Nature as a whole cosmic system, instead of just what's obvious from our local frame of reference.

*3. P-Naturalism = Pure Naturalism???
EDIT : "Pure naturalism is a philosophical theory that states that only natural forces and laws govern the universe. It's also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, and antisupernaturalism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... naturalism
Note --- For pragmatic scientific purposes, I can accept that metaphysical assumption. But for theoretical philosophical purposes, I tend to shy from presumptions of purity.

*4a. In quantum mechanics, a "quantum process not quantized" refers to a phenomenon where a physical quantity within a quantum system can take on any value within a continuous range, rather than being restricted to discrete, specific values (like energy levels in an atom) which is the typical characteristic of quantization; essentially, it's a process where the quantity isn't "locked" to specific steps or levels.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +quantized
*4b. Quantum Mechanics Does NOT Mean Quantization! The Hydrogen atom, when we speak of "bound" electrons below the ionisation energy, has only a discrete set of allowed energies. But this discreteness is NOT typical of quantities in so-called "Quantum Mechanics".
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/quantum ... f1daa78760

*5. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

[Gnomon]

↪punos
I can generally agree with Spinoza's 17th century deus sive natura, in which Nature was assumed to be eternal. But 20th century cosmology has found evidence that space-time had an inexplicable beginning point. — Gnomon

↪180 Proof took issue with my assertion of an "inexplicable" Big Bang beginning. Of course, I was referring to a provable scientific explanation. Yet 180 seems to make allowances for debatable philosophical (metaphysical) conjectures, other than "god did it".

Ironically, cosmologist Stephen Hawking concluded that the "laws of physics" had a beginning 15B years ago*1. If so, on what physical basis would any pre-bang science be based? I can agree with him that humans are free to speculate into unsolved mysteries. But I wouldn't call that a valid Scientific Explication.


*1. Did spacetime have a beginning?
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. . . . .
The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . .
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lec ... ng-of-time
Note --- Multiverse and Many Worlds conjectures have "serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics". But being merely metaphysical speculations, they only have to be internally consistent, with no explanation for where the Infinite Energy (low Entropy) came from.

Hawking lecture continued :
The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lec ... ng-of-time