TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time

[Gnomon]

PROCESS PHILOSOPHY : A metaphysics for our time?

A previous thread on TPF asked "what exactly is process philosophy?" Although the discussion produced a variety of opinions on PP, it quickly got sidetracked into Us-vs-Them*1 political posturing, pro-or-con the crux of Whitehead's book Process and Reality*2 : Substance Metaphysics (Materialism) versus Relational Metaphysics (Idealism). So, it seems that whatever it "is", Whitehead's philosophy can be polarizing. I have no academic philosophical credentials, but here's what I have learned from a brief review of the book and its ramifications. What I didn't learn from the earlier thread is to avoid sticking my neck out with unpopular opinions.

This philosophical power struggle seems to be a long-running battle between commercially dominant empirical Science and academically obsolescent metaphysical Philosophy. Yet, the latter experienced a brief boost, in early 20th century, from the New Physics*3 which inspired Whitehead. That's because quantum physics (Holism ; Idealism ; Waves : Probability) diverged philosophically from the then-dominant worldview of Newtonian physics (Reductionism ; Materialism ; Particles ; Determinism). Hence, Pioneering subatomic scientists were forced to treat their objects of scrutiny, not as solid lumps of matter, but as wavelike processes of energy, or as dimensionless mathematical points. The disparate metaphysical perspectives --- substance vs phenomena --- can be considered as either complementary or antagonistic, depending on your political stance.

One way to describe the difference in world-models is : Newtonian Mechanism versus Platonic Organism. In his preface, Whitehead said "the philosophic scheme which they endeavour to explain is termed the ' Philosophy of Organism' "{my bold}. He goes on, "the philosophy of organism is a recurrence to pre-Kantian modes of thought"*4. Then, he notes, "the writer who most fully anticipated the main positions of the philosophy of organism is John Locke in his Essay". I assume the reference is to An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which presented an account of the nature, origins, and extent of human knowledge. Locke defined “organism” in terms of the process we call Life*5.

Whitehead continues, "The {Gifford} lectures will be best understood by noting the following list of prevalent habits of thought, which are repudiated : (i) distrust of speculative philosophy" {my emphasis}. This "habit of thought" was exemplified in Richard Feynman's attributed rude response to his students' attempts to understand what Quantum Physics means for our understanding of reality : "shut-up and calculate" he scolded. Ironically, posters on The Philosophy Forum often seem to display the same "distrust of speculative philosophy", which they view as heretical to established empirical science. In this thread I'd like to go counter to that prejudice against hypothesis, and assume that Whitehead was on to something important, yet admittedly lacking in market value, compared to substance science.

What-Process-Philosophy-is then is a metaphysics for the post-quantum world. 20th century quantum weirdness inspired some people, disillusioned with “unnatural” isolating Western values, to adopt alternative religious & spiritual & cultural values and practices. Which soon became politically discredited as “pseudoscience”, even though metaphysical beliefs do not compete for practical results in the physical world. Instead, Organism/Holism does compete with the metaphysics of Substance/Analysis to know the meaning of reality relative to the observer. So, when reductive Materialism becomes a dogma, opposed to contextual Metaphysics, some disparage that matter-only Faith as Scientism. Faced with such anti-philosophy backlash, Whitehead attempted to make Metaphysics respectable again, not as an empirical technology, but as a conceptual & ethical worldview. He concluded, “Science should investigate particular species, and metaphysics should investigate the generic notions under which those specific principles fall”. “Generic” refers to philosophical origins & universals & fundamentals.

Plato and Aristotle differed over the primacy of general Ideas vs specific Things*6, and world philosophy has gone back & forth since then. For example, Kant thought Newton's theories were mathematically accurate, but lacked a sound metaphysical (meaningful) foundation*7. In the 21st century, we face ethical & political questions --- e.g. about climate change and AI domination --- that cannot be resolved with simple substance solutions. Instead, we need to look ahead and ask : where does this process lead us?


*1. Us vs Them :
Today, the dominant non-religious worldview is generally classified as Materialism or Scientific Naturalism (objects; things, nouns). But Idealism (psychological ; panpsychism) --- which focuses on subjects & ideas & verbs --- is still held by a minority of philosophers. For avid proponents of each belief system, their opponents are often politically divided into either/or categories : e.g. Good vs Evil ; Realistic vs Fanciful ; Smart vs Stupid ; Knowledgeable vs Ignorant. Such a simplistic analysis is convenient because it eliminates philosophical subtleties, and allows the politically dominant group to haughtily look down their noses upon the others, as know-nothing losers.

For example, some Europeans upon encountering indigenous Americans, erroneously labeled as Indians, belittled them as "ignorant savages". Yet others viewed the same people as "noble savages" : living in concert with nature. In quantum physicist David Peat's book on indigenous American worldviews, he wrote : "the Algonquin peoples are concerned with the animation of all things within their process-vision of the cosmos ; verbs are therefore the dominant feature of their language". Historically, their worldview failed to compete with the crass materialism* of the gold-seeking conquistadors. Likewise, Whitehead's philosophy has failed to gain market share in the commercial competition of today.

Another way to summarize the Us vs Them divide on a philosophy forum is to note the common resort to the authority of Physics (substantial Matter) vs the mere opinions of Metaphysics (incorporeal Mind). That ploy is ironic on a forum devoted to exchange of debatable opinions instead of verified facts.

* Materialism is a philosophical view that matter is primary, and that mind and spirit are secondary. The conquistadors were Iberian military leaders who brought materialism to the Americas during their conquest of the New World in the 15th and 16th centuries.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... quistadors

*2a. “Rejection of substance metaphysics” .
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +the+point
*2b. Relational metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies how entities and their properties relate to each other. It seeks to understand the structure of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... etaphysics

*3a. New Physics of Holism
"The new physics" refers to the emerging idea in modern physics, particularly within quantum mechanics, that systems should be understood as interconnected wholes rather than isolated parts, meaning the behavior of a system cannot be fully explained by examining its individual components alone; this contrasts with the traditional reductionist approach in classical physics where parts are considered separately.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ics+holism
*3b. “Quantum physics is metaphysics without the pejorative meaning of the latter as an abstract theory with no basis in reality”.
https://sciencealerts.quora.com/What-is ... etaphysics

*4."Pre-Kantian modes of thought" refers to philosophical approaches that existed before the work of Immanuel Kant, particularly his Critique of Pure Reason, which significantly shifted the landscape of philosophical thinking by emphasizing the active role of the human mind in constructing our perception of reality; essentially, pre-Kantian thought often assumed a more direct access to the world "as it is" without considering the limitations imposed by our cognitive faculties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... of+thought

*5. “John Locke considered organisms to be substances that are distinct from people and substances. He believed that the thing that makes an organism the same over time is its life, not the matter that composes it.”
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... e+organism

*6. In Western philosophy, substance theory has been the dominant approach since the time of Aristotle, who argued that substances are the primary beings, and everything else (such as properties, relations, and events) depends on these substances.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofSc ... yontology/

*7a. “Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves”.
Aristotelian "Metaphysics” was not about physical facts, but their meaning or interpretation. Only later was it connected to religious doctrine, to Theology.
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introp ... /__unknown__/
*7b. “Kant claims that Newton has failed to provide “metaphysical foundations” for natural science”. Newton's metaphysical explanation for such mysteries as Gravity was “god did it”; which Kant found to be philosophically insufficient.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/ ... m=fulltext

[Gnomon]

What we call things are but the meeting place
Where different systems cross in time and space;
The dance between them is what truly lasts,
While substance slips away without a trace. — PoeticUniverse

This stanza reminds me of descriptions of Quantum Foam, where waves of energy meet and produce peaks that we interpret statistically as particles of matter (substance). But their existence is fleeting, as the local disturbances move-on and vanish without a trace. The only stability is in probability, that allows some particle partners to dance together for a period of time.

quantum_ill.jpg

[Gnomon]

I would agree with your disagreement with Newton and Aristotle in fsvor of Kant and Whitehead, although Descartes was right to say matter was extension. Matter is spirit; in fact, matter is Love. God is the mind of it all. Do you know Teilhard? — Gregory

It's not a disagreement, but a distinction between worldviews. Newton and Aristotle have their place in philosophy and science, but Whitehead was trying to show a different way of looking at the world, that might resolve some of the apparent paradoxes of the New Physics.

Teilhard deChardin and A.N. Whitehead came from different religious backgrounds, but reached similar philosophical conclusions about how the world was teleologically evolving. Apparently, "both were influenced by Bergson's temporal metaphysics", where "time is a dynamic flow in which past, present, and future are intertwined". My understanding of such notions is superficial, but I can agree with them in general.

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. This problem forces Whitehead to employ mysterious concepts like concrescence, and prehension, which generally imply a form of panpsychism. — Metaphysician Undercover

A scientific resolution of such "problems" is over my untrained head. But in my own amateur thesis, the commonality between Processes (energy ; causation) and Objects (matter ; substance) is generic Information (the power to enform). I won't go off-topic on that notion in this thread, but my thesis and blog go into some detail, if you're interested in such unorthodox speculations. Basically, the post-Shannon understanding of "Information" is both Noun (objects) and Verb (processes). It's both causal Energy and sensable Concrescence.

Panpsychism has become fairly popular among modern philosophers. But I tend to agree with Whitehead's associate, Charles Hartshorne, to view the world-mind in terms of PanEnDeism. From this perspective the world-creating mind-process is both transcendent and immanent, but not in the sense of Judeo-Christian theology.

This leaves systems theory as substance based, and inadequate for understanding process philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

As systems theory is currently practiced, it is primarily substance-based. But on the fringes of systems science, Information-based*1 holistic theories are emerging. I happen to find them generally compatible with Process Philosophy. Again, that is off-topic, and would be a contentious concept for a thread of its own.


*1. What is complex systems science? :
It presents many foundational topics such as networks, scaling laws, evolution, and information theory, along with a complexity theory based on a universal statistical mechanism.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

[Gnomon]

Biggest problem with Dogma is that it can't die in a democratic setting, it is required to reign in control of the masses. — DifferentiatingEgg

That phrase caught my eye, so I Googled "democratic dogma". It seems to be true that a democratic society cannot function without Truths-Facts-Principles handed-down from above. That's because the masses, as noted by Plato, are not philosophers, hence incapable of deriving Universals from Particulars. So, the flocks are motivated and influenced by the Leading Lights of their society. When those influencers go off the doctrinal deep end (MAGA), the sheep are bound to follow.

The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma :
Adams argues that democracy has been corrupted by the rise of capitalism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and corporations.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/745 ... atic_Dogma

[Gnomon]

"Energy" is a property, it is not something independent. We can speak about energy as if it is causal but we still have to account for the thing which the energy is a property of. That's why the problem is ontological. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But, in my personal philosophical thesis, Enformationism, Energy is a property/qualia of generic Information (the power to transform, or to cause change). Again, Information (or EnFormAction as I call it) is not a material Thing, but a Process and a relationship : cause/effect. The primary property of Whitehead's Process is Causation*1.

In my thesis, a more general term for evolutionary causation is Enformy*2 (negentropy). Which again is not a thing, but a quality of the process labeled by scientists as "Thermodynamics". We humans observe the effects of the metaphorical flow of Energy, and infer an unobserved ultimate source or spring. Which philosophers may label as the Ontological Cause. Some call it "God", but Plato referred to the Source as "Logos" (reason), and Aristotle described it (a non-thing) as "The Unmoved Mover".

Yet Plato's ontological origin of Being was the mysterious potential state of "Forms"*3. Which is also the root of "Information" and "EnFormAction". Form is the logical structure of an object of scrutiny, as distinguished from its material substance.


*1. Causality :
Alfred North Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, believed that causality is a fundamental aspect of experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +causation

*2. Entropy vs Enformy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff, such as Life .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Plato's theory of forms is an ontology, or theory of being, that posits the existence of a Realm of Forms that is independent of human experience. Plato believed that the physical world is a shadow of the Realm of Forms, and that knowledge of the Forms is the only true knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... s+ontology

[Gnomon]

I don't see how this could solve the problem*1. Isn't it the case that information, or "EnFormAction", is itself a property of something, a system or something like that. So it doesn't really solve the problem, it defers it. You simply replace one property (energy) with another (information). This is similar to replacing the property of motion with the property of energy. In one context we would say that the thing has motion, but in another context we'd replace "motion" with "energy", and say that the thing has energy. Likewise, you now replace "the thing has energy" with "the thing has information". But you do not solve the problem of there needing to be a thing which has the said property. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Ontological problem may be insoluble, but that doesn't stop us "silly phillies" (amateur philosophers) from trying to solve the problem of existence. For most people, for most of the time, the ultimate answer to "God, the Universe, and Everything" is elliptical . . . . Brahman . . . . God . . . . Multiverse . . . . 42. So they just presumed that some unknowable physical thing or metaphysical force is out there in the dark creating worlds.

In the early 20th century, Astronomers attempted to trace causation back to its source, and their physical First Cause was a mathematically-infinite Singularity, which some wag dubbed the "Big Bang". Which again was elliptical : where did the Energy & Laws manifested in the explosive emergence of the observable elements of the universe come from? . . . . eternal God or infinite Multiverse . . . . ?

I suppose that most philosophical "problems" can be resolved by further analysis (what are its elements?) or by rational generalization (who or what caused it?). Both approaches eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. In which case we make a leap of inference across the chasm of ignorance. So, Whitehead assumed that some ultimate source of order, structure, and novelty in the world was a God of some kind, which he defined as the "actual entity". In my own little thesis, I also punt and say "G*D did it"*2.

PS___ I won't go into detail here on the Information is Energy concept that is currently being processed by cutting edge science. Here's a link to a book on that topic :
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ ... 58-40862-6


*1.

The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. This problem forces Whitehead to employ mysterious concepts like concrescence, and prehension, which generally imply a form of panpsychism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Note A --- Kant defined (but did not explain) the appearance/substance problem in terms of Noumena and Phenomena. Do you have a better explanation?
Note B --- My version of Panpsychism (all mind) is it's all Information/Causation (Mind/Energy) . . . everywhere all the time. Energy is not a thing, but a process. Can you wrap your mind around that?

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole, of which all temporal things are a part, is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Intention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html