Process Cosmology --- a worldview for our time

[Gnomon]

Love’s spirit weaves the soul’s warp, weft, and wave,
Creating an eternal, perfect braid,
Wound from strands of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty;
Each different forms, but from the same All made.

This expression reminded me of Douglas Hofstadter's book : Gödel, Escher, Bach -- The Eternal Golden Braid. It weaves a complex argument for Evolutionary Emergence : "that consciousness arises from organisms crossing a complexity threshold. Seasoned with ideas from chaos theory, complex adaptive systems theory, and what came to be called the study of emergence."*1 Emergence theories attempt to explain --- contrary to Atomism/Reductionism --- how sophisticated novel functions, such as Life & Mind, can evolve from simple formal beginnings.

For example, some thinkers interpret the Singularity*2 as merely a compressed particle of matter ; while others view it more like cosmic DNA, the braid of life : containing all the mathematical information necessary for the gradual construction of a physical universe with built-in observers. In my own worldview, that non-dimensional Singularity functions like a computer program by "braiding" bits of abstract information into a plethora of forms. So all real forms are made from the same ideal Information, which I call EnFormAction, of which physical Energy is the best known instance.

The philosophical enigma of the Big Bang theory is : how did the Singularity come to compress a vast universe into a minuscule seed of data?*3 Several possible solutions have been proposed : A. Cosmological Principle, infinite, hence unlimited possible states (multiverse) ; B. Cyclic Cosmology, eternal cycles of physical expansion & contraction of matter as an alternative to instantaneous Inflation from quantum fluctuations ; C. Miracuous act of creation by an eternal deity in need of slavish worshippers ; D. Dramatic execution of an information program (poiesis) encoded in a seed-like Singularity, for unknown reasons, written by Whitehead's anonymous poetic principle of concretion.


*1. https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments ... den_braid/

*2. In the context of the Big Bang theory, a singularity refers to a hypothetical point of infinite density and temperature, where all known physical laws break down, and from which the universe is thought to have originated.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ingularity

*3. In particular, the big bang model of the universe begins with a singularity—a point that appeared out of nothing and contained the precursors of everything in the universe in a region so small that it had essentially no size at all.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... dies-find/

[Gnomon]

Love’s spirit weaves the soul’s warp, weft, and wave,
Creating an eternal, perfect braid,
Wound from strands of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty;
Each different forms, but from the same All made.

Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are human evaluations of their environment. And not necessarily properties of the world-weaving Poet, except in unactualized potential. However, the transcendent creator of a dynamic evolving emerging world is required by logical necessity to include opposing forces, such as hot & cold or action & reaction. So, the natural world is a process of Causes & Effects, which human poets & philosophers describe --- from the mortal human perspective --- in terms of experienced oppositions such as Good & Evil.

But some religious apologists & moralists, in their cosmologies, begin with the assumption that God per se is the ideal of Truth, Goodness & Beauty, hence fallen man by comparison is False, Evil, & Repugnant. Even Whitehead uses similar poetic terms to describe his poet-god. But, his eternal Principle of Concretion*1 seems to be the Potential for all possibilities, including both good & evil, both positive & negative, both beautiful & ugly. Although homo sapiens may be the most highly evolved creatures on Earth, we are still a work in progress, and fall short of godly perfection.

Therefore, I think of Whitehead's actual world as equivalent to Spinoza's immanent Nature-god : it is Nature in toto, woven from strands of oppositions that sentient beings interpret as Good or Bad for their own survival. Yet, Whitehead's logically inferred deus sive natura was described as "transcendent", in the sense that any creator or programmer stands apart from its creation. Although I doubt that he was aware of the Big Bang theory, which emerged years after the book, his cosmology was defined in terms of Epochs, that could be interpreted as amenable to the current models*2.

This program of world poiesis is still an ongoing process, hence Reality is not fully actualized. And its Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are relative, not absolute.


PS___ I read Process and Reality about 20 years ago, but didn't fully understand it. So I'm using this thread to deepen my prehension of his worldview in order to improve my own. Your poems are useful for stimulating new ways of thinking about the poetic Process and the prosaic Reality.


*1. What is God according to Whitehead? :
In Whitehead's metaphysics, God functions as a "principle of concretion." Put differently, God is what determines which things move from a state of possibility to a state of actuality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... on_of_god/

*2. Whitehead’s Cosmic Epochs and Contemporary Cosmology :
The notions of the big bang and a dynamic, expanding universe are consistent with Whitehead’s notion of what occurs within a cosmic epoch.
https://www.csun.edu/~lmchenry/document ... 5B1%5D.pdf

[Gnomon]

We are both essence and form,

Materialism takes the existence of the myriad concrete forms for granted, without questioning the underlying essence (the information ; EnFormAction ; mathematical structure) that causes form change. In topology, that immaterial interrelationship structure is often represented symbolically as lines of force. In architecture those abstract vectors are converted into concrete elements of physical structure. Engineers can "see" (visualize) those essential abstract lines, while laymen see only the superficial material. But modern computers can make those invisible lines visible {image below}.


In his dialogues Plato suggests that concrete beings acquire their essence through their relations to "forms"—abstract universals logically or ontologically separate from the objects of sense perception. These forms are often put forth as the models or paradigms of which sensible things are "copies".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

In general, information has been considered as the following essences: as structures; processes (like becoming informed); changes in a knowledge system; some type of knowledge (for example, as personal beliefs or recorded knowledge); some type of data; an indication; intelligence; lore; wisdom; an advice; an accusation ...
https://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/wiener05.pdf

Informationally derived meanings
Unify in non-reductive gleanings,
In a relational reality,
Through the semantical life happenings.

Information is the invisible interrelations that the human mind interprets holistically as meaning. Information is the syntax & semantics of the world around us.

[Gnomon]

For Whitehead, God is not necessarily tied to religion. Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

In Philosophy Now magazine (feb/mar 2025) a letter-to-the-editor said about the Return of God article : "disproof is not a necessity for me. All that is necessary for me is the lack of any reason I can accept to give the God hypothesis serious consideration."
Note --- Presumably the only "reasons" he could accept are physical demonstrations. Which, ironically leaves philosophical reasoning out of the question.

Same magazine : "reasoning without reference to empirical data is appropriate when applied to phenomena which transcend the physical world or constitute its ground of being, such as God".
Note --- If the physical universe could be proven to be self-existent, then a transcendent Cause would be unnecessary. The Big Bang is not proof of God, but it is an indication that our universe is contingent upon something outside of Space-Time as we know it. We accept transcendental numbers & equations because they are useful for the abstract purposes of mathematics.
Note --- Phenomena that transcend the physical world are Noumena (ideas ; ideals).

Obviously, Whitehead's God is neither provable nor disprovable by empirical scientific methods. So, he made no scientific claims. He merely observed an evolving physical (matter) & metaphysical (mind) universe, and made a logical deduction of its metaphysical provenance. Atheists tend to deny all metaphysical arguments, relying simply on Appeal to the Stone. This is a reference to Samuel Johnson's counter-argument to Berkeley's God : he kicked a rock to demonstrate that it was real (i.e. material), as opposed to the unreal (Ideal) deity. Thus, he demonstrated his low opinion of philosophical metaphysics.

A. N. Whitehead was a mathematician, so grounding his metaphysical worldview in a non-empirical axiom is understandable. An Axiom (Greek : Worthy) is not a sensory observation, but a conceptual proposition on which an abstractly defined logical structure is based. Since over 90% of humans over all time have believed in some kind of invisible deity (represented in symbols), he could assume that the general concept would be accepted by most people. Of course, atheists are exceptional, in that they demand hard evidence for any belief. But Whitehead developed his Process theory first, and only added the God postulate later, when the system needed a universally applicable foundation. Obviously, he found that transcendent notion useful for his abstract philosophical purposes.


Metaphysical immanentism restricts reality either to the data of human experience furnished by the senses, as in the empiricism of D. hume and his positivist heirs, or to the data of human thought, as in subjective idealism.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... mmanentism
Note --- Whitehead's god postulate is based on the "subjective idealism" of metaphysical Mathematical reasoning. His transcendental God has no role in scientific practice, but is just as reasonable and useful as Transcendental Numbers, Sets, Infinity, Zero, etc.

[Gnomon]

human experience — Gnomon
The Web of Life
Life's a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows, . . . .
Some threads lead up toward heaven’s distant peak,
Some spiral down where darker answers seek, . . . .
And in their intricate connecting lines
Lies meaning for our brief cosmic stay

Whitehead's metaphysical worldview encompasses all of the various human experiences*1, including Who, What, When, and Why? Empirical Science focuses on What & How? So, it overlooks the subjective & spiritual aspects of human experience. However, the soft subjective science of Psychology does accept "spiritual" experiences as valid topics for investigation*2. Process Philosophy established no religious doctrines of spirituality, but it does make allowances for the diversity of human experiences*3, which each mind can interpret as they see fit.

My understanding of Spirituality over the eons of human nature, is based on Emotional feelings rather than Rational facts. And, I personally tend to value the rational over the emotional, but that's just me. Yet I'm not atheist or political enough to despise an essential feature of human nature. Some people are sheep, who need to be led to communal Faith. I may not agree with their particular beliefs, but I believe in freedom of belief, because that's the ground of "meaning for our brief cosmic stay".


*1.What are the 5 human experiences? :
Coaches who support clients to create profound sustainable change will work with the 'whole' person, or as we say, at the five levels of human experience: the physical, mental, emotional, intuitive and spiritual. This is with the belief our mind, body, heart and soul are all connected.
https://www.empower-world.com/blog/supp ... experience

*2. The psychology of spirituality, or transpersonal psychology, explores the spiritual and transcendental aspects of human experience, seeking to understand how connection to something beyond the self can lead to growth and self-development. It integrates spirituality and consciousness studies into psychological theory, often exploring themes like meaning, purpose, and connection
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... irituality

*3. Reconciling Diverse Intuitions: It aims to reconcile diverse human experiences, including religious, scientific, and aesthetic intuitions, into a coherent, holistic framework
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... iritualism

[Gnomon]

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/

Materialism is a Substance philosophy, which focuses on the elementary stuff (phenomena) our physical senses are designed to detect. Everything else is interpreted as incidental epiphenomena. Process Ontology is an Evolutionary philosophy, focused on the dynamics (causes ; changes) of the physical world. And two of those evolutionary changes, emergence of biological Life and Psychological Mind, are of special interest to seekers of wisdom.

But why should posters on a philosophy forum focus more on the changes (Causation & Effects) than on the raw stuff being modified, developed, and organized? Einstein provided one good reason for Process preference in his E=MC^2 equation*1. Which implies that causal Energy is more fundamental & universal than the myriad forms of matter.

Ancient philosophers and scientists typically used terms like "Spirit"*2 in reference to what we now know as "Energy". Both are invisible causes of all things (objects) and changes (motion, modification) that we perceive in the world. So, the power to create physical substances and to cause changes in matter seems to be the most important factor in the philosophical view of Nature. Modern Energy may be the Essence that Aristotle defined as essential to Nature*3. Scientific Knowledge may be awareness of material facts, but Philosophical Wisdom is understanding of causes & relationships.


*1. Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying, "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. Matter is spirit reduced to a point of visibility. There is no matter.". He also famously stated, "Everything is energy and that's all there is to it," which underscores the fundamental equivalence of matter and energy. This idea is further supported by his E=mc² equation, which demonstrates that mass and energy are fundamentally interchangeable.
PS___ The quote you mentioned is often attributed to Albert Einstein, but there is no direct evidence that he actually said or wrote those exact words. It reflects a philosophical interpretation of Einstein's theories, particularly his famous equation E=mc2, which describes the relationship between mass (matter) and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ergy+quote
Note --- Quora Asistance Bot :
Einstein did express ideas related to the nature of matter and energy in various writings and speeches, but this specific quote is not found in his documented works. It's more likely a paraphrase or interpretation of his views on the relationship between matter and energy.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Albert-Einste ... -no-matter

*2. The term "spirit" is used metaphorically to represent a fundamental, underlying reality or energy from which all matter is derived.
While Einstein's words have been interpreted in various ways, they generally point to a view of reality where energy is the fundamental substance, and matter is a condensed or manifested form of that energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... visibility

*3. In Aristotelian philosophy, substance refers to a thing's fundamental and durable nature, the thing itself, while essence is what makes a thing what it is, its defining characteristic. In simpler terms, substance is the "what" of a thing, while essence is the "whatness" or the defining properties that make it that kind of thing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +substance

[Gnomon]

seekers of wisdom

The Cosmic Conversations video mentioned "Persia Fume" as something that might be of cosmic significance. So, I Googled it and found the image below, but not much else. It portrays an ornate bottle of perfume as-if it has spiritual significance : note the black & white angel emerging from the bottle. What does this mean for "seekers of wisdom"?

The Persian chemist Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna) introduced the process of extracting oils from flowers by means of distillation, the procedure most commonly used today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume

In a spiritual context, an "angel of alchemy" often represents the divine guidance and transformative power associated with alchemical practices. These angels are seen as keepers of alchemical knowledge and guardians of the alchemical process, helping individuals to find their own path of inner transformation and self-realization.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... my+meaning

[Gnomon]

The MAGIC MOUNTAIN
by Thomas Mann, 1926
"“Aristotle? Didn’t Aristotle place in the individual the reality of universal ideas? That is pantheism.”

“Wrong. When you postulate independent being for individuals, when you transfer the essence of things from the universal to the particular phenomenon, which Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, as good Aristotelians, did, then you destroy all unity between the world and the Highest Idea; you place the world outside of God and make God transcendent. That, my dear sir, is classic mediævalism.”

“Classic medievalism! What a phrase!” “Pardon me, I merely apply the concept of the classic where it is in place: that is to say, wherever an idea reaches its culmination. Antiquity was not always classic. And I note in you a general repugnance to the Absolute;"

By contrast with medieval Scholasticism, Whitehead's god-model portrays the Cause of the Process we call Evolution as both Immanent (evolving physical world) and Transcendent (primordial potential for being) : PanEnDeism. I view this model as an update of Spinoza's deus sive natura, to accommodate modern cosmology, which found evidence of a First Tick and Prime Time of our contingent & temporary space-time universe, as it is currently being mapped by physical Science.

[Gnomon]

During his years of teaching philosophy at Harvard University, Alfred North Whitehead aroused newly intense questions concerning God and the World. Here are some selections from Religion in the Making, Science and the Modern World and Process and Reality.

# Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things;

# Today there is but one religious dogma in debate: What do you mean by “God”?

# There are three main simple renderings of this concept before the world.

1. The Eastern Asiatic concept of an impersonal order to which the world conforms. This order is the self-ordering of the world; it is not the world obeying an imposed rule. The concept expresses the extreme doctrine of immanence.

2. The Semitic concept of a definite personal individual entity, whose existence is the one ultimate metaphysical fact, absolute and underivative, and who decreed and ordered the derivative existence which we call the actual world. This Semitic concept is the rationalization of the tribal gods of the earlier communal religions. It expressed the extreme doctrine of transcendence.

3. The Pantheistic concept of an entity to be described in the terms of the Semitic concept, except that the actual world is a phase within the complete fact which is this ultimate individual entity. The actual world, conceived apart from God, is unreal. Its only reality is God’s reality. The actual world has the reality of being a partial description of what God is. But in itself it is merely a certain mutuality of “Appearance,” which is a phase of the being of God. This is the extreme doctrine of monism.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ce/304220/

My childhood religion taught the Semitic god-concept, but I eventually realized that the Bible was not the revelation of a Hebrew tribal-God, but the work of imperial Roman compilers & editors . So, I gave-up on my inherited religion, but had no philosophical alternative to a god of some kind, to explain the existence of the evolving reality outside of myself.

I was not impressed by the polytheistic Oriental god-models, but godless Buddhism seemed acceptable as a stoic philosophy of self-reliance. Yet modern Science goes beyond mere acquiescence to Fate, and provides a plausible account of the How, if not the Why of the world. So, my current worldview is focused mainly on the open Why questions.

I only became aware of modern non-religious philosophical worldviews late in life. For example, Immanent Pantheism*1, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura, made some sense to me, with one major shortcoming : his 17th century nature-God turns-out to be a temporary flash-in-the-pan, compared to eternal universal principles such as Logos & Brahman. Moreover, his predestined machine-like world --- and its sentient creatures --- was completely determined by the laws of Nature, hence no Free Will. And his "nothing new under the sun" assertion, denied the fecundity & creativity that is now undeniable in cosmic Evolution*2.

So again acquiescence to Fate seemed to be Spinoza's only viable philosophical option. Ironically, the time-bound law-maker God was deemed subject to its own laws & limitations. Spinoza axiomatically assumed that his god-substance (matter) was self-existent. Yet, the scientific Big Bang theory portrays our Cosmos (Nature) as a temporary process, with a sudden birth-like beginning and an inevitable Entropic end. To avoid the obvious creator-god implications, a variety of unverifiable transcendent conjectures, such as Inflation & Multiverse & Cycleverse have been imagined, as place-holders for the traditional transcendent deities.

Cosmologists were astonished that the material world began with an impossibly low level of Entropy, and high level of causal potential (Energy). Which implies that insubstantial & invisible Energy is more fundamental than the complex & crumbling material substances that eventually evolved from near-infinite Potential and near nothing Actual. Therefore, the self-organizing & dis-organizing material world is a feeble substitute for the ancient timeless principles postulated as the First & Final Cause of the space-time world.

So, in recent years, I have developed a personal worldview and God-concept that seems surprisingly close to that portrayed in Whitehead's Process and Reality. One descriptive label for that god-model is PanEnDeism, as proposed by his associate Charles Hartshorne, which describes the deus as both Immanent (Nature) and Transcendent (Super-Nature).


*1. Spinoza's God was pantheist, a modern version of the God of the Stoics, for whom God was essentially the same as the laws of Nature. And these laws were necessarily completely determined by God.. . . . Nothing is possible but the actions of God, so there are no alternative possibilities to choose between. There is no chance. . . . . Like Spinoza's God, laws of Nature are not something to be prayed to. Spinoza believes that new information is never created. "Nothing new under the Sun.".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... s/spinoza/

*2. Is Evolution Creative? :
For example, biological evolution has been described as a creative process , bringing novel living systems into the world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... n_Creative

VARIETIES OF PHILOSOPHICAL GOD MODELS

[Gnomon]

creative process — Gnomon
The answer to your quest!

As a conceptual model, to imagine the physical universe as-if it is a computer simulation*1, is compatible with my Enformationism thesis. But the philosophical question remains : who or what was the Putative Programmer, the Cosmic Coder, the Quantum Quester? In the 21st century, several physicists and mathematicians have written books on related topics*2. I suspect that even 180proof could accept that as a plausible concept, except for the logical necessity for a transcendent Programmer to setup the evolutionary system to compute a cosmos from scratch.

Personally, I find the notion of a spontaneous self-creating self-programming computer cosmos to be implausible. So, I still see a logical need for Whitehead's God ; and even Spinoza's deus sive natura, as long as both conjectures are updated to take account of 21st century cosmology*3. Since classical physics, and Einstein's Relativity, do not compute at Singularity scales, we still need to face the enigma of provenance for Causal Energy & Limiting Laws & queer Quantum Math.

Presumptive Multiverse & Brane hypotheses merely kick the can of genesis down the road. Leaving us with an originless & endless (hence irrational) infinite-regress Tower of Turtles paradox. Therefore, for my philosophical purposes, I simply call that logical paradox : G*D or Programmer or Logos. But I refuse to bow before a Magician who hides behind a curtain of quantum complexity. Instead of blind faith, I say "show me". Hence my ongoing quest for a credible Ontology.



*1. Computer Universe :
The idea that the universe could be a vast computer simulation, or a type of digital computation, is a concept explored in the field of digital physics and by some physicists. This perspective suggests that the universe's fundamental structure and evolution might be viewed as a complex computation rather than a purely physical process. . . . .
The simulation hypothesis also raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our perception of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... s+computer

*2. Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos
Seth Lloyd "Particles not only collide, they compute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe

*3. Quantum cosmology is the field that attempts to apply quantum mechanical principles to the entire universe, particularly focusing on the quantum nature of the universe's early stages and the Big Bang. It seeks to address questions about the universe's origins and early evolution, where classical general relativity breaks down.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +cosmology

TOWER OF TURTLES with no foundation


Postscript : [reply="180 Proof;983707"] says there's no physical evidence of a Cosmic Programmer of physics. Would you expect to find DNA of a computer programmer in the code? Experts in coding may claim to see the metaphysical "fingerprints"*4 of a well-known coder in peculiarities of the instruction set : an "explanatory function".

Philosophy is not an empirical science. So it only requires logical plausibility, not physical evidence. Apparently an Immanentist prefers to leave ultimate origins unanswered. That "free lunch" attitude is OK for a Chemist or a Physicist, but not for a Cosmologist or Philosopher.

*4. Fingerprints of God --- https://youtu.be/DB_APoFu2BA?si=PB3IUOPM27a_j0zi