If you are not a physicist, you don't need to concern yourself with the Energy/Matter equation. But if you are interested in accommodating modern physics into your philosophical worldview --- as Whitehead was --- a general understanding of Einstein's theories and Quantum concepts will be mandatory. What will be more mind boggling is to accept the implications of the fact that Matter is Energy, which is a mental concept. Perhaps even Mind itself, as noted in the previous post. — Gnomon

This is, not true, again. Matter and energy are interchangeable under certain conditions like high energy, also energy is not a concept...again.

The interchangeability of Energy and Matter are not magic, but physics. Albert Einstein boggled minds with his E=MC^2 equation ; where E refers to causal power as in atom bombs, M (mass) is mathematical measurement of matter, and C is lightspeed : the cosmic constant. But physicists soon got used to the idea that the visible stuff of reality is ultimately a form of invisible energy. — Gnomon

You're missing the speed of light, this is really only a concern at such high pressures and intense conditions, not for our everyday stuff. It does not say that it's a form of invisible energy, only that the two can be converted under intense conditions. It's why you'd need the power of the entire sun just to convert a paperclip to energy and why we can only make a few particles in the lab.

Saying everything is invisible energy is the stupid person's take, to be blunt. E=mc2 is the most cited yet misunderstood equation, poor Einstein.

The second Einstein quote below*1*2 implies that Photons are pure energy, but as they slow down to less than lightspeed, and expand their wavelength, they naturally, not magically, convert into particles of matter. That may sound like ancient Alchemy, but Lead is indeed a heavier form of Gold*3. Note the term "transform", meaning to change physical properties of matter. — Gnomon

That quote is incorrect. Not only did he never say that his entire work says the opposite, in fact his famous equation E=mc2 wouldn't even apply if that were true. This is like that quote ascribed to Aristotle that he never actually said.

Pro Tip: if Gnomon said it then it’s probably either wrong or severely misunderstood. They don’t even read their links (I know because one was a direct refutation of process thought).

Whitehead needed to create god to make his philosophy work in a similar manner Descartes did to escape doubt.

Also energy is very much real and physical, not just a concept. I wouldn’t take anything they say on QM seriously since they don’t know how any of it works.

Their sources also don’t mean anything since it’s just google ai and them prompting it with the answers they want.

All QM does is create mathematical models to predict reality, it can’t really say anything about what makes it up, energy or otherwise. Hence the various interpretations. Particle theory has issues, field theory also has issues, etc.

The reality is that we don’t really know. Anyone making definitive claims about what it “says” doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Though they are wrong that Whitehead was an idealist, even the wiki page says as much. It’s more like panpsychism because he emphasizes experience. So they don’t even understand whitehead either…

Yes, "energy" is considered a concept, meaning it's an abstract idea that describes the capacity to do work, and is not a physical object itself, but rather a property of matter that can be transferred and transformed into different forms like heat, light, or motion; it's a fundamental principle in physics used to explain various phenomena in the universe — Gnomon

This is not true, energy is physical but not an “object”.

This dude just posts stuff from google AI (which is terrible by the way) and doesn’t actually understand how any of this works. We’ve been over that before.

Note --- Even quantum particles are now described as statistical states instead of substantial matter. Yet, on the macro scale those states are interpreted by our senses as solid objects. — Gnomon

No they are not. Physics doesn’t say anything about the subject one way or the other, it just makes mathematical models to predict reality. Physics doesn’t say what reality is “made” of and the inability to detect could just be the limits of our technology.

Also energy is very much a “thing” just not in the way most would think of it.

The idea that the mind is a form of energy is a theory that's gaining traction in neuroscience and quantum physics. It suggests that thoughts and consciousness are generated by electromagnetic fields in the brain. — Gnomon

This is also false. Again, that’s what happens when you let AI do your thinking for you. None of your “sources” mean anything, they just reinforce what YOU believe. That’s how the algorithm works.

I know because I searched the same sentence and the AI spat out 3 different results that differed from each other.

So, no, I’m not trying to argue against process philosophy. I’m saying, like Heraclitus said, “the barley-drink stands, only while stirring.” I’m saying there is no need to speak of process (nor is there an ability to do so) if process is all there is to say. There’s more, or if not, there is nothing more to say. — Fire Ologist

I kinda got that notion from it too, that things can be process all the way down. It does explain why Whitehead had to ground his in god to make it work.

I’ll admit I don’t understand what that Heraclitus quote means though.

Our 3,000 year frustration with discerning something of substance has become the post-modern frustration with trying to speak anymore. — Fire Ologist

So is this an argument against process philosophy?

I think they’re just bitter that people don’t acknowledge Nietzsche’s wisdom even though I have read his stuff and looked on his life and found it odd how he could write such things despite not living any of it:

Hey, you brought Nietzsche to this discussion and went on in great detail. Sorry to trigger you. Take care. :wink: — Tom Storm

Trigger is an accurate word here

— Nietzsche, AC 39

Kinda shows he didn't understand the teachings or Christianity, like I said, easy to see through. You seem to be bothered by this though.

So his care depends on resentful people? — DifferentiatingEgg

No, people abiding by the "slave morality" he talked about. Like I said, his philosophy doesn't work in practice, not that he lived it.

No cause you're obviously too heavy handed to know the difference between pity and compassion.

You're a low disciplined nihilist with a youtube reference of Nietzsche's philosophy. Lame, and thus... not even worth "arguing" with. — DifferentiatingEgg

No I just see through his philosophy an know it doesn't address the existential questions of meaning.

You've not made a single argument other than you know very little about Nietzsche. And that you try to be edgy "the case against suicide" here's the case against it for you: you're still here cause you're what Nietzsche refers to as a last man... — DifferentiatingEgg

I’ve read enough of him to know his philosophy doesn’t work in practice and he never lived up to it. Not to mention his care depended on people not following it

So my disagreement is with the notion it's always and entirely guided by emotion unless you are claiming that emotion cannot be separated from our any of our conscious actions including rationality and that I would have to think about as that maybe true?? Hmmm — philosch

It’s still not the case. Any sorta value system you would use to come to that determination is based on emotion. It’s like Hume mentioned reason being a slave to the passions. There is no pure rational case for suicide or against it.

I mean, with all due respect, *hammer emoji* *nail emoji* *coffin emjoi* one could not imagine a grander thesis... how am I to argue such infinite wisdom? You win. — DifferentiatingEgg

I mean you never really had an argument other than indignation so it wasn’t hard.

I disagree. Suicide may be rooted in those things or maybe not. Could be as simple as wanting to end the intractable pain from terminal bone cancer. I say the main argument against suicide is rooted in those things, not the wish to remove oneself from the suffering and loss and pain that it's possible to feel as a human being. Instead the religious view greatly effects whether we consider suicide a sin or a great act of heroism. Remove the religious, moral and ethical filters and focus on the 3 P's. The philosophical, psychological and physiological condition of the person who wishes to speed up their inevitable destiny. — philosch

You can disagree but you’d be wrong. Suicide is rooted in emotion same as philosophy. Wanting to end pain is emotional.

Fine if you chose not too, but really all you've declared here is that you're too lazy to attempt to tackle Nietzsche. That your transfiguring mirror is sour. — DifferentiatingEgg

The man himself had a life that was effectively a downward spiral that ended with him having to be taken care of by others. He transfigured nothing.

In a sense all of it. He also happened to benefit from people not following his philosophy, especially morality.

He doesn’t really understand how human society works or what made humans successful.

In short he’s lucky people didn’t obey his words.

The man spent his life knowing he would die early due to his life long medical conditions that were similar to his fathers...and he even overcame serious physical injuries, while being crippled by some life long hereditary conditions most likely falling under the umbrella of CADASIL. — DifferentiatingEgg

I wouldn’t say he overcome anything since he didn’t really embody the philosophy he preached.

So find something that transfigures your outlook...
It's subjective to you. But Nietzsche says most people don't even know their way into or out of that labyrinth in his day, I'd assume that holds true today also. — DifferentiatingEgg

Nietzsche isn’t the best example given how his life turned out. He was wrong.

The case against suicide once all the emotion and man-made ethic/morality is removed, it is a matter that cannot be determined as an absolute. In other words the case against suicide is necessarily case specific and I tend to agree with the OP's attitude on this. — philosch

You can’t really remove emotion and man made ethics or morality from it since wanting to off yourself is rooted in such things

Except those books or lectures don't actually usually address the interpretational issue regarding it. Usually, they actually feel its irrelevant to the mathematical formulation and my textbook from the university makes that expressly clear where the math ends to where the uncertain philosophy begins.

Which is a key point that I'd like to emphasize. — substantivalism

Last time I tried to dive into it I couldn’t understand a word of it, so I just ask people.

You know, given process philosophy is supposed to be a more faithful interpretation of QM by its adherents its actually really tangential but close to it. — substantivalism

So what does that mean exactly? You’re not really telling me much with that. From what others tell me that’s not the case and that process philosophy runs into issues when applying it to reality let alone our lives.

From your earlier posts it doesn’t sound like you understand because you said your friend losing a hair wouldn’t make them a whole new person when according to process philosophy it would.

Also physics doesn’t really answer what reality is made of so…

I also, agree. Course, I'm bored and I didn't take to heart a previous morbid thread that you had started so I'm left with a good amount of personal free time. — substantivalism

I say that with Buddha but really I’m trying to understand this but people are either vague or don’t know. Like I said, I’m asking how does this look in our daily lives and no one can explain that.

You don't need a money or a degree. . . you need an internet connection and the will as well as the desire to dive into this.

Here is a pdf version of the Griffiths book on quantum mechanics. Get reading! — substantivalism

Way to illustrate my point behind a lot of the misunderstandings behind QM.

But again none of this is relevant nor answers my questions so you’ve effectively said nothing. I don’t even know how this got to quantum physics…

You don’t understand process philosophy to answer my initial concerns so none of this means anything.

So again unless you’re telling me how this philosophy looks in daily life I don’t care. I’ve already asked everywhere else and got nowhere.

Just reposting this. For reasons. — substantivalism

This assumes you know what you’re talking about, which from the replies wouldn’t suggest it.

Then challenge yourself to actually figure it out. That way these conversations can go way easier.

I'm going through the process right now to finish my own physics degree and am learning the basics of Hilbert spaces as well as bra/ket notation right now.

You want to show some incentive too! — substantivalism

I just ask people who know better, I don’t have the time or money for a degree.

Not that any of this is relevant to the topic or my questions.

In a trivial sense there are tons of verbs that are also nouns. Then there are many examples of metaphorical/analogical speech that give things which are abstract a concrete element to them. — substantivalism

Right but that’s not process philosophy.

Again none of this gets to my real questions and it doesn’t seem like you understand process philosophy either.

To say there is a misunderstanding of QM implies there is a right way to do this even if no experiment would showcase any of these interpretations as wrong or that they are consistent with the mathematical models. What is this mysterious philosophical methodology you are appealing to but don't make explicit?

Is the proper scientific approach to tell the philosophers to, "shut up while we calculate because you can't figure anything out!" Or is it, ". . . you aren't doing this interpretational work correctly, here is how you actually do it. . ." — substantivalism

Well there is a “right way” but I’m not versed enough in it to know. We aren’t even done with it so any philosophical stab at it is moot right now.

Far as I know philosophers don’t add much to the discussion since they don’t understand the math.

What I do know is that so far it defies our intuitions about reality and maybe one of those is that solid things can’t occupy the same space. Physics models reality, doesn’t tell us what it’s ultimately made of.

Solidity is the ability to not be interpenetrated so to allow for interpenetration is what I would not take as them possessing solidity as intrinsic to them.

Unless you mean by solidity a completely different thing than our intuitions would provide but then you aren't talking about the same thing. — substantivalism

Well you’re talking classical sense.

Why should that stop physicists from proposing them as lacking intuitive physical properties if they are as un-fathomable as you say they are? — substantivalism

That’s not what I said, I said people can’t really pictures what it means for something to be that small.

You shouldn't be so focused on the material substance of a person because in the end it gives you only a base but not a handle on why you attach yourself to them despite their changes. It also doesn't bode well for illusory characteristic such as consciousness if the 'real' reality lacks those. Their ability to change does not make them some fleeting collection of individuals you can't make out but a process you happily indulge in. It's not like your friend losses a single strain of hair and all of sudden he is someone new to you. — substantivalism

It’s funny you mention that last part because that’s exactly why process Philosophy is saying. If they lose a hair they are someone entirely new. Again if they are a process then they don’t exist, per the philosophy itself.

I also wouldn’t say consciousness is illusory, that’s a funny thing to say.

But my main question is what does this look like in day to day life and how one manages and interacts. That’s all I care about, what does it look like in action.

With Buddhism it’s easy (ish), it’s just doing it. Though that’s also what makes it hard but at least it’s something. But so far no one can explain what it looks like in action.

Further, how is the fields analogy a misunderstanding of this? These 'particles' have to interact with each other some how and the field is just the proposed thing that is meant to do that in rather esoteric quantum interpretations or a version of pilot wave theory. It can also been seen as being the name for the only thing doing the 'physical' work here as you can imagine in a hydrodynamical analogue model of Schrodinger's equation. — substantivalism

All I know is from what other physicists have told me, that a lot of people misunderstand quantum field theory and think it means what it doesn’t.

But as for the bosons I don’t think that means they aren’t solid it just means quantum mechanics is weirder than we thought. But from the answers I’m reading, YES it does mean there are multiple collocated particles.

Everything you’ve mentioned are still particles, it’s just that at the level things are weird.

Solidity becomes something that may not be a part of the micro-constituent parts of the world around us at least as proposed — substantivalism

Well not really. The level of atoms is so small that most people couldn’t fathom it or what it means, so when you learn atoms are mostly empty space it doesn’t mean much.

However, if we use the strawman 'everything is fields' idea then this weirdness goes away and we can just say the field is more intense there but not that there are multiple collocated particles. The particle analogy doesn't allow you this and would have to accept multi-particle collocation or interpenetration on a fundamental level as interpreting this — substantivalism

It’s hard to say one way or the other because at that level it’s just math. Anything philosophical is up in the air. Field theory is just a mathematical model, physics doesn’t tell us what reality is made of, it just uses math to predict it.

What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice. — substantivalism

Well it’s more like I’m not sure if the people talking to me really understand it. When I’m asking Punos they just insist that it’s not cold or dehumanizing but can’t really explain why while I have.

The Human language is really adept at treating verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs just as easily. There are so many ordinary language analogies/metaphors we use which intermix these things all the time without issue. — substantivalism

Not in my experience. Can you give an example?

You just need to go a step further and start asking whether the metaphors/analogies you use influence your thinking. You obviously think they do because one of the issues you've had so far with process philosophy has been how it makes you emotionally view other people. Clearly, the language one uses can influence that just as for you its depressing while for punos its liberating and inspiring. — substantivalism

Unless you’re going to answer my original question about process philosophy this isn’t really getting anywhere.

Like I told them, if they’re just a process and not an individual then they don’t exist per process philosophy, so there isn’t really regarding them any way or other. They references Buddhism as an example but Buddhism isn’t process philosophy. Even process philosophy fails when it comes to describing reality as we see and experience it per the philosophy dictionary and some papers that have been linked. You still need substance for process philosophy to work.

So unless you’re going on explain how it’s not cold or dehumanizing then this post isn’t really informative. I’ve asked that question time and again and people can’t explain how, they just insist it’s not which isn’t an argument.

Philosophy only matters if we can tie it to our daily lives and so far no one has been able to demonstrate that with process philosophy which was my original question. I know one other person who seems to live a normal life but believes in this but when I ask him to explain it he can’t.

Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here. — AmadeusD

You never really made much of a case until the end, so there isn’t really much to respond to.

Even you said as scientifically true isn’t accurate. Science does recognize sameness, experimentation uses it after all.

Though the tone of your responses sorta gave away the sort of person you are so I can’t say I was expecting much.

If you can point me to any object which is unchanging, interminable and non-becoming (as it were) id be happy to hear it. But that would be an anomaly. It is scientifically obvious that all things are always in flux. That's what I've noted, and there's no serious way to disagree with this. Whitehead's account of that fact is what (may or may not.... I think almost certainly) fails to do us any good, scientifically. — AmadeusD

I would say the base level particles that make up reality. As for flux and sameness that’s a matter of interpretation, hence some of the holes in his philosophy. How do you classify dynamic. You say the word scientifically but I don’t think you know what that means. Even in science we still refer to some living things as being the same at least in biology. Like I said, it depends on definition and hence isn’t really a question for science.

I ignored most of your post because it was little more than whining. I said what I did about McKenna from being on a forum of shroomheads who still disagreed with him.

Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true. — AmadeusD

Yet you’re agreeing that everything is in flux which is what he says. I’m not stranger to things always changing, I read up on Buddhism. But stuff like identity is complicated hence why some say that just because it changes doesn’t mean it’s different.

Even then he denies objects so I find your agreement with him rather odd on that one.

That may be hte case. I tend to agree. Its helpful to understand experience (well, to those disposed to get much from it anyway) - not 'the world'. I agree its rather impenetrably, and where it is, there are inconsistencies. (see, this is my giving you a position on the philosophy). — AmadeusD

My main issue is how does this apply to life at large. Because that’s all that matters with philosophy, in that I agree with Buddha.

What I find odd is people trying to liken his stuff to Buddhism when anyone who knows the first thing about would tell you that trying to refer to or describe Anatta is to miss the mark. The self in Buddhism is neither true or false, neither real or unreal.

I don't really have contempt or hate for you or anyone else ultimately. I am frustrated that my questions remain unanswered despite exhausting everything.

You are alternately taking Whitehead too seriously, and not seriously enough. Gnomon has done a fairly good job, but its pricklier than I would have responded having not gone through the thread.
I think, but could be wrong, the most recent and most visible person who pushed Whitehead's process philosophy was Terence McKenna. I probably shouldn't need to say more - while I think McKenna is a much, much better thinker and writer than probably 80% of this forum, there is no chance he is giving us anything with which we could further understand, or build on the philosophy rather than the metaphor/poetry in Whitehead's work. And that's roughly where this form of philosophy has been left. — AmadeusD

It’s sorta hard to regard this well because Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.

Unfortunately, the response above this one, posted while I was writing, doesn't give me hope that you will take on board the criticisms many have leveled. That's unfortunate. I came in that hot too and assumed that not hearing what I wanted amounted to being talked past. That is a difficult hurdle to jump. This forum is largely populated (the very consistent posters anyway) with ideological people who spend more time in the politics/news type threads than elsewhere. I wouldn't think this the best place to learn how to do philosophy, or even read discussion clearly. I only joined when i started my degree, and the two have come apart in a rather extreme way. — AmadeusD

This is more about you not about me. Like I said I’m trying to understand this but so far people are really bad at explaining it, and I’ve asked everywhere.

It is not a 'system' the most philosophies are. It is a descriptive philosophy trying to make sense of what Whitehead sees to be 'facts' about how Humans 'become' across time (whcih is, strictly, a fact - we are never stagnant, in any sense of the word, as beings). Every individual change can be (intellectually/metaphorically) compartmentalized, incorporated and subsumed by the 'being' at any given moment. — AmadeusD

Not exactly. I think recent link showed how Whiteheads philosophy fails when attempting to describe human experience especially self and identity. There is also a problem with his “becomes” as it presupposes a thing that exists already. By his own philosophy nothing becomes because nothing exists. As for us never being stagnant, that’s also not true or a fact. By Whiteheads view nothing is dynamic either because nothing would be static. There is also the issue is time and what theory of time would have to be true for his view to work.

So it doesn’t really explain the facts so much as what he wants to be true. That would explain why it never took off, apart from all his papers being burned upon his death.

It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring. — AmadeusD

Not really. It might appear as such but that doesn’t make it so, it also doesn’t explain the static nature of most objects despite them “never being the same”. He claims it’s in line with our intuitions but that’s clearly not the case.

The point is that 'things' are actually 'events' in constant flux of 'occurring' or 'becoming' and not 'objects' to be observed or taken as-is. In this way, change or creative process per se, is a fundamental aspect of reality/existence. He then implicates God in this process as the director, in some sense, but still part of it. So, in some sense this is scientifically obvious, but his theory extends to it being the final analysis which doesn't seem possible. — AmadeusD

Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious (especially since it's not a science question). Matter does exist and so do particles, even if you want to argue for events you’d still need things. I think verbs describe actions nouns take or do, so you can’t really have no elementary particles. Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that. In short process can't be the fundamental nature of reality.

It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others. Even that standford entry explains that a big issue with the philosophy is its lack of application to real life let alone our lives unlike the substance philosophy.

Like I mentioned in my original post, how exactly would daily life look and function under the process view and not the substance view? That's the only question that really matters. It sorta reminds me of why Buddha didn't really answer metaphysical questions, because they weren't relevant to daily life or the path.

Like I said above, just because something is dense and hard to understand doesn’t make it good.

If you would like to share philosophical opinions on interpretations of Whitehead's work, instead of denigrating them, I'm open to continuing this thread. But I suspect that some TPF posters have already been turned-off by the political us-vs-them antagonism. Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions — Gnomon

It’s more like they haven’t been able to answer my questions, which seems to be a running theme with this philosophy.

I took the OP as a sincere attempt to obtain help in understanding the unorthodox philosophical worldview of an acknowledged genius, whose "magnum opus" is over the heads of most of us mortals. But instead of a philosophical dialog, this thread has become a political diatribe, on a work that you admitted you don't understand*1. Ironically, you portray Whitehead as an idiot who didn't understand Quantum Physics in the manner you prefer. And you have haughtily & sarcastically rejected all proffered opinions that don't match the world model that you are looking to support. Of course, Whitehead had little influence on modern Science, because his philosophy is mental (hypothetical) instead of material (pragmatic). — Gnomon

That’s an exaggeration. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn’t make it good or true.

It’s also not “in the manner I prefer” the man died before it evolved to what we know today. He literally didn’t understand it.

It also doesn’t matter if your philosophy is mental or practical, if you can’t get your point across or apply it to life then it’s worthless. That’s ultimately what philosophy is about.

However, at least one poster on Philosophy Stack Exchange seems to share your literalistic mis-understanding of Process Philosophy*3. Pioneering sub-atomic physicists*4 were forced to describe the non-classical paradoxes of quantum physics in terms of metaphors, which those coming from a classical background may interpret literally and materially. FWIW, a human is not "just processes" (on-going life), but also a person (body & mind), worthy of ethical treatment. — Gnomon

Philosophy stack exchange has mostly been disappointing. And no they weren’t “forced to” do anything. These aren’t paradoxes either. It sounds to me like you still don’t understand anything you speak on.

Like…your words are really just hardcore projection and reading into what isn’t there. Your understanding of science and other philosophies are lacking, especially with Natives. There’s not really a conversation to be had with someone who doesn’t even have the basics down. You don’t even read your links at the end.

The way I understand certain “Indian” philosophy (and the eastern ones that are similar to it) is that you can’t talk about it, only experience it. So the fact you, that guy or anyone else is talking about it is just wrong out of the gate. Unless you do it you won’t get it but it’s evident who “gets it” and who doesn’t.

I’ve just tried to understand it but so far no one knows it well enough to explain it, which casts doubt on their understanding of it.

Like I said, you’re just a pretender and your understanding insulting to those you cite. You’re not fooling anyone but you.

That last challenge I think rings loudest because this doesn’t really tie into real life despite what folks here might say. All I’ve really gotta is either insistence or just blaming the person for not getting it.

Naturally that’s more a hole in the philosophy than in one’s understanding of it.

Insofar as it is an a priori categorical framework (i.e. ontological paradigm), a metaphysics might constrain but does not imply an ethics, so it seems to me, Darkneos, you're asking the wrong question. — 180 Proof

Maybe. But that said no one has really been able to explain process philosophy and the last paper I read ended up showing how Whitehead failed

I'm beginning to see why Whitehead's process philosophy bothers you so much. He seems to have formulated a worldview that is closer to that of indigenous people around the world than to western science & physics. It's based on cycles & flux instead of linear time & static things — Gnomon

Not really. Indigenous people had varied views on the matter. For everyone one about cycles and flux you had another about spirits and stuff. Also it’s just science, nothing “western” about it. Even in their stories there was still static stuff.

"our western minds desire to sort things out, to arrange knowledge in a logical fashion and order the world into categories. . . . it is not so much the questions themselves that are the problem, but the whole persistent desire to obtain knowledge through a particular analytical route". — Gnomon

This is not true and a very reductive notion of western thought. It’s same when people try to lump “eastern philosophy” into one group even though it’s diverse with many disagreeing with each other.

Just as quantum entities have properties of both waves and particles, human persons are both individuals and immersed in larger Holistic systems. He notes that "quantum theory stresses the irreducible link between observer and observed and the basic holism of all phenomena". That may sound like nonsense or BS to you — Gnomon

Already he’s committed the basic mistake when talking about quantum physics and observation. It’s not what most think of when it comes to the term.

Also the term holistic physicist came up which is a red flag. Even just looking at his books shows he’s less than reliable on this stuff.

Though the tying of people with the properties of particles at the quantum level is a category error and kinda shows he doesn’t understand.

In Peat's book, he compares the two worldviews by noting that "in modern physics the essential stuff of the universe cannot be reduced to billiard-ball atoms, but exists as relationships and fluctuations at the boundary of what we call matter and energy" — Gnomon

Except this is not true as we have shown at the supercollider. The essential stuff can in fact be reduced to “billiard ball” atoms.

You may consider Indigians to be ignorant savages, but Peat finds their holistic science to be compatible with his own non-mechanical, probabilistic Physics. — Gnomon

Projection on your part.

So, if you find Whitehead's speculations to conflict with your Newtonian classical worldview, perhaps you should ignore the meaning & implications & ethics of Process philosophy, and stick to calculating abstract countable values. :wink: — Gnomon

You don’t understand the philosophy or the physics well enough to explain or cite either and the sources you cite are less than reliable. I’m pretty sure an Indian shaman could put it better, I know because I’ve met a few. Though from their view you and that Peat are already wrong by trying to put it into a philosophy, it’s not really something you can work out or explain, at least from what they say.

Apparently, your "habits of thought", and to some degree my own, make it difficult to understand the non-classical non-western holistic worldview of Quantum Physics and Indigenous peoples. — Gnomon

This speaks more to your lack of understanding and inability to explain. I know folks who “get it” so to speak and they don’t blame me for it.

Like I’ve said before, you’re good at pretending like you know what you’re talking about but you know nothing of the things you cite. I’m just wanting my questions answered but you don’t seem able to. You just go off on irrelevant tangents.

I also know you don’t read the sources you cite because that last paper showed how Whitehead failed.

I don’t know why I bother responding when it’s evident you know nothing of which you speak.

if you don’t know you don’t know, doesn’t seem anyone does.

I disagreed with Darkneos's opinion that it was 'dehumanising — Amity

Again not explaining anything.

Do you not think it’s dehumanizing because according to process philosophy humans don’t exist? Because that’s my point pretty much.

Not really showing the ethical implications with the first one, though it does show how needlessly complicated they make it, not to mention the issues with panpsychism.

As for the second the whole “becoming moral” thing doesn’t really get at the issue I’m saying, on top of needlessly complicating things. I also mentioned that even an “adaptable” ethics system still has a static system underpinning it otherwise there are no ethics to it.

cry: :snicker: — Amity

I think maybe you just don’t understand it. Like when I said it was dehumanizing and all punos could really do is insist it’s not.

Even the guy you quoted in this thread acknowledged issues with process Philosophy

So far no one’s been able to answer the original post.

I disagreed with Darkneos's opinion that it was 'dehumanising'. — Amity

You never really explained why, you never explained anything.

As far as I recall, Darkneos did not reply to @Count Timothy von Icarus. — Amity

Because they didn’t address my questions so I didn’t respond. He also pointed out the flaws with process philosophy.

And now the thread is on p5.
So be it. Another process along the way — Amity

And you still never answered my questions. All this just sorta proves to me why this philosophy never took off.