process philosophy — Gnomon
..."beings" sub specie durationis are atoms of "becoming" sub specie aeternitatis void... — 180 Proof
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. :smile: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
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.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
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.↪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
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. :smile:This leaves systems theory as substance based, and inadequate for understanding process philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover
Instead, we need to look ahead and ask : where does this process lead us? :smile:
*1. Us vs Them : — Gnomon
↪Philosophim lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself... — DifferentiatingEgg
This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy. — Philosophim
By your own projection... — DifferentiatingEgg
"time is a dynamic flow in which past, present, and future are intertwined — Gnomon
Thinkers just debate logical arguments. Debating what we should call a thought process like 'process philosophy' is a waste of time. Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. Most people aren't going to care what you label it, especially on these public forums. This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy. — Philosophim
The only stability is in probability — Gnomon
:up:Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. — Philosophim
A scientific resolution of such "problems" is over my untrained head. — Gnomon
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. — Gnomon
Basically, the post-Shannon understanding of "Information" is both Noun (objects) and Verb (processes). It's both causal Energy and sensable Concrescence. — Gnomon
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. :smile: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
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. — Gnomon
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. — Gnomon
pre-Kantian thought often assumed a more direct access to the world "as it is" without considering the limitations imposed by our cognitive faculties. — Gnomon
The dance between them is what truly lasts,
While substance slips away without a trace. — PoeticUniverse
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."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
Form is the logical structure of an object of scrutiny, as distinguished from its material substance. — Gnomon
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. — Gnomon
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.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
Note A --- Kant defined (but did not explain) the appearance/substance problem in terms of Noumena and Phenomena. Do you have a better explanation?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
Since an electron is essentially a blob of insubstantial energy (statistical potential) you can't separate its electrical properties from its energetic state --- which is a function of its relative position in a system such as an atom of iron. But, if you are a Maxwell's demon, I suppose anything is possible. What would you expect to happen if you could exorcise a particle of its soul? :wink:Thought experiment:
Imagine we have two boxes and a particle, say an electron. What would happen if we were to separate the electron from its rest energy? Would we be able to place an energyless particle in one box and the rest energy in the other box? — punos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.