• Gnomon
    3.9k
    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? :smile:


    *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=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+conquistadors

    *2a. “Rejection of substance metaphysics” .
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+gifford+lectures+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=firefox-b-1-d&q=relational+metaphysics

    *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=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+new+physics+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-the-relationship-between-quantum-physics-and-metaphysics

    *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=firefox-b-1-d&q=pre-Kantian+modes+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=firefox-b-1-d&q=john+locke+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/PhilosophyofScience/comments/1eej0sd/why_should_we_prefer_process_philosophyontology/

    *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/introphilosophy/chapter/__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/34749/chapter-abstract/296601920?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.6k
    process philosophyGnomon

    There is a realm of happenings, not things,
    For ‘things’ don’t remain the same on time’s wings.
    What remains through time are processes—
    Relations between different systems.

    The solid world dissolves beneath time’s gaze,
    As atoms dance their quantum-shifting ways;
    What seems so fixed is but a moment’s pause
    In endless flow through change’s shifting maze.

    That mountain standing proud against the sky?
    A slow upheaval still continuing by;
    No static thing, but process caught in time—
    A verb of stone that seems a noun to eye.

    Your body too, that seems so firmly yours,
    Is but a pattern passing through time’s doors;
    Each cell replaced, each atom slipping past,
    While form alone its seeming self restores.

    The river that you step in’s never same,
    Though bearing still its one unchanging name;
    Not water fixed, but pattern flowing on,
    As process keeps its shape but shifts its frame.

    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.

    A tree is not a thing but living flow
    Of soil to leaf, of root to branch’s glow;
    A conversation ‘tween the earth and sky,
    Where sunlight turns to shadow far below.

    Your thoughts themselves are not fixed things that stay,
    But rivers running through the mind’s display;
    Each moment births the next in endless stream,
    As consciousness flows on its changing way.

    Even love itself’s no static state of heart,
    But dynamic dance where souls take partner’s part;
    A verb of joining, never fixed noun,
    As two lives weave together, never part.

    The universe entire’s a vast array
    Of processes that merge and split each day;
    No things exist save in our human speech—
    Reality’s a dance that won’t stay.

    So grasp not at the shadows of fixed forms,
    Nor seek for substance in time’s changing storms;
    The truth lies in relationships that flow
    As systems meet and part in endless swarms.
  • 180 Proof
    15.7k
    In my Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. p-naturalist) terms: "beings" sub specie durationis are atoms of "becoming" sub specie aeternitatis void, which is why "process" (re: non-classical scale systematicity) seems rationally counterintuitive to and is often perceptually misrecognized by human "beings" (re: classical scale measurement). Imho, study Laozi-Zhuangzi (dao, taiji), Heraclitus (panta rhei, eris, "fire"), Buddha (anicca, anatta, moksha), Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius (ceaselessly swirling-swerving atoms in / of void (i.e. stasis is impossible, ergo illusory)), early Plato (Socratic method), and Spinoza (conatus (vs bondage-passions)) ... for some pre-Hegelian (non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived.
  • Gregory
    5k


    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
    5k
    "Whenever we think of some entity, we are asking, What is it fit for here? In a sense, every entity pervades the whole world". (Process and Reality)

    Notice he can still speak of entities. The entity is a process *because* every one of them is in everything. Kinda like Leibniz's monads?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.6k
    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.

    ..."beings" sub specie durationis are atoms of "becoming" sub specie aeternitatis void...180 Proof

    This is the problem, right here, in a nutshell. It's easy for a philosopher to simply assert that what appears to us as a substantial "being", is actually a conglomeration of distinct yet somehow united, activities, processes. However, to explain how such a reality is logically possible requires consistent principles which can be taken as true premises.

    The fundamental issue which makes process philosophy counterintuitive, is that we cannot properly conceptualize a process, or activity without something which is active. This is a feature of our mode of conception, it's an epistemological issue. The conception of an activity itself, is something general, but when we apply that conception to the physical world, we need something particular which it is applied to.

    In application therefore, there are boundaries required, and this commonly results in the use of systems theory. Now the problem is twofold. The boundaries of the system are quite arbitrary, designed for the purpose of the the people employing the theory, so the entity represented as "the system", being the assumed particular, is not a real entity. It's simply boundaries imposed for the purpose of study, experimentation, or prediction. Secondly, the activity within the system is always represented as an activity of objects, particles or whatever, so we do not have a true process premise here. Even electromagnetic waves become photons. This leaves systems theory as substance based, and inadequate for understanding process philosophy.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    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. :smile:

    quantum_ill.jpg
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    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. :smile:
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    ↪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. :smile:

    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. :smile:


    *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
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    427
    Instead, we need to look ahead and ask : where does this process lead us? :smile:


    *1. Us vs Them :
    Gnomon

    True, but we can also look backwards:

    Nietzsche already warned us of this whole us vs them debacle-->that since the death of God has occurred, the new idol has become the state and the politicians the new priests for their Left/Right dogma and a feeling of political superiority is none other than the sensation of psychological superiority. By people who, deprived as they are of experienceing power, are forced to find their compensation in a vicarious winning, to not experience powerlessness.

    More or less I think a lot of these issues predate Nietzsche, as we see Nietzsche advocates for much of these, in a manner, from his studies.

    Even holism... the interconnected whole rather than an antithesis of values...

    Biggest problem with Dogma is that it can't die in a democratic setting, it is required to reign in control of the masses.
  • Philosophim
    2.9k
    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.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    427
    lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself...

    :clap: :lol:
  • Philosophim
    2.9k
    ↪Philosophim lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself...DifferentiatingEgg

    To help you do better on these forums, feel free to address my points here instead of a personal opinion you have about my character.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    427
    sure, you entered the debate by claiming you're bored and not working on solving real issues of philosophy
    This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy.Philosophim

    Thus, your work on your bunkaf thankfully off the front page argument, which can be reduced to absurdity n ways till sunday, isn't a real issue of philosophy...

    By your own projection...
  • Philosophim
    2.9k
    By your own projection...DifferentiatingEgg

    If you haven't read this section, do so now. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines-note-use-of-ai-rules-have-tightened

    You are off topic and attacking me personally. Last warning before I flag your post for a moderator.
  • Gregory
    5k
    "time is a dynamic flow in which past, present, and future are intertwinedGnomon

    Such idea does as well deserve a place in the thought process, but ultimately i think the concept of time itself must be abandoned. Too many paradoxes arise and it is not pointing to a particular entity anyway, contra Newton. A statue of Zeus would be called a process for the reason that change is constantly happening to it. It's never the same. To do away with change would be impossible, unless perhaps you are in a black hole.. But ye, time itself is superulous. What did we think it was in the first place? Change itself? A Plotanic Form of Change? Sounds like a contradiction
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    427


    Should probably take your own advice...

    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

    Since you felt like personally attacking everyone here...
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.6k
    The only stability is in probabilityGnomon

    Put words into expensive Invideo generative, hyper realistic; use Topaz to upgrade to 4K; use Final Cut Pro to slow down the speaking rate, applying optical flow…

  • 180 Proof
    15.7k
    Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't.Philosophim
    :up:
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.6k
    A scientific resolution of such "problems" is over my untrained head.Gnomon

    The problem is ontological, I really don't think there even could be a scientific solution to it.

    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

    "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.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.6k
    Basically, the post-Shannon understanding of "Information" is both Noun (objects) and Verb (processes). It's both causal Energy and sensable Concrescence.Gnomon

    ALL THAT LIES BETWEEN

    Energy is a beauty and a brilliance,
    Flashing up in its destructance,
    For everything isn’t here to stay its “best”;
    It’s merely here to die in its sublimeness.

    Like slow fires making their brands, it breeds,
    Yet ever consumes and moves on, as more it feeds,
    Then spreads forth anew, this unpurposed dispersion,
    An inexorable emergence with little reversion,

    Ever becoming of its glorious excursions,
    Bearing the change that patient time restrains,
    While feasting upon the glorious decayed remains
    In its progressive march through losses for gains.
    Reveal
    We have oft described the causeless—
    That which was always never the less,
    As well as the beginnings of our quest,
    And too have detailed in the rarest of glimpses
    The slowing end of all of forever’s chances.

    So now we must now turn our attention keen
    To all of the action that exists in-between—
    All that’s going on and has gone before,
    Out to the furthest reaches, ever-more,

    For everything that ever happens,
    Including life and all our questions,
    Meaning every single event ever gone on,
    Of both the animate and the non,
    Is but from a single theme played upon.

    This then is of the simplest analysis of all,
    For it heeds mainly just one call—
    That of the second law’s dispersion,

    The means for each and every occasion,
    From the closest to the farthest range—
    That which makes anything change.

    These changes range from the simple,
    Such as a bouncing ball resting still,
    Or ice melting that gives up its chill,
    To the more complex, such as digestion,
    Growth, death, and even reproduction.

    There is excessively subtle change as well,
    Such as the formations of opinions tell
    And the creation or rejections of the will,

    And yet all these kinds of changes, of course,
    Still become of one simple, common source,
    Which is the underlying collapse into chaos—
    The destiny of energy’s unmotivated non-purpose.

    All that appears to us to be motive and purpose
    Is in fact ultimately motiveless, without purpose.
    Even aspirations and their achievement’s ways
    Have fed on and come about through the decay.

    The deepest structure of change is but decay,
    Although it’s not the quantity of energy’s say
    That causes decay, but the quality, for it strays.

    Energy that is localized is potent to effect change,
    And in the course of causing change it ranges,
    Spreading and becoming chaotically distributed,
    Losing its quality but never of its quantity rid.

    The key to all this, as we will see,
    Is that it goes though stages wee,
    And so it doesn’t disperse all at once,
    As might one’s paycheck inside of a month.

    This harnessed decay results not only for
    Civilizations but for all the events going fore
    In the world and the universe beyond,

    It accounting for all discernible change
    Of all that ever gets so rearranged,
    For the quality of all this energy kinged
    Declines, the universe unwinding, as a spring.

    Chaos may temporarily recede,
    Quality building up for a need,
    As when cathedrals are built and formed,
    And when symphonies are performed,

    But these are but local deceits
    Born of our own conceits,
    For deeper in the world of kinds
    The spring inescapably unwinds,
    Driving its energy away—
    As All is being driven by decay.

    The quality of energy meant
    Is of its dispersal’s extent.
    When it is totally precipitate,
    It destroys, but when it’s gait
    Is geared through chains of events
    It can produce civilization’s tenants.

    Ultimately, energy naturally,
    Spontaneously, and chaotically
    Disperses, causing change, irreversibly.

    Think of a group of atoms jostling,
    At first as a vigorous motion happening
    In some corner of the atomic crowd;

    They hand on their energy, loud,
    Inducing close neighbors to jostle too,
    And soon the jostling disperses too—
    The irreversible change but the potion
    Of the ‘random’, motiveless motion.

    And such does hot metal cool, as atoms swirl,
    There being so many atoms in the world
    Outside it than in the block metal itself
    That entropy’s statistics average themselves.

    The illusions of purpose lead us to think
    That there are reasons, of some motive link,
    Why one change occurs and not another,

    And even that there are reasons that cover
    Specific changes in locations of energy,
    The energy choosing to go there, intentionally,

    Such as a purpose for a change in structure,
    This being as such as the opening of a flower,
    Yet this should not be confused with energy
    Achieving to be there in that specific bower,

    Since at root, of all the power,
    Even that of the root of the flower,
    That there is the degradation by dispersal,
    This being mostly non reversible and universal.

    The energy is always still spreading thencely,
    Even as some temporarily located density—
    An illusion of specific change
    In some region rearranged,

    But actually it’s just lingering there, discovering,
    Until new opportunities arise for exploring,
    The consequences but of ‘random’ opportunity,
    Beneath which, purpose still vanishes entirely.

    Events are the manifestations
    Of overriding probability’s instantiations—
    Of all of the events of nature, of every sod,
    From the bouncing ball to conceptions of gods,
    Of even free will, evolution, and all ambition,

    For they’re of our simple idea’s elaborations,
    Although for the latter stated there
    And such for that as warfare
    Their intrinsic simplicity
    Is buried more deeply.

    And yet though sometimes concealed away,
    The spring of all creation is just decay,
    The consequence and instruction
    Of the natural tendency to corruption.

    Love or war become as factions
    Through the agency of chemical reactions,
    The actions being the chains of reactions,
    Whether thinking, doing, or rapt in attention,
    For all that happens is of chemical reaction.

    At its most rudimentary bottom,
    Chemical reactions are rearrangements of atoms,
    These being species of molecules
    That with perhaps additions and deletions
    Then go on to constitute another one, by fate,
    Although they sometimes only change shape,

    But too can be consumed and torn apart,
    Either as a whole or in part, so cruel,
    As a source of atoms for another molecule.

    Molecules have neither motive nor purpose to act,
    Neither an inclination to go on to react
    Nor any urge to remain unreacted;
    So then why do reactions occur if unacted?

    Molecules are but loosely structured
    And so they can be easily ruptured,
    For reactions may occur if the process energy norm
    Is degraded into a more dispersed and chaotic form,

    And so as they usually are constantly subject
    To the tendency to lose energy, as the abject
    Jostling carries it away to the surroundations,
    Reactions being misadventure’s transformations,
    It then being that some transient arrangements
    May suddenly be frozen into permanences
    As the energy leaps away to other experiences.

    So, molecules are a stage in which the play goes on,
    But not so fast that the forms cannot seize upon;

    But really, why do molecules have such fragility,
    For if their atoms were as tightly bound as nuclei,
    Then the universe would have died, being frozen,
    Long before the awakening of the forms chosen,

    Or if molecules were as totally free to react
    Every single time they touched a neighbor’s pact
    Then all events would have taken place so rapidly
    And so very crazily and haphazardly

    That the rich attributes of the world we know
    Would not have had the needed time to grow.

    Ah, but it is all of the necessitated restraint,
    For it ever takes time a scene to paint,
    As such as in the unfolding of a leaf,
    The endurations for any stepping feat,

    As of the emergence of consciousness
    And the paused ends of energy’s restlessness:
    It’s of the controlled consequence of collapse
    Rather than one that’s wholly precipitous.

    So now all is known of our heres and nows
    Within this parentheses of the eternal boughs,
    As well as the why and how of it all has come,
    And of our universe’s end, but that others become.

    Out of energy’s dispersion and decay of quality
    Comes the emergence of growth and complexity.

    (The verse lines, being like molecules warmed,
    Continually broke apart and reformed
    About the rhymes which tried to be non intrusions,
    Eventually all flexibly stabilizing to conclusions.)
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    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. :smile:

    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/745920.The_Degradation_of_the_Democratic_Dogma
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    427
    Gustave Le Bon, and Edward Bernays shed a ton of light on this too. Which is even more evolved to this day with the internet. And other world wide communication abilities to disseminate information at a blink of an eye.

    And it's not always a malicious thing, it's a neutral tool really... but when you get people who utilize ressentiment to gain power, we basically end up with politicians advocating for life denying sentiments and injecting that into the masses... or perhaps it was already there, just enabled.

    Also, I wanted to point out, although metaphysics gets discredited a lot, one can use it strictly as a discipline to help sharpen their mental ability, like a workout routine. It's when someone makes metaphysics the womb of being that it really gets pushed towards being discredited.

    And also, of note, many people use Science in the Us vs Them approach... as a means of life denying dogma... to reject supernatural claims...hell to even make unsavory claims about the natural too.
  • Fire Ologist
    875
    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

    That sums up where many posts on this forum end up. Shame on all of us who claim to seek clarity about our thinking, about being human.

    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

    Interconnected wholes has as much to do with parts (substance, identity, essence) as it does with wholes, for what is a part without its being a whole part - always we are making distinctions, building the lines that look inward at the thing-in-itself towards "essence" or "Identity", or outward, towards context and the dialectical process of unifying what was previously thought to be merely a separate "part."

    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

    Kant made the point most precisely and most clearly. But the chains on the man in Plato's cave presenting only shadows can be understood as the structure of the mind constructing of all experience the "appearance" that is not "reality" recognizes the same disconnected nature of human experience. When Thales said "see that tree over there? Well it's not a tree. It's water." He was aware of the disconnect between what there is and what we know about it.

    The dance between them is what truly lasts,
    While substance slips away without a trace.
    PoeticUniverse

    Again, here is my issue with rejecting substance, rejecting essence. "The dance" although a living, moving, becoming process, has an essence, an identity, distinct from "the sleep" for instance. We cannot speak without objectifying, and no one will ever understand a word we say if those objects we speak of never appear similar to the listener (actual mind-independence).

    We may not know much of things-in-themselves, but saying we should abandon any references to a distinct multiplicity of many things that distinguish themselves from each other, independent of minds, for the sake of acknowledging the fluctuations and motions that truly exist, puts us in a position where we can say nothing about any "thing".

    Once we realize that motion alone is the only lasting moment (which is ironic if not paradoxical), and that may be the case, it is the end of all speaking, the end of all science, as there is one answer for every question: "becoming consumes it." For speaking is to speak about, and if we can only say "the dance between them is what truly lasts" then we are without "them" lasting long enough to say anything more about "them" than the dance will go on and they never really came to be.

    It isn't wrong to focus on process. Process is truth. But you can't recognize process, nor can there be a process, without a thing that undergoes this process, this change. So it isn't wrong to focus on things, essences, substances just as well. This is a metaphysical claim, as well as a physical claim, as well as an ontological claim. And has ramifications in epistemology.

    I submit that we are not just full of shit all the time. We are mostly full of shit, because process is relentless, and we are over-confident in our ability to find food and shelter so easily (so we might as well point out the eternal truth just as skillfully). But sometimes, we actually say something that can only be said and that can truthfully be said about some thing, some process, some part, some whole, some change measured, observable on changing occasions.

    "It rests from change." - Heraclitus, the OG of process)
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    "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. :smile:


    *1. Causality :
    Alfred North Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, believed that causality is a fundamental aspect of experience.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a.+n.+whitehead+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=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+ontology
  • AmadeusD
    2.8k
    It's good to see process being talked about. When I read P&R I reached out here for some thoughts/discussion and nothing came of it. Appreciate these threads.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.6k
    Form is the logical structure of an object of scrutiny, as distinguished from its material substance.Gnomon

    Good one; so, form precedes the substance of it?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.6k
    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

    I don't see how this could solve the problem. 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.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    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. :grin:

    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/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6


    *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
  • punos
    685

    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?
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    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
    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:


    Electron is Energy :
    While an electron is not "pure energy" itself, it does represent a form of energy due to its position within an atom and its ability to move between different energy levels, meaning that the energy of an electron refers to its specific energy state within an atom, which can change depending on its location relative to the nucleus; essentially, electrons carry potential energy within an atom that can be released when they move between energy levels.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=electron+is+energy
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.