Yes. If you imagine Platonic Form as an infinite pool of potential, our substantial scrutinized reality is a definite drop dredged-up from the boundless abyss of untapped possibility. I'm sure you could write a poem riffing on that theme. :smile: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? — PoeticUniverse
What would you expect to happen if you could exorcise a particle of its soul? :wink: — Gnomon
So "space" is "disembodied" (i.e. non-physical)? What about gravity (re: GR)? :chin:
[energy is] a property of space from which particles emerge
Yes, afaik, makes sense. — 180 Proof
What about gravity (re: GR)? — 180 Proof
I'm sure you could write a poem riffing on that theme. — Gnomon
The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. — Metaphysician Undercover
For philosophers, it's not a problem, because they don't deal with physical "how?" questions. It is a problem for materialists, because there is a matterless gap between substantial brain and functional Mind. Mind is a process, not a thing --- unless like Descartes you point to the pineal gland as the mind generator. The "why" question is for Psychology to explain, in terms of Representation (ideas).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
Maybe. The Energy of an electron is described as "charge". Which is a metaphor for filling a wagon with a load of wood, produce, etc. That "disembodied quality", its causal value or voltage, is imagined as an inherent property of the particle, but where does the causal charge come from? One notion is that the energy "load" is extracted (particleized) from the potential of empty space (quantum field). But the response below says otherwise. Ironically, fundamental physics, dealing with invisible stuff, is mostly described in mathematical symbols or philosophical metaphors. It's all over my head, literally and figuratively. :smile:I do not believe it can be done. . . . . You see, it appears to me that energy can exist without taking the form of a particle, but a particle cannot exist without the energy that forms it. This leads me to conclude that whatever energy is, it is a more fundamental entity than the form of the particle. It appears to be some kind of disembodied quality that is not a property of particles, but a property of space from which particles emerge. :sparkle:
Does that make any sense? — punos
If you imagine Platonic Form as an infinite pool of potential, our substantial scrutinized reality is a definite drop dredged-up from the boundless abyss of untapped possibility. — Gnomon
That "disembodied quality", its causal value or voltage, is imagined as an inherent property of the particle, but where does the causal charge come from? — Gnomon
Yes. Infinite, unbounded, undefined Potential is Everything, Everywhere, All-at-once. Simply BEING. But our matter-bound minds can only imagine All-Possibilities as things : static or linear or flowing.Since the Eternal has no input point,
It’s Everything, linear or all-at-once. — PoeticUniverse
So, when the neutral potential electron is unplugged from the whole universal system it splits into a positive & negative charge ; pro & anti-matter??? Who or what does the separating? Is the separation physical or conceptual??? How does this plugging & unplugging fit into Whitehead's Process Philosophy?This perspective is based on the idea that particles like electrons and positrons are not isolated entities but rather parts of a symmetric whole that has been separated by some measure. — punos
I had never heard of "Neutral Monism", so I Googled it. If the Monistic Entity (Singularity?) is "neither physical nor mental", what is it? Spiritual ; Essence ; Substance? Is the "Neutral Entity" G*D?I forgot to mention that this underlying symmetry seems to philosophically resemble the neutral substance proposed in neutral monism. I propose that this is one of the resonant connection points between physics and metaphysics, particularly with some version of neutral monism.
Perhaps a suitable name for this kind of monism could be "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" (NQPM). — punos
"Who or what does the separating? Is the separation physical or conceptual??? How does this plugging & unplugging fit into Whitehead's Process Philosophy?" — Gnomon
Primordial time is active logic. The logical operation of negation, or more precisely inversion, is its main function. The temporal operation of inversion contains within it the operations of disjunction and conjunction. It's a bit tricky to explain correctly, but inversion implies two opposite states. If NOT 0, then 1; if NOT 1, then 0. This means that NOT includes within it 0 AND 1, but only 0 OR 1 at a time. This logic in time resembles a kind of trinity of NOT, AND, OR, and neither one can exist without the others thus they are one. These three operators can not be broken down any further without destroying logic itself, it is indivisible. It is the maximum simplicity, and minimal complexity needed for the universe to exist as it is.
The trinity of logic:
NOT = (AND, OR)
OR = (NOT AND)
AND = (NOT OR) — punos
I had never heard of "Neutral Monism", so I Googled it. If the Monistic Entity (Singularity?) is "neither physical nor mental", what is it? Spiritual ; Essence ; Substance? Is the "Neutral Entity" G*D? — Gnomon
"Is "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" an extant philosophical concept, or did you just make it up for this thread?" — Gnomon
Well, the way i currently see it, charge can be understood as a manifestation of broken symmetry in space. This perspective is based on the idea that particles like electrons and positrons are not isolated entities but rather parts of a symmetric whole that has been separated by some measure.
When an electron is created, it is always accompanied by the creation of a positron. Similarly, an electron can only be "destroyed" through interaction with a positron, and vice versa. This suggests to me that an underlying symmetry, when broken by temporal decay, produces two particles that represent the energetic difference between the asymmetric state of the particle and its original symmetric state. Each particle thus carries the complementary charge energy that completes its antipair. — punos
Yes. Infinite, unbounded, undefined Potential is Everything, Everywhere, All-at-once. Simply BEING. — Gnomon
Gavin Giorbran — PoeticUniverse
That's why Materialism is more intuitive for most people. And it may be why a philosophical concept like Whitehead's rational Process Theory may never become the basis of a popular religion. :chin: :brow:The fundamental issue which makes process philosophy counterintuitive, is that we cannot properly conceptualize a process, or activity without something which is active. — Metaphysician Undercover
Gavin Giorbran — PoeticUniverse
I'm not familiar with the notion of "Primordial Time" as a "non-physical process". And I can't imagine a temporal process that does not involve physical objects : e.g. Darwinian Evolution. Our intuition of Time and Process is based on the changes we observe in the material world. But we also create Metaphors from that sensory experience to explain apparent changes in mental states over time : alterations in mood, behavior, thought patterns, and level of awareness. Can you explain "timeless time" in an example that is not an oxymoron*1?From the perspective of the model i'm currently working with, i believe the answer is primordial time (also known as timeless time).Primordial time is a non-physical process/substance that yields physicality. I explain this temporal logic in a little more detail below: — punos
"I'm not familiar with the notion of "Primordial Time" as a "non-physical process". And I can't imagine a temporal process that does not involve physical objects : e.g. Darwinian Evolution. Our intuition of Time and Process is based on the changes we observe in the material world. But we also create Metaphors from that sensory experience to explain apparent changes in mental states over time : alterations in mood, behavior, thought patterns, and level of awareness. Can you explain "timeless time" in an example that is not an oxymoron*1?" — Gnomon
"Do you see any parallels between your "non-physical process that yields physicality", and Husserl's "flow, that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions"?" — Gnomon
Perhaps you did not like that i used the word "idealism"? — punos
??? — 180 Proof
However, if we adopt the perspective of the universe itself, everything should appear as conceptual. So idealism in general terms, is probably correct. — punos
(non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived. — 180 Proof
FYI. As I understand it, 's worldview is Immanentist & Non-Idealist & Antitheist & Absurdist, among other metaphysical beliefs (i.e. unprovable). So any implication of intentional or theistic or teleological evolution is not just Outlandish & Alien, but also preposterous, ridiculous, unrealistic, non-sensical, stupid, and metaphysical. That's why he slyly & covertly treats the postulator as an idiot, who implicitly should be banned from posting on a Scientism forum.Considering:
(non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived. — 180 Proof — 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.