This is potentially hte most ironic post I've seen in months. Nice.

At no point in any discussion (or act of thinking) will we ever not refer to substance undergoing process. “There” means “it” and “it” means “is”, once we say anything. Plato and Aristotle were wrong if they really said otherwise; and Wittgenstein and post-modernism were wrong when they quite frankly spoke at all.

So, as far as I have experienced, if one truly only sees the process (which would be indiscernible without a substance, but ok), then you cannot possibly have anything to say about “it”, about “process” or “process philosophy.” You can’t say what the essence of process means, is, or is used for in a sentence that uses other words besides “process.” You cannot say anything else beyond “process” as every question is every answer and every thing is nothing but process. You need substance to speak as much as you need a substance to measure out (to experience, to observe) a changing process. You need relata as much as relations. To say “in between” requires two more that stake the changing field between or among “them.”

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

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?

So is this an argument against process philosophy? — Darkneos

If someone could concisely define “process philosophy” and show it to be essentially (yes essentially, which is my first point here) different than “philosophy”, I have a feeling I would argue against them having defined anything clearly at all, so there would not yet be something to argue against.

If someone thought advocating process philosophy meant motion and change refute all permanence and refute all philosophies containing anything fixed, such as “truth” or “essence” or “knowledge” or “objective meaning”, I would not argue with them. I would say “I disagree” and ask them how can they possibly know what to say in response to that, when what I am saying now will be consumed by process before it reaches their ears let alone is “understood” in order to prompt an appropriate response? So instead of arguing to refute them, I would ask them to speak, and thereby prompt them to see if they would refute themselves by showing my essential wrongness in disagreeing with them.

But because of the ubiquity of change and process, the metaphysical and ontological reality of motion, my ultimate point is not that process philosophy is wrong and needs to be argued against. It is merely incomplete, and does not account for enough to satisfy any honest question.

Process reveals essentially different things as much as the essentially different things reveal process. There is no prior or post between them. One is not actual where the other is illusion.

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.

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.

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 agree that Process alone, with no Substantial change, would be meaningless. But that's not what Whitehead, or Quantum Physics, was saying. Instead, he seemed to be making a philosophical application of the scientific evidence that tangible malleable Matter is essentially a form of invisible causal Energy*1*2. And Energy is also insubstantial, consisting only of statistical relationships, between material states (hot/cold). Hence, Energy and Causation are mental concepts*3, Ideas, not material things.

Yet, Matter seems real to us --- we see, hear, touch & taste it --- while Energy is merely an intellectual concept. We only know it by what it does, not what it is. That may be why our languages are mostly materialistic*4, with an emphasis on things instead of processes. We only use verbs when something changes. But we give material objects names, just for being there. Nevertheless, Reality consists of both Matter & Energy, both Substance & Causation, both Tangible & Conceptual, both Real & Ideal*5.

Therefore, Whitehead's worldview is essentially Idealistic (concepts vs things) instead of Materialistic. So, his book, Process and Reality, implies that Processes are what's philosophically essential, not the dumb stuff (the clay) that has no intelligible form apart from causal energetic inputs (creativity of the sculptor). Hence, without Matter/Stuff there are no things to talk about, and without Energy/Mind*6, there is "nothing more to say". But. together, Substance & Process are our Reality. :smile:


*1. Matter is Energy :
Matter takes up space, has mass and composes most of the visible universe around you. Energy, on the other hand, takes multiple forms and is essentially the force that causes things to happen in the universe. Yet both matter and energy are variations of the same thing. Each can convert into the other.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/can-we-manufacture-matter.htm

*2. Energy is Invisible :
Yes, energy itself is considered "invisible" because we cannot directly see it with our eyes; we only perceive its effects when it manifests in different forms like light, heat, or motion, which are then visible to us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+invisible

*3. Energy is a Concept, not a Thing :
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.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+a+concept

*4. Language is Materialistic :
In most languages, nouns tend to be used more frequently than verbs; meaning, when analyzing a large corpus of text, you will typically find more noun occurrences than verb occurrences.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+nouns+vs+verbs+frequency#cobssid=s

*5. Materialism vs Idealism :
Alfred North Whitehead was a philosopher who rejected materialism in favor of a philosophy of organism, or process philosophy. He believed that reality is made up of processes, not material objects. Whitehead's philosophy views the world as a web of interrelated processes, rather than a collection of independent material objects.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+materialism
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.

*6. Mind is Energy :
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.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+is+energy

I agree that Process alone, with no Substantial change, would be meaningless. But that's not what Whitehead, or Quantum Physics, was saying. — Gnomon

I am going back and looking at some more Whitehead so I might be better able to talk the whitehead talk here.

But I will admit, my general approach to all of my posts is to put things into my own words. The way I see it, the same elephant is always in the room - me - and what I believe I know, and what I can say about it. So if I say “this is what Whitehead said” and do anything besides quote him, I am only and always saying “this is what I think.” So I just skip over the middle part and say what I think. (It annoys a lot of folks who want to talk about what someone else thinks/meant/said. When I’m talking with someone, I’m really only interested in what they think, and what I think, and what we can agree on, and what we don’t understand about each other’s thoughts. Basically, since Whitehead isn’t here, between us, getting to the bottom of what he was saying is not going to happen. We will only get to the bottom of what we think and say about it. Whitehead has become the prop upon which we base a discussion of what we think.

That said, we can quote people, and take their words at face value, so I’m looking at Whitehead again to see if it helps me say what I mean here.

1. Yet both matter and energy are variations of the same thing. — Gnomon

3. Energy is a Concept, not a Thing :
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 — Gnomon

These two points, both of which are interesting and worthy of more exploration, are either contradictory, or point to something magical/supernatural in the universe. If matter converts to energy and energy converts to matter (1), and energy is a concept (3), then matter converts to concept and concepts convert to matter. This needs more investigation before I could accept both. Let’s see where it goes:

reality is made up of processes, not material objects. Whitehead's philosophy views the world as a web of interrelated processes, rather than a collection of independent material objects. — Gnomon

Processes involve matter interacting through energy, or energy moving through matter, so how can we ignore material objects if we are referencing processes? This doesn’t help me yet.

I need to read more Whitehead here if I am to keep up with you guys.

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.

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…

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. — Darkneos

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. — Darkneos

Thanks for the time savers. That's what seems the case here - confusion mounting on confusion.

The bottom line for me, just like Descartes, Whitehead, (maybe Aristotle, maybe Plato), Leibniz and Spinoza and so many others have to rig in God to stop the inquiry or finish the third act of their story, QM is being used as a similar tool in attempt to ground out the confusion.

If the conclusion being sought is "All is process; nothing is substance/identifiable thing" then there is no need to understand QM or God in order to stop the inquiry. If all is process, becoming, change, then everything else we say is bullshit (which is why anti-scientism is entertained).

People (possibly Whitehead) are taking one confused and incomplete picture, process philosophy, and using another confusing theory from physics, QM, to say some third confusing thing about substance, about what is and what we can know about it. But God and QM are merely more objects in themselves which have remained unaccounted for to any satisfaction in all of history - why should we think the picture of QM, like some picture of God, would clarify the picture of knowing the world (or not knowing the world, which we already didn't know).

These two points, both of which are interesting and worthy of more exploration, are either contradictory, or point to something magical/supernatural in the universe. If matter converts to energy and energy converts to matter (1), and energy is a concept (3), then matter converts to concept and concepts convert to matter. This needs more investigation before I could accept both. Let’s see where it goes: — Fire Ologist

The quoted words are not my opinion. You can click on the links to see the original search results. Look to the right of the screen to see links to other more technical sites on the same topic.

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.

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.

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. :nerd:

*1. The most well-known quote from Einstein regarding matter and energy is: "Everything is energy and that's all there is to it.". This essentially means that matter is just a concentrated form of energy, which is encapsulated in his famous equation E=mc².
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+matter+energy+quote

*2. ___Einstein : "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/161207-concerning-matter-we-have-been-all-wrong-what-we-have
Note --- These "quotes" on the net may be apocryphal or a paraphrase, but they sound like an appropriate interpretation of technical physics for laymen.

*3. Gold is related to lead because they are both elements on the periodic table, and historically, alchemists famously attempted to "turn lead into gold" through chemical processes, believing they could transform one element into the other, although this is scientifically impossible with traditional methods; however, in extremely controlled nuclear reactions, it is possible to create small amounts of gold from lead by altering the atomic structure through nuclear bombardment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gold+is+related+to+lead

Note : will argue against Process theory, because it violates his faith in metaphysical Materialism. Physical science can be interpreted to conform to that faith in the primacy of Matter, but he will present that opinion as a settled fact. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter either way. The actual world doesn't rate matter & energy for primacy. But for the impractical purposes of Philosophy it does make a difference in how you view the world : as a lump of inert things or as an evolving process. As a philosophical worldview, Physicalism is more complete, because it includes both Matter & Energy in its scope. :wink:

The interchangeability of Energy and Matter are not magic, — Gnomon

I have no issue seeing that.

You said energy is a concept. So then matter is energy and therefore matter is a concept.

So is Whitehead interchangeable with Berkeley?

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.

I have no issue seeing that.

You said energy is a concept. So then matter is energy and therefore matter is a concept.

So is Whitehead interchangeable with Berkeley? — Fire Ologist

He's wrong on pretty much everything and you can literally google it. I told you to stop believing them as they're often either wrong or grossly butchering ideas.

Here, I'll show you per the Einstein "quote":

"While the phrase "there is no matter" is often attributed to Einstein, there is no credible evidence that he actually said this; however, his theory of relativity does suggest that what we perceive as matter is essentially concentrated energy, meaning the distinction between the two can be blurred, leading to interpretations that could be misconstrued as "no matter" exists. "

https://www.google.com/search?q=did+einstein+say+there+is+no+matter&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1050US1050&oq=did+einstein+say+there+is+no+matter&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yDQgCEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgDEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyBggEEEUYPNIBCjIyNDk2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBYGtsUR7H_JO&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Literally just ignore them if they say anything about this still.

You said energy is a concept. So then matter is energy and therefore matter is a concept.
So is Whitehead interchangeable with Berkeley? — Fire Ologist

Both are considered to be idealists, but I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable", unless you want to trivialize their work as proponents of woo-woo. The link below characterizes Berkeley as a "subjective idealist", and Whitehead as "more complex", perhaps combining subjective concepts and objective percepts. For example, matter is both a tangible percept (experience) and a philosophical concept, as in Materialism.

How Matter can also be Mind may sound like woo-woo to some skeptics. And if immaterial ideas are woo-woo (can't see'em or touch'em), then this forum of sharing ideas via spooky action-at-a-distance is also mystical mumbo jumbo. :smile:


While both Whitehead and Berkeley are considered idealists, a key distinction lies in the nature of their idealism: Berkeley is considered a "subjective idealist" believing reality only exists as perceived by minds, while Whitehead's philosophy, often called "process philosophy," is more complex, suggesting that reality is composed of "actual occasions" which are essentially experiences, thus incorporating a more dynamic and interconnected view of existence, not solely dependent on a perceiving mind like Berkeley's concept.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+and+berkeley+idealism

Both are considered to be idealists, but I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable", unless you want to trivialize their work as proponents of woo-woo. The link below characterizes Berkeley as a "subjective idealist", and Whitehead as "more complex", perhaps combining subjective concepts and objective percepts. For example, matter is both a tangible percept (experience) and a philosophical concept, as in Materialism. — Gnomon

This is incorrect. Whitehead was not an idealist nor is he considered one. His view is that of panpsychism or close to it, not idealism. Both however did have to underpin their views with god to make it work.

How Matter can also be Mind may sound like woo-woo to some skeptics. And if immaterial ideas are woo-woo (can't see'em or touch'em), then this forum of sharing ideas via spooky action-at-a-distance is also mystical mumbo jumbo — Gnomon

That’s not what spooky action at a distance means at all, that refers to quantum entanglement, the theory that particles don’t have to be near each other to impact each other. It has nothing to do with materiality. In fact there was a Nobel Prize given a few years ago for proving nonlocality, meaning particles that are entangled can impact each other across distances.

But yeah, wrong again as usual.