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? — Darkneos
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.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. — Gnomon
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.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 interchangeability of Energy and Matter are not magic, — Gnomon
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
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
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
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
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.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. — Gnomon
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
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.