Doctor Who diagnosed gravity as being the cause of Time's tumor, and in the operating room, when they opened him up, they found a black hole inside. — PoeticUniverse

Oh, that's not good. Not good at all. I'm sure the gravity of the situation was not lost on anyone in the operating room.

Okay okay, let's not derail this thread. As you were everyone, as you were.

I've been researching cancer and i suddenly read the title of this thread as "Oncology of Time".

Breaking News:
Father Time has been diagnosed with a rare, cosmic form of "temporal tumor". His hourglass is leaking sand at an alarming rate, causing Tuesdays to last for three weeks and weekends to vanish entirely.

Don't take time for granted, or it might develop a serious medical condition that requires a specialist in the very niche field of "Temporal Oncology". And definitely, definitely, get a second opinion from Doctor Who.

Simply Red - Holding Back The Years

Play loud, dig deep, and elevate...

Yin Yang Audio - Elevation (Original Mix)

The medium is the message? Nah. — Arcane Sandwich

Nah. Acoustic space!

Marshall McLuhan - Living in an Acoustic World

That's what philosophers do. I'm a professional philosopher. I don't do that. Not often, at least. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't either. Not often at least.

Because it's like a mind drug. — Arcane Sandwich

Not sure what you mean here, but it's not important. You should do philosophy how you do philosophy. :smile:

I'm not in the habit of questioning Reality Itself. — Arcane Sandwich

You don't have to question objective Reality itself, as that would be akin to questioning your own existence. The point is to examine the form or shape of your own subjective reality. Realities are fluid, and everyone experiences a different one. Some realities may be more advantageous than others in different contexts.

I'd rather not. — Arcane Sandwich

Why not?

Question Reality - Timothy Leary

Igorrr - Very Noise

Allow me a moment to present a thought experiment for your consideration:

The Infinite Pixel Row Thought Experiment

Imagine an infinite row of pixels extending in one direction. The first pixel is initially "on" (lit), while all others are "off" (unlit). The state of this lit pixel propagates along the row through a series of instantaneous operations:

1. Copy: The state of the current "on" pixel is instantly copied.
2. Turn off: The current pixel is instantly turned off.
3. Paste: The copied "on" state is instantly pasted to the next pixel in the row.

These operations occur in a strict sequence:

• The copy and turn-off (steps 1 and 2) happen together as one instantaneous process.
• The paste (step 3) occurs as a separate instantaneous process immediately after.
• There is no time delay between these processes, yet they cannot occur simultaneously.

How fast will the pixel state travel down the infinite row of pixels?

Despite each operation being instantaneous, the propagation of the "on" state is not infinitely fast. This is because:

• Each pixel requires two sequential instantaneous processes.
• The logical ordering of these processes introduces a concept of progression or "time".
• This progression creates a measurable unit, even if infinitesimally small.

As a result, the "on" state travels down the row at a finite speed of one pixel per two instantaneous operations. This demonstrates how duration can emerge from a series of timeless events, revealing an apparent paradox where instantaneous processes give rise to measurable progression (or what we commonly refer to as "time").

Although the context of this speech is managerial, systems thinking is applicable to almost anything. In this speech, Russell Ackoff, in my opinion, does a wonderful job of presenting the idea of systems thinking. Even if one is already familiar with systems thinking, it's still a good listen. Imbibe...

Systems Thinking Speech by Dr. Russell Ackoff

Sumac Dub - Fourth Immersion


Sumac Dub - Jam Session #4 (Les Oiseaux d'Europe)


Sumac Dub - Jam Session #6 (Le monde des bruits)


Sumac Dub - Jam Session #9 (The language and music of the wolves)

Well if the person who preached stuff like that ends up drinking themselves to death it does sorta poke holes in his "insights" since he clearly didn't believe it. I've read his stuff before but he gets a lot wrong because people don't know better. He's not a teacher either. — Darkneos

If his life is some sort of stumbling block for you then forget Alan Watts. Throw that sucker in the garbage, and be done with him. Moving on...

That sounds like an excuse. — Darkneos

Ok, then i'll say we both have excuses.

Well you haven't really explained it like that. — Darkneos

I'm not going to do something i know won't work. I just know it won't.

Choice is an illusion. That said the onus on the one making the argument for why people should care. You can make people care, thats what words are for. — Darkneos

Probably true, but i would need to really understand where you're coming from to make any headway. Although its not my job to make you care, and i don't care if you care or not. I'm simply entertaining myself.

Well the problem is that people don't see it like that. People are "objects" but they aren't static. I mean we are made up of things after all and those things engage in processes, hence why I said both. To consider something static isn't for it to be inanimate, and they'd still feel pain. But to write it off as a process just makes it seem like it's not a human being, an entity, or a thing. It's nothing, because processes involve things but aren't things themselves. — Darkneos

Fine, so what is the fundamental static substance on which these processes run and operate? Is it like little solid balls or objects like the atoms of Democritus?

Yeah but then what's the difference if they're both just processes? What makes one human and the other not? — Darkneos

There are different kinds of processes involved in higher states of complexity. A rock, for example, is part of geological, mineral, and atomic processes, but does not include cellular or biological processes. Beyond biological processes, there are mental and psychological processes, and further up, there are cultural and social processes. A human has all of these processes happening at once. The rock has only a fraction of these processes, which do not include the biological, psychological, or socio-cultural processes. The difference lies in the types of processes that are occurring.

Well according to that other user apparently not. Apparently we're just robots, not that I have much issue with that. — Darkneos

Robots are imitations of biological processes; this does not contradict what i'm saying. They are just much simpler than the processes they are trying to mimic or imitate in biological systems.

I think nature and "Cares" don't really align, nature appears to be indifferent. — Darkneos

Right. It is not nature's job to align with you; it is your job to align with it. Misalignment with the principles of nature leads to eventual destruction.

I care just because I wanna know since some other guy I knew believed in it but when I look at it I just see treating things as events and processes as cold and heartless. Reminds me of Buddhism and "no self". — Darkneos

Then why do you think Buddhists are so focused on compassion for all beings? Some of them go to the extreme of not washing in an effort not to kill bacteria. It appears to me, at least, that these Buddhists can have more compassion and love for other entities than you and i combined. Maybe look into why they think this way even while they believe there is no self. Apparently, it doesn't mean to them what you think it means. Why is that?

It's also kind hard to see living things as events because that just turns them into things with no "life" or "Soul" for me and so I stop caring. — Darkneos

It does not. You interpret it that way because that's how you define it. In fact, i don't understand how seeing a person as a process or as a static object would make this kind of difference, really. If i love my girlfriend/wife without knowing if she is a process or not, then why would my love change just because i now think she's a process? Nothing should change in that regard. You're just confusing yourself with words.

Hania Rani - Live at the Faculty of Science, Paris (2022)

On some level I understand what it means, that since things are dynamic it makes more sense to label them as events instead of things. But on the other hand they are pretty solid and do endure, unlike events, so maybe it's somewhere in between. — Darkneos

That's good. At least you see the dynamism involved. Have you looked into the physics of why things feel solid?

I wouldn't cite Alan Watts though, the guy drank himself to death, which sorta led me to believe he didn't buy what he was selling. — Darkneos

This is only a problem if one believes in authoritative figures. For me, Alan Watts is a human with faults and flaws like any one of us, but he is also a very insightful individual. This is what counts in the context of philosophy. I don't judge the messenger. If it wasn't Alan Watts, would you give it more weight? That doesn't sound very robust.

It's not my job to make your argument. — Darkneos

It's your job to ask the right question. It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

It's like Einstein would say (to paraphrase) "if you really understood something you could explain it to a 5 year old". Don't make excuses. — Darkneos

If i tried to explain it to you like a 5-year-old, you'd tell me that it's more complicated than that, and that i'm oversimplifying. Isn't that right?

And obviously the next question philosophers would ask for such a ontology is "what does it mean and how does it apply to our lives and world". That's sorta the whole point of the pursuit, why does this matter and why should one care? — Darkneos

That's an individual choice, i suppose. I don't think i, or anyone else, can make you care. You've got to see it for yourself as to why you should care. Some people just don't care about anything, and some people care about too much. You already seem to at least care somewhat.

I'm thinking you might be taking for granted what it means to see living things as individuals versus processes. To me it harkens back to all the times humans degraded their opposition as just "monsters" or inanimate to make it easier to kill or persecute them. Pretty sure black people were regarded as less than animals and felt no pain.

So to just write humans off as just processes is cold, ice cold. — Darkneos

This is my own sentiment but in reverse. For me, to consider a person a static object is to consider them almost inanimate. You could burn thousands of people in an incinerator and it would be no big deal because they are static objects (as if already dead), with no process of feeling pain or suffering. I would not intentionally ever hurt anyone precisely because i know they are a process that can feel and suffer due to the processes in every one of them.

Writing humans off as just static objects is cold, ice cold. If regarding people as processes is considered cold in your view, then i would not like to be the one to change your mind about that. It is probably better that you keep it the way it is, at least for now.

You realize the irony of quoting Einstein for process philosophy right? — Darkneos

No, i don't. Explain.

Well no, if it's a process then it doesn't live or die so it doesn't matter. — Darkneos

Another assertion without an explanation as to why you think so. Then for you it is as you say it is.

It's like saying running can feel hunger, that burning flame gets lonely, or that packing toys can care. It's a process and therefor has no emotions or needs. If it's an individual then it does. Static and living isn't a contradiction. You haven't really explained your reasoning, you just keep insisting it is so without showing it. — Darkneos

How can an individual be considered a static entity? You seem to be asserting that because an individual is static, they must have emotions. Please explain how an emotion is not a process.

Running is a process an individual performs that burns energy, and that process is what causes hunger. Hunger is a biological process that compels you to seek food, which is another process. When you have acquired food, the process of eating begins, which includes the process of digestion.

Burning flames are exothermic processes releasing energy that was stored there by another process. Why would you try to apply a human emotion to a non-human entity like fire? But if you insist, then we can talk about the slow-burning fire that is in every cell in your body, which we call metabolism. Without this inner fire, you would not be alive to feel lonely.

Just because you're not understanding the reasoning doesn't mean i haven't provided any. The problem is that i don't know what your issue is. I've asked so that i can focus on the actual issue instead of taking stabs in the dark, but you refuse to answer any of my questions with any precision.

Please reproduce or point out for me where i simply insisted that something is so without at least attempting to give some account as to why or how.

Static and living isn't a contradiction. — Darkneos

Yes it is.

Static:

• Refers to something fixed, stationary, or unchanging
• Implies a lack of movement or progress

Living:

• Describes something alive, growing, or evolving
• Implies change, development, and adaptation

Never mind that our ethics focuses on individuals not processes. — Darkneos

Well, what i've been trying to tell you is that an individual is a process. You can't have an individual that is not a process. Even things that are not individuals are processes.

Nature doesn't care about philosophy either so it's a moot point. Philosophy only matters in how it affects what we care about, whatever that may be. That's pretty much why people did it in the first place. — Darkneos

You seem to care about process philosophy, or you wouldn't be asking these questions. Why do you want to know? Nature doesn't care what you know or don't know, but it's a good idea to know what nature "cares" about. That is the point of philosophy: so that you may align yourself with it.

It appears that you're trying to understand this from an incompatible perspective. You have certain definitions you're reluctant to refine for this purpose. You seem stuck with your initial impressions and can't yet see a way around them. It's not that you're incapable; you just haven't done it yet. Understanding this perspective doesn't automatically validate process philosophy, but it will provide you with an additional lens through which to view the world. If it truly doesn't make sense to you now, set it aside and revisit it later. Don't stress over it, and maintain your curiosity.

The World is one Process - Alan Watts

I feel like process just needlessly complicates it. — Darkneos

It's not needless if it helps you understand what you're trying to comprehend.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

Well from an ethics and morality view, if stuff is just processes then it doesn't really matter since nothing lives or dies. — Darkneos

No, the point is that it's a living (biological) process, and even if it's not alive, it's still a non-living (non-biological) process. I would put it like this: 'If everything were just static, nothing would really matter since nothing would live or die.' Alternatively, 'If everything consists of processes, then everything matters because everything lives and dies.'

Processes don't feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc. Only individuals do. If they're just processes then who really gives a shit? — Darkneos

Can you explain what you mean when you say that processes don't feel hunger, thirst, etc.? Why do you think that? Please explain how a 'static living object' (which is a contradiction in terms) could feel hunger, thirst, etc. i, for one, care deeply because of processes, and wouldn't care at all if everything were static. I've explained my reasoning; now, please explain yours.

Makes less and less sense each time. — Darkneos

That's fine. Now, please explain how it makes sense the other way. Don't justify it based on what you care or don't care about, as that's purely subjective. Nature doesn't care about our personal preferences.

I read an earlier version of this back in the 90s, and it really helped me. I recommend that everyone read it. Although it's written for hackers, it is applicable in any field of interest.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

Let me put it like this. The stuff I care about: my dogs, my family, a boyfriend/husband, my hobbies, working out, my interest in computers, what does it mean for all that and more that I love? What does it mean for human relationships and morality or ethics? — Darkneos

If your dog were merely a static object, you wouldn't need to feed it, give it water, or show it love, because it wouldn't require these things. All those actions only have meaning if your dog is a delicate living process with needs to keep that process going. This is the foundation of your ethics and morality. Static objects do not feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc..

Not exactly from what people have told me. It's more complicated than that. — Darkneos

Of course it is, but you have to start somewhere. Begin with the general idea and then work your way down to the details. Based on what you've been told, explain to me what contradicts the concept of process philosophy.

I mean there are bodily processes sure. But as for the difference between dead and alive, that's a matter of perspective. — Darkneos

Is there a perspective from which it appears that there are no processes?

From what I gather it's complicated. If I were taken apart I'd be dead and would cease to be. — Darkneos

Therefore, you are not a static object because you can be dismantled, at which point you would cease to exist. This indicates that you were constructed at some point through a process and can be deconstructed again through another process. The reason you would cease to exist is that the process that allows you to be would be utterly disrupted.

Some articles say “from things to events” and I’m left wondering what it means to see “things” as events. — Darkneos

At first sight, it is reasonable to assume that "things" are static objects. It is also easy to see that things interact with each other through events. All this is apparent at the macro scale we inhabit. If we leave it at that, we can conclude that events depend on things. However, if we peer deeply into matter, as i have already explained, we can see that atoms are not static and appear to be made of smaller components interacting with each other as well.

We can continue this process, examining smaller and smaller scales. Eventually, we reach a point where we encounter entities that are not made of anything smaller. We could stop there and say that these fundamental particles have always existed, with a specific number of them that cannot increase or decrease. However, we know that these particles can annihilate with their antiparticles, so it doesn't seem like they are fundamentally "things" as we initially perceive "things" to be at first sight.

If my brain was dead so would I because I’d be dead. — Darkneos

So, then what would be the difference between you dead and you alive? Don't you think there is some kind of process involved? How can one go from a state of not existing (pre-conception) to living, and back to not existing (death)?

If I were to atomize you with my ray gun, would you still exist after that? If so, then how? If not, then why not? Yes, your atoms will still exist, but will you? How can static objects account for this kind of transience?

I can’t follow what I don’t even really understand — Darkneos

You are not ready to understand. It's not your time yet. It's okay, just keep at it. It's a process.

By definition no, but I’m doubting the existence of mind. — Darkneos

Ah, so then what is the difference between what a dead brain does and what a living one does? If your brain stopped processing (or living), what would happen to your autism? Would it remain the same?

I couldn’t say, since no one has really been able to explain it or answer my questions. — Darkneos

Why are you depending so much on the understanding of others? Can you see the question in your own mind (or brain)? Can you identify what is keeping you from understanding? When you think about process philosophy and follow its mechanics, where do you feel you get stuck? That's where your question lies. Show me that question.

The mind is physical, it’s the brain. — Darkneos

Does a dead brain have a mind?


Perhaps you don't agree with Whitehead's formulation of process philosophy, and that's fine. However, you write as if it's the only possible way to understand it. I don't particularly care what Whitehead said about process philosophy. Before i even knew who he was, i already had the idea that most, if not all things are processes of some sort occurring at different rates and scales. I try to think from a first principles perspective, not from the perspective of a particular scientist or philosopher. Consensus is not proof, or even evidence of anything. In fact consensus is a process that inevitably changes throughout history and time. Even your own understanding of this subject is a process of development regardless of what temporary conclusions you come to.

If you know something that i don't, i'd like to know it as well. Can you tell me, from your own understanding, what your reasoning is against the idea of process philosophy? I also asked if you knew of anything that does not undergo some form of process, something static that does not change in any way?

Maybe it would also help if you asked a specific and focused question. A question that addresses the exact crux of your issue with the general idea of process philosophy as you understand it.

Sneaker Pimps - SOS


Sneaker Pimps - So Far Gone


Sneaker Pimps - Spin Spin Sugar

That was excellent PoeticUniverse. Very good.. :smile: :100:

Although i agree with you, i'm not sure what to say or how to say it. I'm certain you already know this but, this scene from the "Little Buddha" came to mind:


I didn't particularly like this film, but i did love this scene. It's just a reminder for those that know, and a lesson for those that don't.

SEVDALIZA - SHAHMARAN


SEVDALIZA - HUMAN

Really great post! — PoeticUniverse

Thank you, although i'm sure others might not agree. :smile:

Do the one-third charges of quarks make them suspect of not being elemental/fundamental? — PoeticUniverse

For me, the existence of multiple "fundamental" particles, at least as presented in the Standard Model, suggests that none of them are truly fundamental in the strictest sense. I believe absolute fundamentality can only really be found in the void itself, as a property of space one might say.

Well, we know that everything is made of atoms, but what are atoms made of?

We know that atoms are made of nucleons (neutrons and protons) and electrons. Focusing on the nucleons, we know that they are made up of quarks, but what are the quarks made of? Now things might get a little tricky. According to scientific consensus, quarks are considered fundamental particles, meaning they are not made of anything smaller. But if a quark is not made of anything (has no parts), then what is the substance of a quark? It can't be made up of infinite smaller things in an infinite regress.

The substance of a quark is its properties. But then, what are these properties made of? We know that a property is a characteristic or attribute that describes or determines the nature and behavior of something. But what is it that has the property? A property is its own substance.

The answer is that properties are what is fundamental, and thus it is the properties that have particles, not the particles that have properties. But what does that even mean?

It means that this perspective is an inversion of the usual way we think about matter. Instead of particles having properties, it's more accurate to say that properties manifest as particles. In other words, quarks (and other fundamental particles) are the physical manifestation of these fundamental properties in the fabric of spacetime (the void).

According to my current understanding of quantum mechanics, it is not possible for a fundamental particle to be completely static and motionless due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even at temperatures close to absolute zero (which is unreachable in practice), particles retain a minimum amount of quantum energy. This energy manifests as small fluctuations or vibrations, preventing particles from being truly static. In quantum field theory particles are excitations of underlying quantum property fields rather than discrete, static objects.

Is there anything that you know about which does not undergo some kind of process, or that is not in some kind of flux state?

Rising Appalachia: Scale Down

Reestar - Katatonija (Original Mix)

Paolo Baldini DubFiles Song Embassy Medley #1