Could you re-word? — Gnomon
How is it that a Great Programmer is sitting around? Wouldn't he need a zillion times more explaining than humans getting explained through him? — PoeticUniverse

You think the Programmer is "sitting around" doing nothing? You may be thinking of Jehovah, who created paradise in six days, and then on Sunday went out to play golf. Whitehead's God never takes a day off; creating is what S/he does 24/7/365.

The Programmer doesn't explain, S/he creates, and It's up to us thinking beings to interpret the meaning of the doing. Metaphorically, the world itself is the Bible, and Science writes the book, chapter & verse of the Revelation. You want an explanation? Do it yourself. You won't be saved by faith in an invisible deity, or by kow-towing, or by sacrificing animals ; but you might get some philosophical satisfaction : you have a (minor) role in the evolution of a cosmos.

But, Whitehead's "God", and my "Programmer", are not just "sitting around" on golden thrones watching the game of Life. They get their hands dirty by continually creating a cosmos via the incremental process of Evolution. The God of the Process is both Immanent (what you see) and Transcendent (what you infer), as is my Programmer.

The program is a set of ideas, from the mind of the programmer, that govern the process of Evolution from a Singularity, to a quark-gluon Plasma, then to atoms & molecules & elements of matter, then on to vast systems of stars, and eventually to living & thinking lumps of matter on a single Blue Planet. And the beat goes on. . . . . But this story puts the Paradise at the end of the Process : its output. I don't know what The End might be. Perhaps the Process is the reason for doing the program.

If you are still imagining Whitehead's God as an old guy with a long white beard, your puzzled question might make sense, to you. But to me, it misses the point of a perpetual Process, instead of a space-time Thing. Try thinking of Lao Tse's Tao instead. Then re-phrase your question. :wink:


Alfred North Whitehead's "process and reality" philosophy views the universe as a dynamic, evolving web of interconnected processes, emphasizing the importance of becoming and change over static existence, with each event, or "actual occasion," contributing to the ongoing creative process of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+evolution

explain how Life & Mind could emerge from material processes, without divine intervention — Gnomon
Isn't it then a larger question of how the Divine Life & Mind could be so without a regress to HIGHER and GREATER, etc? We only see the polar opposite of the smaller and smaller as a basis. — PoeticUniverse

Coincidentally, after writing the post above, I went back to reading a novel on Kindle : The Magic Mountain. There's no supernatural magic in the story, but the author writes in a rambling & erudite style that I call "poetic prose". It's set at a TB sanitarium in the Swiss alps in the 1920s, just prior to WWI. {around the time Whitehead was writing his Process. } This was before DNA (genetic information) was discovered. So, the emergence of life from non-life was a mystery. . . . and it still is.

The young patient, inspired by a conversation with the head doctor, begins to read a book about Anatomy and Genetics. The passage below is a sort of inner dialog as he reads. Today, we still haven't found the "element" that fills the gap between Life & Non-life. Yet, my thesis postulates that the gap-filler is not a physical particle, but the mathematical, meaningful & causal relationships we call Information and Energy. The "units" are 1s and 0s, something & nothing, that together add-up to everything (all possible forms). It's not magic, but an evolutionary continuum, combining concepts of Science and Philosophy (abiogenesis). :nerd:


"As long as one spoke of living units, one could not correctly speak of elementary units, for the concept of unity carried with it in perpetuity the concept of subordinated, upbuilding unity; and there was no such thing as elementary life, in the sense of something that was already life, and yet elementary. And still, though without logical existence, something of the kind must be eventually the case; for it was not possible to brush aside like that the idea of the original procreation, the rise of life out of what was not life. That gap which in exterior nature we vainly sought to close, that between living and dead matter, had its counterpart in nature’s organic existence, and must somehow either be closed up or bridged over. Soon or late, division must yield “units” which, even though in composition, were not organized, and which mediated between life and absence of life; molecular groups, which represented the transition between vitalized organization and mere chemistry. But then, arrived at the molecule, one stood on the brink of another abyss, which yawned yet more mysteriously than that between organic and inorganic nature: the gulf between the material and the immaterial."
The Magic Mountain, by Thomas Mann, 1924

explain how Life & Mind could emerge from material processes, without divine intervention — Gnomon
Isn't it then a larger question of how the Divine Life & Mind could be so without a regress to HIGHER and GREATER, etc? We only see the polar opposite of the smaller and smaller as a basis. — PoeticUniverse

I don't understand the question. Could you re-word?

Regarding divine intervention, I suppose you are thinking of Miracles that bypass Natural Laws. But Whitehead's Process does not require miracles . . . . unless you think transforming Atoms into Ideas over billions of years is a miracle. The evolutionary Process is a result of combining causal Energy with limiting Laws and statistical randomizing to produce novel results.

My amateur thesis*1 explains the ancient Cartesian duality of spiritual Mind vs material Body in modern natural scientific terms. My explanation is that both manifestations (mental & material) are different forms of the same essential substance*2 : the power to enform. Today, we call the Mind stuff "Information". But scientists have discovered that abstract Information (e.g. 1s & 0s) can be transformed into Energy (change) and Matter (molecules). { links upon request }

Plato's Eternal Form is formless Potential, which can be actualized into the things we know in the space-time Real world via our senses, tuned by evolution to detect energy in various forms. No "divine intervention" required, except in the form of gradually-transforming natural Evolution over billions of years. The Enformationism thesis is an introduction to that notion, which is expanded in subsequent blog posts. :smile:

*1. Evolution of the Enformationism concept :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self.
One thing that all of these examples of leading-edge science have in common is a prominent role for Information. Not the mundane stuff you get on Google, but the essential stuff as defined by Claude Shannon. In his analysis of communication, he saw that data flows in a manner similar to electricity in wires. Meaningful information is equivalent to potent Energy as opposed to depleted Entropy. Yet in a larger context, Information also has the ability to give meaningful or useful or valuable form or shape to some raw, unformed material. Information is full of potential as opposed to the emptiness of Entropy. Inspired by that potent metaphor, along with some insights from Quantum Theory, I have concluded that Energy actually consists of Elemental Information. On the most basic levels, such as laws of physics, that invisible “in-formation” is equivalent to the numerical relationships we call mathematics. According to my developing thesis of Enformationism [see Note 1], as we zoom our perspective from micro (smallest) to macro (human scale) to cosmic (largest), the information we find becomes more and more condensed, compressed, and solid, and then it begins to fade away back into the same ethereal stuff it began from. This is an essential part of the cycle of evolution: the Ourobouros (snake biting tail) information cycle---what goes around, comes around. In other words, evolution begins and ends as information. In the process, this proto-energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form–-like Proteus, the shape-shifting sea-god of the ancient Greeks.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page5.html

*2. In Aristotle's philosophy, substance refers to the fundamental, independent entities that exist, while essence is what makes a substance what it is, its defining characteristics or "nature"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+essence+and+substance

Is Whitehead’s deity’s Earth doomed? — PoeticUniverse

Whitehead's deity is not limited to Earth. On this forum, we are concerned about the fate of Earth because that is where the philosophical observers live. His "deity" is a cosmic principle, like Plato's Form & First Cause and Aristotle's Prime Mover. As such, they are not directly affected by our little local problems. But, since we humans are the representatives of deity on Earth, if our little corner of Paradise is "doomed" it reflects badly on the Cosmic Cause. Sadly, we can't expect a second coming of a savior to whisk us away to Heaven or Mars, whichever is properly terraformed.

Whitehead referred to his God as a "principle of concretion", coalescence, coming together. So, I'm wondering if it could be the same cohesive principle that Jan Smuts called "Holism", as the organizing progressive principle of Evolution, and may also be the cause of quantum Entanglement. Perhaps also what physicist David Bohm called "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". They all viewed the Earth as one component of a cosmic system, in which, as Benjamin Franklin noted after the English army invaded the colonies : "we either hang together or we hang separately". :worry:


In Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, the deity is a "principle of concretion," a force that transforms potential into actuality {CAUSATION}, offering guidance through persuasive power, and is both independent of and dependent on the world
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+deity
Note --- my bracket

Wholeness and Holism :
This post is my attempt to reconcile David Bohm’s quantum physics explanation of Wholeness (entanglement) with Jan Smuts’ notion of Holism (organisms) in Evolution. I’m much more familiar with the latter than the former. But they seem to be talking about the same kinds of mysterious forces & processes in Nature. In Biology, something seems to be missing in Darwin’s theory, to explain how Life & Mind could emerge from material processes, without divine intervention. In sub-atomic Physics, the missing “force” is whatever binds isolated particles into entangled pairs that have correlated properties, and mutually respond to changes without any apparent exchanges of information or energy. The pairs seem to act as a single whole object, and are interdependent. For Evolution, the missing “force” is whatever combines bits of inert matter into living and thinking organisms. In both cases, the material substrate is physically observable (explicit), but the immaterial system is only rationally inferable (implicit).
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page37.html

So, here we are, facing obliteration. We will have to colonize space in this century. If not, well, if there can be one Earth then there can be another. . . . .
We are this universe come to life—
Necessarily from a long line
Of ‘fortunate accidents’ — PoeticUniverse

Earth may be facing obliteration because its upstart little gods have been progressively successful in taking control over paternal Nature, who sired them. As flourishing families grow, despite setbacks, they have to add-on to the cabin, until it becomes a mansion.

So, the local success of artificial Culture could be exported to other worlds, such as Mars, via TerraForming. Our ambitious little-god-minds have historically expanded their range to inhabit undeveloped regions of the boundless universe. Mars-bound Musk is nothing if not aspiring, and successful, despite stumbling blocks and exploding rockets, and dismantled federal departments.

The poetry of the world is a record of ups & downs, ascensions & declinations, as experienced by its sentient creatures. And the immanent end of the world has been foretold many times in the last 2500 years. Yet, we humans no longer wait for fortunate accidents to evolve the world. We take the bit in mouth, and go our own way ; getting back up when we stumble. As Kurzweil arrogantly announced : "the singularity is near, when humans transcend biology!". If we don't annihilate our organic selves first. :wink:


Alfred North Whitehead's conception of God, central to his process philosophy, rejects divine omnipotence, viewing God as a "poet of the world" who persuasively guides creation rather than coercively controlling it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+concept+of+god

Throughout history, various individuals and groups have made predictions about the end of the world, often based on religious or cultural interpretations, including the Mayans, and others who predicted the end of the world in 2012.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=end+of+world+predictions

And we thought that Ada Lovelace was the first programmer. (Babbage's machine was never built!) — PoeticUniverse

Babbage (or was it the lovely lady Lovelace?) called his cranky (mechanical) computer a "difference engine" (a differential is a sign of change in a variable). But, long before that long-forgotten nomenclature, the original Programmer created a world that evolves by calculating differentials (where "1" = something, and "0" = nothing). By subconsciously imitating the creator, automobile makers devised a strange kind of gear (the differential) that allows wheels to rotate at different rates as the car goes around a curve. Today, we have Artificial Intelligence that computes evolutionary systems via either floating point differentials (vectors) or genetic algorithms (a search heuristic inspired by natural selection). So, human programmers continue to emulate the First Programmer. :nerd:


Religion and Science : by Alfred North Whitehead
Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science. . . . .
My second reason for the modern fading of interest involves the ultimate question of what we mean by religion. Religion is the reaction of human nature to its search for God. The presentation of God as an all-powerful arbitrary tyrant behind the unknown forces of nature awakens every modern instinct of critical reaction.
https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/theology-philosophy/alfred-north-whitehead/


DO THE NEW QUANTUM COMPUTERS REMIND YOU OF THE OLD DIFFERENCE ENGINE?

But it also needs to be made clear that Trump has no intention of balancing the budget. Yes, Trump-Musk will take the chainsaw to many government programs and agencies, but his tax cuts are so deep that they will more than offset any savings. The inexorable trend under the plutocracy will be dismantling welfare programs AND reducing taxes. It's plain who will benefit from that. — Wayfarer

You may be right. But national & international economics are over my little pointy head-in-sand. Yet, I don't despair, because for every bull-in-the-china-shop, there may be someone with a red cape to guide the bull away from the fragile stuff. We can hope that there are a few of the 2%, or the fourth estate, who have enough common sense to see where tariffs & tax cuts & deportations are going, and the clout to take Trumpsk by the horns. In my fantasy of history, there have always been "heroes" on both sides of the political aisle, who practice Aristotelian moderation instead of political house-cleaning and populist swamp-draining.

The current worldwide rightward trend --- perhaps even in OZ --- may lead to a disaster like Hitler, but somehow the world will find a way to keep-on keeping-on, zig-zagging from left to right and back. Remember the grandeur-that-was-Rome? The path of history, when seen in retrospect, cycles between extremes, yet on average it seems to be on a moderate track, with few points of total anarchy. Even so, like a tornado that fortunately misses my house, Trumpnado may leave a wake of destruction behind. But, don't look to me to quell the storm. :cool:

So, good fortune was needed, as always, in this and many more instances, such as the Earth having to have the right conditions in the first place, out there among the huge waste elsewhere which wasn’t really such a waste after all, it providing so many chances for there to be a workable planet for life such as Earth. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Who's to say that billions of solar cycles without Life (to process matter into viable entities) or Mind (to notice the passage of time) was a waste? Since randomness (chance ; fortune) seems necessary for evolution to work as Darwin observed, perhaps the de-selected options were useful as examples of un-fitness. And Quantum Randomess*1 seems to be intrinsic to the fundamental processes of Nature. Again, a feature (fitness function*2), not a bug.

As far as I know, nothing in Whitehead's Cosmology is contrary to established facts of science. What may be antithetical are some of his metaphysical interpretations, that contradict the philosophical assumptions of Materialism*3. Ancient Atomism/Materialism beliefs were undermined by Quantum Physics, which found not hard little balls of stuff, but bits of Energy and Fields where something happens : statistical processes (fortune). :smile:


*1. Quantum Randomness :
Unlike classical randomness, which can often be attributed to a lack of information or complexity, quantum randomness is an intrinsic property of the quantum world
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+randomness+meaning

*2. Evolutionary Programming :
The fitness function evaluates the quality of the potential solutions, assigning scores that direct the algorithm toward an optimal path. As the algorithm evolves through multiple generations, the fitness function influences which solutions survive, reproduce, and contribute to the next iterations.
https://medium.com/@sowmy3010/fitness-functions-in-genetic-algorithms-evaluating-solutions-1b998f38d6b9
Note --- Natural Selection is a fitness function.

*3. Process vs Objects :
Whitehead argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

Whitehead's deity had to wait three billion more years for a third generation metal-rich sun-star to form along with its planets, another great milestone, granting him great relief. His zillions of previous Bang attempts hadn’t worked out, but he had finally put the right amount of energy into the latest Bang. — PoeticUniverse

Compared to the instant Paradise of Genesis, the gradual evolution of Darwin seems to be fecklessly going nowhere slowly. But my evaluation of Evolutionary Creation is that the point is the Process (becoming), not any predestined Product (paradise). Consequently, I imagine the process more like a computer program that runs as an Application instead of a Solution. Hence, your personal sentient experience is just one thread of many, on the forum of Life. :wink:

PS___Time is not a thing, but a process, that is meaningless until a mind emerges to mark its increments.

Birthing a Cosmos :
Whitehead described our enforming⁷ cosmos as a living organism. From our human perspective, the process of pro-creating a universe is what we call Evolution. Based on the notion of gestation, we can imagine the Big Bang Singularity as a seed, egg, or sperm. And the event itself as a quickening (first signs of life). So, our universe is portrayed as an embryonic fetus that must develop in the womb before being born into whatever comes next. Yet the inseminator at the inception of our world should not be portrayed as literally anthro-morphic, and it would be a mistake to attribute human psychological & emotional characteristics to a timeless, dis-embodied Intellect. However, if you think of the evolutionary Process as a computer Program, an appropriate metaphor might represent the system designer as a Programmer.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

Empowered by President Trump, Mr. Musk is waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy — one that has already had far-reaching consequences.

I am by nature apolitical. So, I observe current events in government as-if a back & forth football game, in which I have no allegiance to either side.

Yet, it recently occurred to me that Trump is trying to return the federal US administration to its Spartan form under William McKinley. Until the Great Depression, and four terms of Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government was mostly limited to representing the federated states to the outside world, including military operations. So it had little to do with the average citizen, and no budget for social programs. That was left to churches and the individual states. Billionaire oligarchs & magnates seem to view themselves as basically self-sufficient independent entities (including tax evasion), so they can be expected to support a McKinley-type administration politically, if not financially.

Since FDR used back-channel federal powers to provide financial aid to individual citizens, and to prop-up failing banks, we have become addicted to a social-support system at the top. But spending federal money on common people instead of military was never intended by the Constitutional conventions, attended mostly by the 2% aristocracy. It was an emergency adaptation that became a feature of liberal government.

Those emergency powers were popular with the masses of common people, so unconstitutional programs like Social Security are almost impossible to terminate long after the emergency has been survived. And they were financially feasible only as long as the US was the top colonial super-power in the world. But now that the US is a debtor nation, the social services are being paid for with borrowed money.

Therefore, although I benefit from social security, I am appalled at Trumpsk heavy-handed axing. Yet, I must admit that something must be done to keep the nation solvent. And perhaps only an elected dictator, and an un-elected henchman, could be expected to mandate such an overhaul of federal finances. FDR's dictatorial policies were allowed only because even the oligarchs could see the hand-writing on the wall, foretelling the total failure of empire unless some "hero" could be found to do what was necessary. Do you see any other route to federal solvency? :smile:



William McKinley was the 25th president of the United States, serving from 1897 until his assassination in 1901. A member of the Republican Party, he led a realignment that made Republicans largely dominant in the industrial states and nationwide for decades. ___Wikipedia

You've explained options via randomness, but not the choice between options which is taken. How can randomness account for the very act of deciding while yet accounting for one's responsibility in light of the decision made? — javra

When you come to a fork in a raging river, if you don't make a conscious (responsible) choice, the river will make it for you. :cool:

1) How could randomness (“chance” so understood) allow for one’s responsibility (in the sense of culpability or praiseworthiness) for the options one decides upon? — javra

Absolute Determinism would be one-damn-thing-after-another. Randomness is non-linear, so there are forks in the path. Those forks are opportunities for Choice. If there is an option, you may be forced to choose by pressure from the past, but left vs right would be a "free" choice. :joke:

My aim in this thread is not to convince anybody I'm correct. — flannel jesus

Hey! You had me at "free". :blush:

Nobody is completely free from determinism. But quantum particles are partly free in the sense that their existence & behavior are probabilistic : determined by the roll of the dice, with options, such as 7 or 11. Likewise, human behavior is causally determined by a long line of prior probabilistic events. So Chance, by definition, is not deterministic, it's non-compulsory. Change is inevitable, but Chance is optional. Where there are options, there is freedom. The door opens, but you can choose to walk through it, or not. :smile:

The great slowness of the universe's creation so far here and ever plodding more in the tale, up to taking billions of years for life to come about seems to indicate no Divine involvement, leaving it up to my Great Poet ancestor, I guess. — PoeticUniverse

To those trained in abstract & abstruse mathematics, instantaneous Inflation Theory may sound like a viable alternative to Creation myths. But for those not so trained, to go from an atom of matter to a proto-universe in a fraction of a millisecond sounds like faster-than-light Magic, shrouded in gobbledygook : "let there be stuff". Who wrote the love-story between nuclei, and where did the sexual energy come from? :joke:

For non-mathematical philosophers, IT seems to be a solution to a non-problem*1. Flatness & homogeneity are to be expected in a Whitehead universe, created with intention rather than accident. I agree that the slowness & gradualness of physical evolution seem to weigh against the Genesis account of light-speed Creation. But Whitehead's progressive Process has all the time in the world to reach its functional goal. What is Life, if not matter with time on its hands? Perhaps, his "Great Poet" deity had a sense of humor to allow for hominids who could spin fantastic stories about inflating deuterium balloons, who fall in love and live happily ever after. :wink:


*1. Criticism of the inflation theory in cosmology centers on its lack of empirical testability, the vast number of possible models, and the potential for a multiverse, making it difficult to falsify or verify.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of the criticisms:

Lack of Testability and Falsifiability:
One major concern is that the theory relies on a hypothetical "inflaton field" with a potential energy curve that seems to be adjusted to fit available data, making it difficult to test or falsify.

The theory's proponents argue that inflation is a necessary explanation for the universe's flatness and homogeneity, but critics argue that these problems can be addressed by other models.
The concept of a multiverse, where inflation creates countless universes with varying properties, further complicates the issue of testability, as any outcome could be predicted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=inflation+theory+criticism

Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks. — PoeticUniverse

What "perfect" or "elegant" universe are you comparing our mediocre world to? From a human perspective, with a 100year lifetime, this natural & artificial habitat may not be as perfect as the Garden of Eden. Which, as you know, was spoiled by the introduction of Reason and FreeWill. What if the point of the creation was not to provide a habitat for plants & animals & hominids, but to program a world capable of evolving little gods, empowered by Reason & FreeWill? That would imply a different kind of Creator from the one described in the Bible*1.

Whitehead's deity is not the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob*2. His postulated (not revealed) God was not modeled on the tyrannical kings of antiquity, but on philosophical necessity, to explain how & why our still-evolving world came to be as it appears to our modern Science. His necessary Being is what Blaise Pascal disparagingly called the do-nothing "god of the philosophers", perhaps in reference to Spinoza's Nature God. Pascal's "perfect" & "elegant" God was the triune Catholic savior of a world defiled by human Reason & errant Will. For Whitehead, those attributes may be a feature, not a bug in the system.

Even though he wrote prior to the cosmological evidence for a Big Bang beginning, Whitehead intuited that our space-time world was not self-existent. Hence, some pre-bang Cause was necessary to explain the process of evolution from a mathematical Singularity to the material complexity we see today*3. He doesn't describe that Cause in personal or material terms, but in functional language. Although, his General Functional Cause could be hypothetically materialized as Multiverses, or Many Worlds, or Cyclic Cosmology, if you are into that kind of far-out speculative conjecture. :wink:


*1. Alfred North Whitehead's conception of God, central to his process philosophy, rejects divine omnipotence, viewing God as a "poet of the world" who persuasively guides creation rather than coercively controlling it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+concept+of+god

*2. For Whitehead, God is not necessarily tied to religion. Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

*3. Whitehead's Cosmic Epochs :
Whitehead's philosophy included the notion of "cosmic epochs," which are finite, self-contained universes that process, become, and perish, potentially resembling the Big Bang to Big Crunch cycles in some multiverse models.
Dynamic Universe :
Whitehead's ideas about a dynamic, ever-changing universe align with the Big Bang theory, which posits that the universe began from a hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
No Direct Connection :
It's important to note that Whitehead's work predates the development of modern cosmology and the Big Bang theory, so he wasn't directly aware of these scientific concepts.
Multiverse Theories :
Some interpretations of Whitehead's philosophy, particularly his concept of "cosmic epochs," find a rough correspondence with certain multiverse theories, such as the oscillationist model (a series of Big Bang to Big Crunch epochs).
Whitehead's Influence :
Despite the lack of a direct connection, Whitehead's philosophical framework, with its emphasis on process and becoming, has influenced discussions about the nature of reality and the universe, including its relationship to the Big Bang.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+big+bang

Remember, our universe is just among the average ones that work for life. It just couldn’t form all the elements right away. — PoeticUniverse

Perhaps, but your hypothetical "average" universes (multiverses?) --- in alternative space-time bubbles? --- are just as questionable & non-empirical as Whitehead's eternal deity. I simply prefer the parsimonious functional (causal) explanation, without multiplying entities beyond necessity. :smile:

Well I logically prove that wrong in the linked post. Feel free to point out if its wrong and if Whitehead would be able to counter it. — Philosophim

Yes, it is logically possible that a God could exist, but we would need evidence of its existence. — Philosophim

I see you made an extensive argument against God, but I wouldn't call it a Proof in the mathematical sense. The conclusion is inherent in the assumptions. Different assumption, different conclusion.

Whitehead's evidence for God was logical, not empirical. Yet the evidence of causation is the empirical world itself, which begs the question of caused by what agent or action?. If you can prove that the universe is self existent, then there will be no need for a transcendent Creator. :smile:


An assumption is an unexamined belief: what we think without realizing we think it. Our inferences (also called conclusions) are often based on assumptions that we haven't thought about critically. A critical thinker, however, is attentive to these assumptions because they are sometimes incorrect or misguided.
https://library.louisville.edu/ekstrom/criticalthinking/assumptions

The notion of 'God' fails right off the bat, for it stems from the idea-template that something Greater is necessary to be for something lesser to be made of it; yet … — PoeticUniverse

I haven't seen any references in Whitehead's cosmology of the old "something greater" scholastic reasoning. His thinking was based on contemporary quantum and systems science, along with mathematical logic. Which necessarily pointed to "something a priori", in the sense of a First Cause.

But if you are referring to space-time "transcendence", the Big Bang theory "fails right off the bat" to explain the Source of the Energy (causation) and Laws (organization) necessary to produce a cosmic explosion that is still expanding after 14B years. All postulated explanations refer to something antecedent or transcendent to the Bang itself. Are Multiverses and Many Worlds "greater" than our uni-world? :smile:


"in regards to the concept of God, Whitehead once told him: “I should never have included it, if it had not been strictly required for descriptive completeness."
https://footnotes2plato.com/2011/07/16/1263/

Its much better to do philosophy then do philosophy about process. — Philosophim

Apparently, what Whitehead was doing in his Process Philosophy is what philosophers have been doing since Plato*1 : discover universal principles in the world and build a worldview upon that foundation. But if the world seems to be nothing but agitated atoms, then whatever happens "has no innate meaning or morality behind it". Although you might ask, whence the agitation? Plato found a First Cause to be logically necessary. For example, to explain any process evolving from simplicity toward complexity.

Moreover, the quantum physics (entanglement) and Systems Science (complexity) of Whitehead's era portrayed an evolving world more like an organism than a mechanism*2. Besides, Darwinian evolution is a progressive process, not just a random meandering*3. Hence, his postulation --- not an observation --- of a God as the "Soul" of the Cosmos. Since his eternal deity is an inference, instead of a space-time empirical fact, you are free to agree or disagree; depending on your personal inclination.

As a professional mathematician, Whitehead may be more percipient than most of us about the rational order of the universe. Even modern Chaos Theory*4 is based on the inherent order within apparent disorder. Some philosophers may focus mainly on the irrational aspects of Nature, but as a mathematician, Whitehead built his thesis upon the logical patterns, interconnectedness, and self-organization of natural processes. From such evidence, he concluded that some kind of rational intelligence must be "behind" it. But AFAIK he did not infer that abstract Reason (Logos) would require ego-propping worship. :smile:


*1a. Reformed Platonism :
In this sense, Whitehead’s reformed Platonism is similar to Schelling’s, who built on the description of the World-Soul and its role in the realization of Ideas given by Plato in the Timeaus (I unpack these ideas in this essay on Schelling). . . . .
One of Whitehead’s colleagues at Harvard, Ernest Hocking, reports that (Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on his Philosophy, 1963, p. 16), in regards to the concept of God, Whitehead once told him: “I should never have included it, if it had not been strictly required for descriptive completeness. You must set all your essentials into the foundation. It is no use putting up a set of terms, and then remarking, ‘Oh, by the way, I believe there’s a God.”
https://footnotes2plato.com/2011/07/16/1263/
*1b. In the Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe and an explanation of its impressive order and beauty. The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos, 28a6) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos). The governing explanatory principle of the account is teleological: the universe as a whole as well as its various parts are so arranged as to produce a vast array of good effects. For Plato this arrangement is not fortuitous, but the outcome of the deliberate intent of Intellect (nous), anthropomorphically represented by the figure of the Craftsman who plans and constructs a world that is as excellent as its nature permits it to be.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

*2. Holistic Systems Thinking :
The idea of the world evolving as a complex, interconnected organism rather than a simple mechanism, while a compelling and increasingly relevant metaphor, is rooted in the concept of systems thinking and the interconnectedness of ecological and social-economic processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+evolving+world+more+like+an+organism+than+a+mechanism

*3. Evolution as a Process, Not Just a Mechanism:
Evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of populations over time, driven by various factors, including natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow.
While Darwin's theory of natural selection is foundational, the understanding of evolution continues to evolve, with insights from fields like ecology, genetics, and systems science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+evolving+world+more+like+an+organism+than+a+mechanism
Note --- Directional determining Selection is the opposite of Indeterminate Random Chance

*4. Chaos theory explores the idea that within seemingly random, chaotic systems, there can be underlying patterns, interconnectedness, and self-organization, leading to order emerging from disorder
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=chaos+theory+order+in+disorder

Yes, as his 'answer to Hume'. As I said, I'm an admirer of Whitehead, at least of what I know of him, but I'm a bit uneasy about the panpsychist element, that's all. — Wayfarer

Me too. Which is why I developed my own alternative to the worldview of "all mind" by substituting "information" in place of "consciousness". According to my amateur philosophical thesis, both Mind and Matter are emergent forms of Generic Information (Causation), which is best known as Energy.

In that case, Consciousness is in effect a highly-evolved form of Energy (ability to cause change). If that sounds far-fetched, just imagine the Big Bang as a burst of Causation, with no known precedent. Then, after 13billion earth-years of material evolution, first Life and then Mind emerged & evolved on a blue planet in the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in the vastness of the space-time bubble we call the Universe. Hence, all known examples of Consciousness are found in terrestrial animated matter with complex brain tissue. And instances of Self-Consciousness are limited to a few cortex-wrapped brains that are capable of self-reference and self-knowing.

Of course, we can't know non-self consciousness, except by inference from intentional behavior. So, if rocks and atoms are conscious, they don't act like it. Therefore, I think Whitehead's notion of Prehension and "alternative modes of perception" (rational inference?) must apply only to entities capable of philosophical thinking : a sub-set of homo sapiens. Does that make sense to you? Does the imputed uniqueness of humanity seem arrogant --- from the perspective of a rock --- or perhaps reasonable enough to ease your philosophical mind? :smile:


Modern philosophical and scientific sensibility also professes to find some of Whitehead’s core doctrines fundamentally wrong-headed, most especially the panpsychism – the idea that mentality is a fundamental or ‘primitive’ feature of reality of which everything partakes in some measure and in some way. Whitehead himself never used the term ‘panpsychism’ to describe his own views so far as I know (see Hartshorne 1950).
https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/whitehead.htm

Realism :
Hartshorne's panpsychism is a form of realism, meaning he believes in the existence of a real world independent of our perception, but he views this world as composed of minds or psychic entities.
Critique of Idealism :
While Hartshorne shares some common ground with idealism, he distinguishes his panpsychism by accepting the reality of the world as perceived through our senses, rather than viewing it as merely ideas within a divine mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Hartshorne%2C+C.+%281950%29.+%E2%80%98Panpsychism%E2%80%99

Another popular position is so-called eternal oblivion. Simply put, there’s nothing at all after we die. After all, if it’s the body that produces consciousness, there’s no reason to believe in any continuity of life once the body ceases to function. — Zebeden

Some religions teach that the body is merely a temporary receptacle for the eternal soul --- which is temporarily oblivious to its heavenly history. Since I don't buy that unfalsifiable notion, I'll accept your implication that the conscious Mind is dependent on the sensory Body for Life, to extend the Mind over time, and to provide sensory inputs from which the Mind can create a worldview. In that case, Life, as we experience it, and Mind, as we know it, are dependent on a functioning World as a viable habitat for the body. Hence, no physical World, no metaphysical Mind.

The most generally accepted scientific hypothesis for the beginning of space-time is the Big Bang theory. But some thinkers are not satisfied with the something-from-nothing implication of that sudden emergence of Space (matter) and Time (change) from who-knows-where-&-why. So they ask a child-like question : what happened before the Bang? Those who do not believe in God or magical creation typically answer with a shrug : that the question is meaningless ; no Time = no Before. Likewise, what happens after Heat Death of the universe is unintelligible and incomprehensible.

Yet others may imagine that the timeline of our temporary universe is bounded on one end with eternal nowhereness and on the other end with infinite nothingness. However, in between those absent book-ends of the Space-Time-Line is a brief era of self-aware Mind (300,000 years and counting), whereas in the previous 14 billion years there was only Matter-occupying-space and Change-wasting-time, but zero Self-making-memories. That amounts to 0.00002142857 percent of Time with no knowledge of anything, including Myself. Nevertheless, during the current period of memory-making there must be a lot of meaning to forget, when the body ceases to support its brain functions. And some believe that I am what I remember. Hence, no remembrance, no Self : a zombie ghost.

If so, the possibility of "eternal oblivion" (absence of awareness) may be a valid philosophical topic for speculation, but with no scientific data to provide a grounding from which to conjecture. Hence, if "eternal oblivion" is possible-but-unprovable, why bother to worry about it? Unfortunately, most of us have been indoctrinated, not with abstract notions of nothingness, but with myths of eternal agonizing punishment, from which oblivion or obliteration would be a blessing, and not something to fret about. Yet, traditions of post-life oblivion or perpetual pain typically offer only blind faith, leap into the abyss, as the saving grace to avoid the void and the inferno. Does that make sense? :worry:

Whitehead was a logician and mathematician so he did not (to my knowledge) believe in ESP in the usual sense. — prothero

In my previous post, I opined that Whitehead did not mean that Magical ESP could reveal information & knowledge via non-physical channels. But perhaps there is another option. I've seen him described as an Idealist*1, but not as a Mystic*2. Is it possible that Whitehead believed that it was possible to commune directly with God?

He doesn't seem to be the type to revel in ecstasies & altered states. I occasionally (rarely) learn some relevant information via easy Intuition instead of effortful Reason. But I don't think of it as Mystical enlightenment, rather as "pattern-matching, in which case the motivated brain accesses long-buried data in long-term memory.

Perhaps ANW thought that all things were connected back to God (occasion of creation) , but not necessarily directly. :smile:

*1. Idealism :
In the third argument, the idealist holds that in the individual’s most-immediate experience, that of his own subjective awareness, the intuitive self can achieve a direct apprehension of ultimate reality, which reveals it to be spiritual. Thus, the mystic bypasses normal cognition, feeling that, for metaphysical probings, the elaborate processes of mediation interposed between sense objects and their perceptions reduce its reliability as compared with the direct grasp of intuition.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism/Basic-arguments

*2. ANW Mysticism? :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, particularly his concept of "process philosophy," while not explicitly focused on mysticism, can be seen as having mystical implications, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of direct experience and intuition
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+mystical

For Whitehead God is the source of “eternal objects’, somewhat akin to Platonic forms but actually deficient (potentials only). — prothero

That is similar to my notion of G*D : creator of our physical environment (Nature), but not meddling in day to day events. This is like a Programmer, who establishes the goal and the program, but allows the process (evolution) to play-out according to the rules of the program. :smile:

Whitehead was a logician and mathematician so he did not (to my knowledge) believe in ESP in the usual sense. — prothero

I assumed that he was not talking about magical Extrasensory Perception, but I'm still grasping at an understanding of "knowledge that is obtained by means 'outside' of sense perception"*1. Perhaps you can explain the distinction between "presentational" and "conceptual" immediacy, and what that has to do with obtaining knowledge. My post above replaced those terms with Perception (physical) and Conception (metaphysical). My guess is that the latter refers to Reasoning from received Information inputs to inferred Insights & Principles as Knowledge outputs. Does that sound like something Whitehead might mean? :nerd:

*1. Whitehead :
"He suggested that human experience involves two distinct modes of direct perception of the external world: presentational immediacy and conceptual immediacy"
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... perception

There is nothing in Whitehead which is completely counter to modern science now or then. It is the reductionist, deterministic, mechanistic view of nature which Whitehead rejects. — prothero

That's why I mentioned "Holism" in my post above, which includes the Ideas & Ideals & Meanings (culture) that are omitted from the scientific Reductionist view of nature. It encompasses both innate Matter and emergent Mind in the process of Evolution. Holism is the Synthetic tendency in evolution*2. It's how old stuff is transformed into new stuff. And how living organisms emerge from non-living matter. :wink:

*2. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a complex system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

What is free about Free Will in this scenario? From what is will free? — Patterner

All animals have WillPower : the ability to make voluntary movements of the body. In addition, human WillPower includes the ability to choose between imaginary scenarios, and to restrain internal impulses. Social freedom of Will is the ability to choose to disobey unfair laws. It does not include freedom from natural laws, such as gravity.

However, humans have learned how to temporarily evade gravity with wings & parachutes. When someone jumps out of an airplane, he wants (wills) to descend slowly enough to avoid injury. This is freedom from sudden cessation of motion. :grin:


Whitehead on FreeWill :
In Whitehead's view, God does not coerce or force events, but rather influences the universe through persuasion, offering possibilities and influencing the exercise of universal free will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+on+free+will
Note --- Apparently Whitehead thinks God is not a dictator, but merely an influencer. I assume such influence is on Social Media (human interactions ; metaphysics) not necessarily on Physics. :joke:

Does anyone else here feel that determinism, in its full intricacy, actually leaves room for more mystery rather than less? Or do you see it differently? — Matripsa

Our world is indeed deterministic, in the sense that every effect has a cause. But some effects have multiple causes. As a physical metaphor, consider the Mississippi river, which has multiple tributaries. So, when it floods in New Orleans, which prior cause do you blame : the river from Tennessee to the gulf, or Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, & Red? Or do you blame the hurricane that delivers above normal rain to the flood plain? Today, with professional weather observers and high-tech tools, we can track the blame even back beyond the hurricane, to local heat & humidity in the Atlantic ocean. So, like an Agatha Christie mystery, the determining cause is shrouded in complexity. It's "full intricacy". And don't forget the confounding side-effect/cause of individual Free Will. :smile:

So it won't be a discussion unless you put something forward other than disputes about the various uses of experience, try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. — prothero

I'm still not clear about Whitehead's distinction of "Prehension" from "Comprehension". Some definitions refer to "experiencing of past events", but that sounds like mundane Remembering (re-cognize) : secondary experience as a re-called-Idea-from-memory instead of a Real thing (original occasion).

So why coin the term "prehension" by omitting the "com", which in combination with reaching & grabbing would imply "grip together", as a whole instead of scattered pieces. Some of the definitions*1 I've seen seem to be referring to the ability to mentally grasp itemized Parts as elements of Whole*2 systems. Is that similar to your understanding? :smile:

*1. A "prehension" is basically the relation between actual entities, or the interconnectedness between all physical things, that determine their particular nature.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e7zq9z/what_did_alfred_whitehead_mean_by_prehension/

*2. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses novel properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

COM-PREHENSION = grasping together = unity, wholeness


PS___Jan Smuts was writing his book on Holism in evolution around the same time that Whitehead was writing his Process philosophy. So ANW may not have had "holism" in his vocabulary.

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object. — Corvus

Maybe the human mind is a metaphysical Xerox machine. It inputs an original (Real) experience and outputs one or more copies (Ideas, memories,conceptual images). Normally, we have no difficulty distinguishing the real thing from the copy.

But, sometimes, when we don't have the original for comparison, we may mistake the ideal copy for the real original. That's why some legal Xerox machines add a note or code to the copies saying "this is a copy". Unfortunately, for philosophers, nature has provided no easy way to discriminate the direct experience of a thing from the indirect re-experience (remember from memory). Remember the old recording tape ad : "is it real, or is it Memorex?" :smile:

Gnomon --- "Did Whitehead believe in extra-sensory perception*3? Based on what evidence?"

In an attempt to answer my own question, I have started reading ANW's The Concept of Nature
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Whitehead/Whitehead_1920/White1_02.html

The lecture goes on for several pages, so these excerpts are only from a few early paragraphs. As I get time, I'll read further. But for now, would you agree that Whitehead's "means outside of sense perception" does not refer to ESP (telepathy ; clairvoyance)? If so, then to what "means" does it relate : rational inference? :smile:

# "Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colours, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter."
Note --- Qualia are inferences from incoming sensory percepts. The term "as-if" implies that secondary attributes (qualia) are not in the material object, but in the observer. The term "attribute" implies that the observer imputes qualities to matter that are not actually properties of matter, but of the reasoning (inferring) mind. So, the Qualia are concepts, not percepts.
Apparently, light energy waves & frequencies are codes that the brain decodes as "secondary qualities" such as color. if so, then the "means outside of matter" are conceptual inferences not perceptual actualities. Hence, the brains of living organisms are designed by evolution to "read" the codes embedded in energy as information useful to an organic creature.

# "Berkeley's polemic against matter was based on this confusion introduced by the transmission theory of light. He advocated, rightly as I think, the abandonment of the doctrine of matter in its present form. He had however nothing to put in its place except a theory of the relation of finite minds to the divine mind.
But we are endeavouring in these lectures to limit ourselves to nature itself and not to travel beyond entities which are disclosed in sense-awareness.
Note --- No recourse to super-natural sources of knowledge

# "What then is the general character of that something of which we are aware? We do not ask about the percipient or about the process, but about the perceived."
Note --- IOW, we tend to think in terms of physical (material) not metaphysical (mind)

# "For us the red glow of the sunset should be as much part of nature as are the molecules and electric waves by which men of science would explain the phenomenon. It is for natural philosophy to analyse how these various elements of nature are connected."
Note --- Matter is one “element of nature”, but Mind is also a direct descendant from the origin of space-time. Hence, both elements are "inter-connected" parts of the whole system of Nature.

# "The theory of psychic additions would treat the greenness as a psychic addition furnished by the perceiving mind, and would leave to nature merely the molecules and the radiant energy which influence the mind towards that perception. My argument is that this dragging in of the mind as making additions of its own to the thing posited for knowledge by sense-awareness is merely a way of shirking the problem of natural philosophy."
Note --- Again, no recourse to magical extrasensory perception. And yet, you could interpret Rational Inference as a sixth sense. That would make sense in my Enformationism worldview, in which all matter & energies are encoded with information conducive to Evolution.

PS___ Unfortunately, the notion of Encoded Energies may sound spooky and supernatural. It's true that some psychics & spiritualists use such terms to describe communications "outside" of normal natural channels. But that's not what I'm talking about. Instead, it's merely a way to describe how the human mind can "see" color in the wavelengths of light, by interpreting encoded frequencies into the mental qualia we "know" as color, even though the light energy itself has no inherent color. The code (patterns of information) may be essentially mathematical ratios, such as the Fibonacci sequence that encodes for spiraling forms in plants and rocks.

From the Pinocchio Theory
Whitehead on Causality and Perception by Steven Shaviro
Not too long maybe 15 pages, I find Shaviro to be an unusually clear and perceptive author about Whitehead and several others as well
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274 — prothero

Human sense-perception, limited in many ways*1, is inherently incomplete. And there's always the danger of deliberate fake news. So deep thinkers have always sought to get their (perfect, ideal) information directly from the horse's (god's) mouth. I feel their pain, but how do we arrange to obtain that complete and untainted information? Does prayer help? To which god?

Or do we have to rely on hunches & intuition*2? Which merely bypass the conscious rational channels in order to access "past knowledge" obtained in the usual manner, by means of sensory organs. Did Whitehead believe in extra-sensory perception*3? Based on what evidence?

Plato's imaginary ideal-reality, hidden behind the illusions of the cave, is a nice metaphor. But how can we really release the shackles of sense perception that are obscured by ignorance and emotional coloration? I understand Plato to be recommending logical empirical Science as an antidote to religious myths & dogmas. Not extrasensory perception. :wink:


*1. Whitehead on Causality and Perception :
Western philosophy in general is so preoccupied with the question of error, because it is deeply concerned with the unreliability of immediate experience – or of the body and the senses. From Plato’s allegory of the cave, through Descartes’ radical doubt about the evidence provided by his physical organs, right on up to Thomas Metzinger’s claim that experience is nothing but an internal, virtual-reality simulation, philosophers have been haunted by the idea that sense perception is delusional – and that, as a result, our beliefs about the world might well be radically wrong.
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274

*2. Intuition works by the brain rapidly comparing current experiences to stored patterns from past experiences, essentially acting as a pattern-matching system that generates a quick, often unconscious "gut feeling" about a situation, without needing conscious reasoning; this "knowing" is based on accumulated knowledge and past learning, allowing for instinctive decisions based on similar situations encountered before
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+intuition+work

*3. Extrasensory perception (ESP) is the idea that people can perceive the world beyond their five senses. It's also known as a sixth sense or cryptaesthesia.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extra-sensory+perception

We wonder about the implementation of mind and consciousness, and, while interesting, that is only about the nature of the messenger, the implementation; however, there is the message that the messenger brings to us.
The potential for what we have now had to be there in the beginning. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. That's the point of my Enformationism ontology. It accepts Plato's conjecture of ideal eternal Form*1, which I also posit as infinite Potential (all power). One physical form of Potential in space-time is Energy, the process of Causation, by which all things, including Minds, are enformed.

Some imagine that timeless Power Source as a god-like Demiurge (artisan), but Plato seemed to deliberately describe it in functional (such as "First Cause") rather than anthro-morphic terms. Since we have no direct evidence of anything prior to the cosmic-explosion-of-all-real-forms (Big Bang), I think philosophers (non-theologians) would do well to follow Plato's lead.

Whatever the "messenger" is, the message is written in the form of Causation, and the meaning takes the form of conceptual Information. In the Information Age*2, I think it's appropriate to think of the process of Evolution as a computer program, and the "messenger" as a Programmer. That software & hardware engineer may not have a physical Brain, but it must have a Mind of some kind. :smile:

Note --- a computer program is an ideal (mathematical) form of the final output. Like all equations, the ultimate solution is potentially in the idealized program, which computes the actual output (final form ; reality) line-by-line. For example, in physical Evolution, the pre-bang Singularity contained (in mathematical form) everything (information ; data) needed to produce the cosmic process we call a universe. :nerd:

*1. Form :
Plato's ontology posits a reality beyond our physical world, the "Realm of Forms," containing perfect, eternal, and unchanging concepts or ideals, which are more real than the imperfect, changing objects we perceive
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+ontology

*2. Information Age : the modern age regarded as a time in which information has become a commodity that is quickly and widely disseminated and easily available especially through the use of computer technology.
Merriam-Webster dictionary

Whitehead implies we interact with nature in other ways and have forms of knowledge that come to us from outside of “the sense perception theory of knowledge”. — prothero

Back when I read Process and Reality, I didn't com-prehend much of the non-standard vocabulary coined to express his novel & non-standard ideas : such as "prehension"*1. 20 years later, after writing my own personal worldview thesis --- with incomprehensible coinages of my own --- I'm beginning to make some sense of his unusual understanding of Reality.

In my personal worldview, there was no comprehension of concepts in the universe until homo sapiens emerged around 300,000 years ago. As scientists have described that era, several species of homo began to walk out of Africa on two legs toting large brains on top of their spinal communication channels. Those bicameral brains with wrap-around cognitive cortex seem to be the laboratories of language, where occasional experiences are categorized into classes & concepts, and stored for later use in similar situations.

I am not aware of any divine revelations of knowledge by channels other than the physical senses. But that incoming information is a form of Energy (causation), which is transformed by brain functions into Meaning (cognition). I can't detail the cerebral mechanism for that transformation, but it seems to boil down to digital relationships & mathematical ratios : (1/0 ; +/-). Anyway, in my theory, it's all Information all the way down.

I'm not familiar with Whitehead's numinous notion of knowledge that is obtained by means "outside" of sense perception : Presentational & Conceptual Immediacy*2. Can you explain it to me? Does it involve Intuition, as mentioned in the "Bicameral Brain" discussion in this thread? :smile:



*1. Prehension :
an interaction of a subject with an event or entity which involves perception but not necessarily cognition.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note ---
Prehension = to grasp by sensory perception ; perhaps by interaction
Comprehension = to know with cognition by conception : symbolic idea creation

Whitehead :
"He suggested that human experience involves two distinct modes of direct perception of the external world: presentational immediacy and conceptual immediacy"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+knowledge+outside+sense+perception

It seems we are both monists of various persuasions and reject dualism. I think our conceptions and language for our positions may make it difficult to find common ground or terminology..
Do you entertain the notion of panpsychism?
Are you familiar with the basic elements of process philosophy?
I am not a professional philosopher and have just sketchy outlines of the fundamental tenets of some of the more well known philosophers. — prothero

Yes, my worldview is Monistic, but not Materialistic. It's based on concepts from Quantum Physics (energy) and Information Theory (mind stuff). So I have developed a peculiar vocabulary to express novel notions derived from the assumption that everything in the world is a form of Generic (begetting) Information (power to enform and transform). Hence, the essential substance of reality is a derivative of Plato's eternal Form (infinite potential) imagined in space-time as Cosmic Causation.

Like , my more-or-less Idealistic (all mind) worldview is similar to Panpsychism (all conscious), but I do have a few nits to pick. Specifically, I reserve the term "Consciousness" for homo sapiens, who are late bloomers in evolution. In its place, I use "Information" in a sense similar to Einstein's Energy which is able to transform into a plethora of physical & metaphysical conformations, such as Matter and Mind. Rather than spend a lot of time differentiating my personal view from traditional Idealism or Panpsychism, I simply gave it a new name : Enformationism*1.

I read Process and Reality over 20 years ago, when I had no philosophical background to help me understand it. Now, after about 10 years on this forum, I have a better com-prehension of Whitehead's worldview, which was also a philosophical interpretation of Quantum {field} Physics, which has replaced Classical {materialistic & mechanical} Physics as the fundamental explanation of how reality works.

I too, am an amateur (sketchy) philosopher, with no formal training. So my informal idiosyncratic argumentation may sound odd to those with an academic background. :smile:

PS___ Any relation to Stephen R. Prothero?
PPS___ I don't categorically "reject" Dualism , because it is a useful concept in the physical sciences. However, for philosophical purposes, I do go beyond the proximate appearance of two substances (mind & matter) in search of the ultimate essence of reality : Information.


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism {and Panpsychism}. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Suffice it to say, although Whitehead had great admiration for Hume and Kant as well as Descartes, but he felt they set Western Philosophy upon an unfortunate path.One which leads directly to the “bifurcation of nature” with the subjective/objective and mind/matter dichotomy. Whitehead implies we interact with nature in other ways and have forms of knowledge that come to us from outside of “the sense perception theory of knowledge”. — prothero

In my own monistic worldview, I resolve the philosophical splitting of Nature, into Matter (substance) vs Mind (subjectivity)*1, by tracing physical Energy and metaphysical Mind back to a single source, hence a Unification. A century ago, Physical Scientists (astronomers & cosmologists) discovered that our complex universe is expanding from a singular point of space-time eons ago. But they were not able to explain where the causal energy & material substance originated, to impart momentum to the near-infinite mass of matter, moving at a fraction of lightspeed outward from that point of beginning. Some people refer to that Cosmic Cause as "God", others as more-of-the-same-stuff-forever "Multiverse".

Since we now know that Matter is merely a form of Energy (E=MC^2), we can infer that the Singularity consisted only of a primitive form of Causation. Moreover, we have learned only recently that the Information*2 (knowledge) associated with Minds may also be directly related to the Causal Force that we also refer to as physical Energy*3. Consequently, we can legitimately conjecture that the process we call Mind may be a recently-evolved form of the First Cause, colloquially known as the "Big Bang", or religiously as "Creation".

The details of how that original distinction-between-something-and-nothing (creation) evolved into objective Brains with subjective Minds, is as yet unknown. But we now have enough information to infer that the traditional "mind/matter dichotomy" is merely a conceptual categorization of the various Forms of fundamental creative Causation. So, we are now able to get "outside" of sense perception by the use of rational conception. :smile:


*1. "The bifurcation of nature is the separation of reality into two realms: one that is scientific and objective, and one that is perceived and subjective. This separation is a fallacy that can make it difficult to answer philosophical questions"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bifurcation+of+nature

*2. "Research into the relation between Energy and Information goes back many years, but the era of precise yet general quantification of Information began only with Claude E. Shannon's 1948 paper . . . ." https://www.jstor.org/stable/24923125
Note --- Shannon defined "Information" in terms of Entropy, which is basically spent Energy. Erwin Schrödinger introduced the term "Negentropy" in his 1944 book What Is Life?. Hence, he associated positive Energy with Life. And the process of Life is a necessary precursor for the process of Mind.

*3. "A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, . . . ."
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

“On Whitehead’s account, a tree has feelings – but they are probably quite different from the feelings that human beings have. A tree may well feel assaulted, for instance; we know that trees (and other plants) release pheromones when insects start eating their leaves. These emissions both act as a chemical attack on the predator, and warn other trees (or, indeed, other parts of the same tree) to take defensive measures as well. It is not ridiculous, therefore, to claim that a tree has feelings. However, it is unlikely that a tree would ever feel insulted or humiliated – these are human feelings that have no place in the life of trees. — prothero

I agree. It's understandable that some will construe the term "feelings" in the same sense as human emotions, associated with verbal meanings. Panpsychism is often interpreted to mean that even atoms are little minds --- or tune into the cosmic Mind --- hence talk to each other and share feelings. This is hard to accept scientifically, except in the sense that atoms do exchange bits of energy that have physical effects, remotely similar to human sensations.

So, to avoid portraying atoms as sentient creatures*1, I prefer to use the term "Information"*2, in its little-known post-Shannon usage as a form of Energy*3. The "meaning" of incoming information requires a self-concept. And even plants, as living organisms, require an immune system that can distinguish Self from Other --- but in physical codes, not mental concepts.

As I understand it, plants do indeed respond to changes in their environment by "detecting" differences --- hot or cold, light or dark, useful or toxic --- as either positive or negative for life (organic) processes. They then encode DNA preprogrammed chemical agents (immune system) into their vascular productions to either make use of the new inputs or to reject them. Some of that immune response (chemicals) may filter out into the environment (communicate via air or underground) and cause nearby plants to "experience" similar effects. The important distinction is that the "immune language"*4 is primarily chemical, instead of conceptual.

Unfortunately, it's hard to describe the parallels between sentient humans, and semi-sentient plants, and insentient atoms, without using common human expressions. So, my alternative is to replace the language of Panpsychism with the language of Informationism. By analogy with Energy,
generic Information consists primarily of distinctions (differences) such as Hot vs Cold in thermodynamics, and Good vs Bad in human language, or dots vs dashes in Morse code, and 1 vs 0 in computer code. . . . . :smile:


*1. Atom-smashing is murder. :joke:

*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Information is Energy :
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*4. "Immune language" refers to the way immune cells communicate with each other and with the nucleus of a cell to trigger a defense response. This communication uses signaling codons, or words, that are similar to how electrical signals create words on a telephone
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210512164017.htm

BUT RATHER: Conflicts/parts only appear to that single species who can no longer be the whole because it has emerged/evolved a mind which displaces It with the multifarious forms of this/that.
Opposites don't really exist, they necessarily exist to the species which uses its imagination uncontrollably in the construction and projections of opposites. — ENOAH

I agree that most animals don't conceptualize opposites in Nature. But they do experience the physical effects of those positive & negative and hot/cold oppositions. For example, the weather in the Southeastern US today is characterized by March winds, but caused by invisible interacting hot & cold air masses.

All sentient creatures in the affected area will experience scary stuff like lightening & tornadoes without knowing why. Humans will also experience prolonged power outages, but they have weather reporters to explain when, where, and why. The latter question also may not apply to non-humans. The physical actions may appear arbitrary to a deer, but can be conceived as the wrath of god or devil to a human. :wink: :joke:

PS___ The negative effects (tornadoes & hurricanes) of hot & cold air can be neutralized by mixing them into merely warm air . . . . in the larger context.

I would rather say, Natural monism. It is only because uniquely humans have minds which construct and project code which in turn affects the body (feelings, activity) that we reify the code. Cows don't vacillate between mind and body. And nature already is neutral, as in One. It is only we, that require neutrality between our reality and make-believe. And that is because we cannot/refuse to see the fictional nature of our make-believe. — ENOAH

I suppose you are making a distinction between Nature and Culture. Nature simply is what it is, but in artificial Culture, philosophers classify & categorize & evaluate. If Nature is all there is, then it is singular & monistic. But "uniquely human" minds tend to analyze Nature into subordinate parts, that may be further distinguished as positive or negative.

Be that as it may, I like "Neutral Monism" because it emphasizes the "neutral" (harmonious) whole consisting of sometimes antagonistic parts. That's the point of my personally coined term BothAnd. The natural world is both one (cosmos) and many (things & processes). :smile:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized {or neutralized} by putting them into the context of a whole system.

The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in monistic Enfernity (eternity & infinity).

Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.

This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I would not want to get too tied up trying to summarize something like process philosophy with as simple a summary or term as "neutral monism". . . . .
Process is neither materialism nor idealism. — prothero

I can understand your wish to avoid trivializing all-encompassing Process Philosophy with a single ambiguous concept. But my interest in the novel notion of "Neutral Monism" is that it seems to fit into my own personal (idiosyncratic & unorthodox) philosophical worldview : Enformationism. In which the single Substance of our world --- (both physical and metaphysical) --- is EnFormAction (the power to enform or transform). Remember, tangible Matter is, according to Einstein, merely a temporary form of the processing power of Energy.

I won't try to fully explain that ambiguous dual-monism concept in a brief forum post. But it's a combination of both Idealism and Materialism under a single name : EnFormAction*1. Admittedly, it sounds like an oxymoron, if the reasoning underlying the term is misunderstood. If you merge Idealism (mind stuff) and Materialism (body stuff) into a monistic worldview, what you get is a Neutral Monism : neither Real nor Ideal, but both Matter and Mind. When you add the current scientific understanding that Generic Information*2 is both mental content and energy/matter, the mash-up term may begin to make sense.

The concept of EnFormAction was derived from a combination of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. In the so-called "New Physics", the subatomic foundation of reality is both material object (particle) and dynamic process (wave propagation). The objective particle fits into the worldview of Materialism, and the subjective process seems to be closer to Idealism. So, the associated philosophical worldview is a BothAnd*3 perspective of our reality, as revealed by both materialistic Science, and idealistic Philosophy.

If this introduction sounds like gobbledygook to you, just ignore it, and I'll end it here. But if you can see some similarity to the Whiteheadian worldview, I can get into further detail, and get more feedback from you. But it will take the thread further off-topic, and might work better as a new thread. :smile:



*1. EnFormAction : A reformulation of the word "Information" (mind stuff).
Physical Energy + Mental Form + Causal Processing Action = Evolving Reality (matter & mind)

*2. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*3. Both/And Principle :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The fundamental unit of reality in process is an "event" or "occasion" which is. a spatial temporal entity with both physical and experiential poles (or aspects). This is largely non conscious experience which falls under Whitehead's term prehension. One could consider this a particular form of neutral monism. — prothero

Thanks for the summary. Since I had no training in philosophy, Whitehead's book was way over my head (20 years ago), due in part to his unfamiliar terminology. In the almost 10 years I've been posting on this forum, my vocabulary has expanded. However, to understand what he was talking about, you'd have to understand some of the peculiarities of quantum physics. And you'd also need to think outside the box of scientific materialism.

Just as quantum "particles" can be interpreted as bits of matter, they can also be viewed as moments in time, or as sometimes expressed : wave peaks in an ocean of turbulent energy. So, what he called an "occasion" is a snapshot of an ongoing process, not a stable material object. As you put it, an occasion may be understood as a "spatial-temporal entity", sort of a lump of space-time. And, like much of Quantum Physics and Process Philosophy, that sounds paradoxical to our normal notions of reality.

I was not familiar with the term "Neutral Monism"*1, so I Googled it. The links below suggest an intermediate form of reality between the Mind of Idealism and the Matter of Materialism. I'll have to take some time to work the notion of Space-Time-Ideal-Materialism into my personal worldview. But it sounds compatible with my BothAnd philosophy*2.

On this forum, calm rational philosophical dialogues often break-down into passionate political debates, generally between the ideologies of Materialism and Idealism. So Neutral Monism might be a moderate position between those polar opposite positions. Do you think Whitehead was postulating a worldview that combined both philosophical Idealism and scientific Materialism into a Neutral Monism? :smile:



*1a. Neutral monism is a philosophical theory that proposes that reality is made of a neutral entity, rather than mind or matter. It's a way of explaining how the mind and matter relate to each other.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=neutral+monism.

*1b. Neutral monism is an umbrella term for a class of metaphysical theories in the philosophy of mind, concerning the relation of mind to matter. These theories take the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think that as knowledge increases, humanity will come to understand that not all things need to be proven empirically. We will learn that logical structures below what cannot be empirically observed must exist in some latent or Platonic form, and that these hidden logical structures must be of a certain form to yield the forms that we can see or detect empirically. — punos

Yes. The logical structure of our cosmos is not something that can be detected objectively & empirically*1. It must be inferred rationally or intuitively. For example, Ramanujan*2, a math prodigy, was not formally trained in higher math. Solutions to problems seemed to just come to him as-if an answer to prayer. Ironically, he attributed his genius (attendant spirit) to a Hindu goddess. Plato's Logos (divine reason) may have played a similar role in his philosophy. I suppose the implicit spirituality of Plato's worldview may have made pragmatic Aristotle uncomfortable, as it does for modern Empiricists.

Mathematical and Geometric principles may seem to be "hidden" from us non-geniuses, but over many centuries, humans have learned that Nature has an invisible logical structure (proportion). In my personal philosophical worldview, Logos*3 is also associated with the dynamic process of Causation. Perhaps, it was Whitehead's genius that revealed to him the importance of Process in an evolving world of material things (appearances). However, for the practical purposes of Science (progress), empirical evidence is necessary to reveal the flesh on those logical bones. :nerd:



*1. Most people, mathematicians and others, will agree that mathematics is not an empirical science, or at least that it is practiced in a manner which differs in several decisive respects from the techniques of the empirical sciences. And, yet, its development is very closely linked with the natural sciences.
___ John von Neumann
https://prclare.people.wm.edu/m150f19/vonNeumann.pdf

*2. Ramanujan had developed tremendous intuition; he would say devoutly, it was immanent guidance provided by his local Hindu deity, Goddess Nammakal, a relative of Lakshmi (a goddess spirit of generosity and provision).
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Ramanujan-make-leaps-in-mathematics-based-solely-on-his-intuition-How-come-he-was-never-able-to-explain-how-he-arrived-at-conclusions-yet-his-theorems-were-nevertheless-correct-Im-looking-for-an-answer-based

*3. Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

The description below is my own model for how virtual particles become actual particles, as a continuous process. We don't need a Big Bang to create the matter in the universe. I don't have a name for it yet, maybe "Continuous Creation Model", or maybe you can suggest one — punos

The Virtual/Actual Particle process is over my head. But for my own philosophical purposes, I substitute "Potential" in place of "Virtual". Potential could refer to Plato's eternal realm of Forms, for which we have no empirical evidence. But Virtual refers to Vacuum Energy*1, for which we also have no empirical evidence, only mathematical theories & speculative inference. So, either way, we are shooting in the dark.

Fred Hoyle, who scoffed at the notion of "Big Bang" instantaneous creation, offered his own conjecture of Continuous Creation*2. But the infinite source of that energy & matter must also be Virtual (hence unobservable), and taken on faith. Ironically, Continuous Creation has also been interpreted as an alternative method for divine creation*3, that is more like Continuous Evolution.

Personally, my amateur cosmology combines elements of both. The Bang "Singularity" was a seed of eternal-infinite Potential (Platonic Form ; divine creative power???), which became the source for our limited supply of space-time Energy (first law of thermodynamics), but which continually changes Form from Causation to Matter & back again, producing the continual creation that we call Evolution. But, I suppose your guess is as good as mine. :smile:



*1. The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the substantial disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density, and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

*2. Continuous Creation theory rejected :
The steady state theory was a popular alternative to the Big Bang theory from the 1940s to the 1960s.
However, most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers now reject the steady state theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=continuous+creation+theory

*3. Moltmann has developed a doctrine of creation that emphasizes God’s continuous creation activity throughout history.
https://biologos.org/articles/jurgen-moltmann-on-evolution-as-gods-continuous-creation