• 180 Proof
    15.6k
    With respect to ethics, as I've stated above
    I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy.180 Proof
    Insofar as it is an a priori categorical framework (i.e. ontological paradigm), a metaphysics might constrain but does not imply an ethics, so, it seems to me, Darkneos, you're asking the wrong question – "process philosophy" is just a twentieth century (scientistic) 'metaphysics of becoming'.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Insofar as it is an a priori categorical framework (i.e. ontological paradigm), a metaphysics might constrain but does not imply an ethics, so it seems to me, Darkneos, you're asking the wrong question.180 Proof

    Maybe. But that said no one has really been able to explain process philosophy and the last paper I read ended up showing how Whitehead failed
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    :chin:

    I've also pointed out how "process philosophy" fails; what more needs to be "explained" that has not already been summarized ...

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
  • Darkneos
    848
    That last challenge I think rings loudest because this doesn’t really tie into real life despite what folks here might say. All I’ve really gotta is either insistence or just blaming the person for not getting it.

    Naturally that’s more a hole in the philosophy than in one’s understanding of it.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    I don’t know why I bother responding when it’s evident you know nothing of which you speak.Darkneos
    Why do you bother to respond? You seem to be offended by Whitehead's ideas, as you mistakenly interpret them. in the next post says: "you're asking the wrong question". But I think it's a proper question to ask of any worldview*5, but based on erroneous assumptions.

    I took the OP as a sincere attempt to obtain help in understanding the unorthodox philosophical worldview of an acknowledged genius, whose "magnum opus" is over the heads of most of us mortals. But instead of a philosophical dialog, this thread has become a political diatribe, on a work that you admitted you don't understand*1. Ironically, you portray Whitehead as an idiot who didn't understand Quantum Physics in the manner you prefer. And you have haughtily & sarcastically rejected all proffered opinions that don't match the world model that you are looking to support. Of course, Whitehead had little influence on modern Science, because his philosophy is mental (hypothetical) instead of material (pragmatic).

    I don't know how you would characterize your personal worldview, but it sounds like matter-based Scientism (what you see is all there is), which would indeed be in opposition to Whitehead's process-based worldview. Your my-way-or-the-highway prejudice might be better served by posting on a Science forum. However, at least one poster on Philosophy Stack Exchange seems to share your literalistic mis-understanding of Process Philosophy*3. Pioneering sub-atomic physicists*4 were forced to describe the non-classical paradoxes of quantum physics in terms of metaphors, which those coming from a classical background may interpret literally and materially. FWIW, a human is not "just processes" (on-going life), but also a person (body & mind), worthy of ethical treatment.

    If you would like to share philosophical opinions on interpretations of Whitehead's work, instead of denigrating them, I'm open to continuing this thread. But I suspect that some TPF posters have already been turned-off by the political us-vs-them antagonism. Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions. :cool:


    *1. What does Process Philosophy mean exactly?
    Sorry for the confusion but I guess it just highlights my lack of comprehension of the subject. I've met maybe two people who subscribe to it and seem to live regular lives, though when I asked them to explain they couldn't, which gave me doubts about it.
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it

    *2. Scientism is a philosophical position that claims science is the only way to obtain truth about the world. It's often used as a pejorative term to describe an exaggerated belief in the scientific method
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientism+philosophy

    *3. I would think just seeing “things” as processes would shift the morality for folks since there wouldn’t be any reason to treat “others” well since they’re just processes. The same would go for human relationships as well. ___ Boltstorm
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it

    *4. Alfred North Whitehead and Werner Heisenberg were thinkers in different fields, but their work is connected in the realm of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+and+heisenberg

    *5. Whitehead's Moral Philosophy :
    Belaief depicts Whitehead’s view as a self-realizational ethics which reconciles the conflict between the individual interest and the general interest by appeal to morally preferable "true self-interest."
    https://www.religion-online.org/article/whiteheads-moral-philosophy/
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions.Gnomon
    True. And yet there's a never ending bilge of pseudo-scientific "opinions" often rationalized by incorrigibly poor reasoning / bad philosophy festooned with irrelevant quotations. Lots of woo, Gnomon sir. :up: – that's 'job security' for critical forum members who happen to be literate in modern sciences and western philosophy. :cool:
  • Darkneos
    848
    If you would like to share philosophical opinions on interpretations of Whitehead's work, instead of denigrating them, I'm open to continuing this thread. But I suspect that some TPF posters have already been turned-off by the political us-vs-them antagonism. Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinionsGnomon

    It’s more like they haven’t been able to answer my questions, which seems to be a running theme with this philosophy.

    I took the OP as a sincere attempt to obtain help in understanding the unorthodox philosophical worldview of an acknowledged genius, whose "magnum opus" is over the heads of most of us mortals. But instead of a philosophical dialog, this thread has become a political diatribe, on a work that you admitted you don't understand*1. Ironically, you portray Whitehead as an idiot who didn't understand Quantum Physics in the manner you prefer. And you have haughtily & sarcastically rejected all proffered opinions that don't match the world model that you are looking to support. Of course, Whitehead had little influence on modern Science, because his philosophy is mental (hypothetical) instead of material (pragmatic).Gnomon

    That’s an exaggeration. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn’t make it good or true.

    It’s also not “in the manner I prefer” the man died before it evolved to what we know today. He literally didn’t understand it.

    It also doesn’t matter if your philosophy is mental or practical, if you can’t get your point across or apply it to life then it’s worthless. That’s ultimately what philosophy is about.

    However, at least one poster on Philosophy Stack Exchange seems to share your literalistic mis-understanding of Process Philosophy*3. Pioneering sub-atomic physicists*4 were forced to describe the non-classical paradoxes of quantum physics in terms of metaphors, which those coming from a classical background may interpret literally and materially. FWIW, a human is not "just processes" (on-going life), but also a person (body & mind), worthy of ethical treatment.Gnomon

    Philosophy stack exchange has mostly been disappointing. And no they weren’t “forced to” do anything. These aren’t paradoxes either. It sounds to me like you still don’t understand anything you speak on.

    Like…your words are really just hardcore projection and reading into what isn’t there. Your understanding of science and other philosophies are lacking, especially with Natives. There’s not really a conversation to be had with someone who doesn’t even have the basics down. You don’t even read your links at the end.

    The way I understand certain “Indian” philosophy (and the eastern ones that are similar to it) is that you can’t talk about it, only experience it. So the fact you, that guy or anyone else is talking about it is just wrong out of the gate. Unless you do it you won’t get it but it’s evident who “gets it” and who doesn’t.

    I’ve just tried to understand it but so far no one knows it well enough to explain it, which casts doubt on their understanding of it.

    Like I said, you’re just a pretender and your understanding insulting to those you cite. You’re not fooling anyone but you.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    Haven't read the whole thread - skimmed, and sought your most recent takes before replying.

    You are alternately taking Whitehead too seriously, and not seriously enough. Gnomon has done a fairly good job, but its pricklier than I would have responded having not gone through the thread.
    I think, but could be wrong, the most recent and most visible person who pushed Whitehead's process philosophy was Terence McKenna. I probably shouldn't need to say more - while I think McKenna is a much, much better thinker and writer than probably 80% of this forum, there is no chance he is giving us anything with which we could further understand, or build on the philosophy rather than the metaphor/poetry in Whitehead's work. And that's roughly where this form of philosophy has been left.

    Process & Reality is an extremely hard book to get through but it's pretty much sui generis. No need to implicate it in all these other fields and ways. If it doesn't teach you anything, that's fine. It can do for those who are trying to get something from it (I would ascribe this to most Continental philosophy too, but that's a digression).

    Unfortunately, the response above this one, posted while I was writing, doesn't give me hope that you will take on board the criticisms many have leveled. That's unfortunate. I came in that hot too and assumed that not hearing what I wanted amounted to being talked past. That is a difficult hurdle to jump. This forum is largely populated (the very consistent posters anyway) with ideological people who spend more time in the politics/news type threads than elsewhere. I wouldn't think this the best place to learn how to do philosophy, or even read discussion clearly. I only joined when i started my degree, and the two have come apart in a rather extreme way.

    To finish, my take on process philosophy:

    It is not a 'system' the most philosophies are. It is a descriptive philosophy trying to make sense of what Whitehead sees to be 'facts' about how Humans 'become' across time (whcih is, strictly, a fact - we are never stagnant, in any sense of the word, as beings). Every individual change can be (intellectually/metaphorically) compartmentalized, incorporated and subsumed by the 'being' at any given moment. It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring. It take it to be attempting a poetic reading of a scientific speculation (that there are 'units' making up the 'being' which come into existences independently. The point is that 'things' are actually 'events' in constant flux of 'occurring' or 'becoming' and not 'objects' to be observed or taken as-is. In this way, change or creative process per se, is a fundamental aspect of reality/existence. He then implicates God in this process as the director, in some sense, but still part of it. So, in some sense this is scientifically obvious, but his theory extends to it being the final analysis which doesn't seem possible.
  • Janus
    16.7k
    Nice summations! :up:

    I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.
  • Darkneos
    848
    You are alternately taking Whitehead too seriously, and not seriously enough. Gnomon has done a fairly good job, but its pricklier than I would have responded having not gone through the thread.
    I think, but could be wrong, the most recent and most visible person who pushed Whitehead's process philosophy was Terence McKenna. I probably shouldn't need to say more - while I think McKenna is a much, much better thinker and writer than probably 80% of this forum, there is no chance he is giving us anything with which we could further understand, or build on the philosophy rather than the metaphor/poetry in Whitehead's work. And that's roughly where this form of philosophy has been left.
    AmadeusD

    It’s sorta hard to regard this well because Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.

    Unfortunately, the response above this one, posted while I was writing, doesn't give me hope that you will take on board the criticisms many have leveled. That's unfortunate. I came in that hot too and assumed that not hearing what I wanted amounted to being talked past. That is a difficult hurdle to jump. This forum is largely populated (the very consistent posters anyway) with ideological people who spend more time in the politics/news type threads than elsewhere. I wouldn't think this the best place to learn how to do philosophy, or even read discussion clearly. I only joined when i started my degree, and the two have come apart in a rather extreme way.AmadeusD

    This is more about you not about me. Like I said I’m trying to understand this but so far people are really bad at explaining it, and I’ve asked everywhere.

    It is not a 'system' the most philosophies are. It is a descriptive philosophy trying to make sense of what Whitehead sees to be 'facts' about how Humans 'become' across time (whcih is, strictly, a fact - we are never stagnant, in any sense of the word, as beings). Every individual change can be (intellectually/metaphorically) compartmentalized, incorporated and subsumed by the 'being' at any given moment.AmadeusD

    Not exactly. I think recent link showed how Whiteheads philosophy fails when attempting to describe human experience especially self and identity. There is also a problem with his “becomes” as it presupposes a thing that exists already. By his own philosophy nothing becomes because nothing exists. As for us never being stagnant, that’s also not true or a fact. By Whiteheads view nothing is dynamic either because nothing would be static. There is also the issue is time and what theory of time would have to be true for his view to work.

    So it doesn’t really explain the facts so much as what he wants to be true. That would explain why it never took off, apart from all his papers being burned upon his death.

    It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring.AmadeusD

    Not really. It might appear as such but that doesn’t make it so, it also doesn’t explain the static nature of most objects despite them “never being the same”. He claims it’s in line with our intuitions but that’s clearly not the case.

    The point is that 'things' are actually 'events' in constant flux of 'occurring' or 'becoming' and not 'objects' to be observed or taken as-is. In this way, change or creative process per se, is a fundamental aspect of reality/existence. He then implicates God in this process as the director, in some sense, but still part of it. So, in some sense this is scientifically obvious, but his theory extends to it being the final analysis which doesn't seem possible.AmadeusD

    Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious (especially since it's not a science question). Matter does exist and so do particles, even if you want to argue for events you’d still need things. I think verbs describe actions nouns take or do, so you can’t really have no elementary particles. Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that. In short process can't be the fundamental nature of reality.

    It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others. Even that standford entry explains that a big issue with the philosophy is its lack of application to real life let alone our lives unlike the substance philosophy.

    Like I mentioned in my original post, how exactly would daily life look and function under the process view and not the substance view? That's the only question that really matters. It sorta reminds me of why Buddha didn't really answer metaphysical questions, because they weren't relevant to daily life or the path.

    Like I said above, just because something is dense and hard to understand doesn’t make it good.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    There are parts of this response that are going to come off combative - I would implore you to not assess every line as an attack. You have clearly misread much of comment, and are attempting things that are not open on the level of Socratic dialogue.
    I have not given my own positions, other than trying to help you navigate the conversation. In terms of Whitehead/process philosophy I have been purposefully vague and indeterminate on how I think his philosophy plays out (save for one thing which I will note where it is relevant (nearer the end)). So please do you best to come into this, not as some hard-ass dismissing every attempt to convince you - that is not what is happening. Obviously, no one will convince you. I am trying to do what you asked, which has nothing to do with that.

    It’s sorta hard to regard this well because Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKenna's stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.Darkneos

    I apologise, but you need to carefully re-read what has been written. You are not responding to things I've actually said here. Every aspect of this response misunderstands the plain language of my comment. Please re-read and, if you want, have another go. Hint: I am in your firing line, not Gnomon).

    I also note that these are assertions of your emotional responses to things, and not arguments. Poisoning the well, if you will. However, in kind, the bolded is a pretty dire red-flag to me. To turn your words:
    "just because something is dense and hard to understand doesn’t make it good bad (either)".

    That said, we can disagree. No worries. I would just suggest something like "I've read McKenna's stuff" wont be taken too seriously with such a flippant and empty(not pejorative!) take on it. Not that you're a dick or anything, but that's nothing to chew on other than to think "Oh, this guy is predisposed to reject McKenna's thinking". Which is fine, but unhelpful - but that was a throwaway/aside remark on which absolutely nothing in the comment turns.

    This is more about you not about me. Like I said I’m trying to understand this but so far people are really bad at explaining it, and I’ve asked everywhere.Darkneos

    I think you are doing what I've just said you're doing. You are not hearing that people have done what you've asked (like myself below, but your responses show you are not seeing this). You are dissatisfied. That's fine. Ironically, that is something about yourself. Not those commenters (though, your claim isn't precluded. I just don't see the evidence for it).

    Not exactly.Darkneos

    This response is a side-step into territory I did not agree to. I have given you an account, as asked(inferentially and explicitly). I have not claimed it is 'good', 'successful' or even interesting Philosophy in that passage. I have given you the account you asked for. Your response goes into analysis based on reference to other people's work and an apparent assumption about my position on Whitehead's work. Does not seem an apt response to that account. If you could perhaps explain how "Not exactly" applies to my account of his philosophy (particularly given you claim to not understand it, but are telling others how it works), that would be helpful. Paradox rears its head.

    Like I said I’m trying to understand thisDarkneos

    This simply does not come through in your responses, like the one above. Please take note of that, and reflect on it. If you're not accurately conveying your thoughts, that's just as much a criticism that needs your attention as would be that said "you're wrong". I don't care about hte latter - but the former appears to be the consensus. Perhaps just take a moment with it..

    Not really.Darkneos

    This passage is, again, a response to things I have not said. That is what his theory applies to, and wants to talk about. Your agreement or disagreement is not relevant to an account of it.

    t might appear as such but that doesn’t make it soDarkneos

    Your consistent assertions to the opposite, without much to follow on, do not negate that account either. Interestingly, I'm not talking about that. That is simply an account. I do not know how many more times this will need to be pointed out... But I would really appreciate if you could refrain from commenting on a bare account as if it is some analysis. It gets us no where but thinking you are not accurately reading these comments.

    Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious.Darkneos

    If you can point me to any object which is unchanging, interminable and non-becoming (as it were) id be happy to hear it. But that would be an anomaly. It is scientifically obvious that all things are always in flux. That's what I've noted, and there's no serious way to disagree with this. Whitehead's account of that fact is what (may or may not.... I think almost certainly) fails to do us any good, scientifically.

    Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that.Darkneos

    Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true.
    It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others.Darkneos

    That may be hte case. I tend to agree. Its helpful to understand experience (well, to those disposed to get much from it anyway) - not 'the world'. I agree its rather impenetrably, and where it is, there are inconsistencies. (see, this is my giving you a position on the philosophy).
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    ↪180 Proof ↪180 Proof Nice summations! :up:Janus
    Thanks!

    I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.
    :up:

    It’s sorta hard to regard this well because @Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.Darkneos
    :up: :up:
  • Darkneos
    848
    If you can point me to any object which is unchanging, interminable and non-becoming (as it were) id be happy to hear it. But that would be an anomaly. It is scientifically obvious that all things are always in flux. That's what I've noted, and there's no serious way to disagree with this. Whitehead's account of that fact is what (may or may not.... I think almost certainly) fails to do us any good, scientifically.AmadeusD

    I would say the base level particles that make up reality. As for flux and sameness that’s a matter of interpretation, hence some of the holes in his philosophy. How do you classify dynamic. You say the word scientifically but I don’t think you know what that means. Even in science we still refer to some living things as being the same at least in biology. Like I said, it depends on definition and hence isn’t really a question for science.

    I ignored most of your post because it was little more than whining. I said what I did about McKenna from being on a forum of shroomheads who still disagreed with him.

    Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true.AmadeusD

    Yet you’re agreeing that everything is in flux which is what he says. I’m not stranger to things always changing, I read up on Buddhism. But stuff like identity is complicated hence why some say that just because it changes doesn’t mean it’s different.

    Even then he denies objects so I find your agreement with him rather odd on that one.

    That may be hte case. I tend to agree. Its helpful to understand experience (well, to those disposed to get much from it anyway) - not 'the world'. I agree its rather impenetrably, and where it is, there are inconsistencies. (see, this is my giving you a position on the philosophy).AmadeusD

    My main issue is how does this apply to life at large. Because that’s all that matters with philosophy, in that I agree with Buddha.

    What I find odd is people trying to liken his stuff to Buddhism when anyone who knows the first thing about would tell you that trying to refer to or describe Anatta is to miss the mark. The self in Buddhism is neither true or false, neither real or unreal.

    I don't really have contempt or hate for you or anyone else ultimately. I am frustrated that my questions remain unanswered despite exhausting everything.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    I ignored most of your post because it was little more than whining.Darkneos

    Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here.AmadeusD

    You never really made much of a case until the end, so there isn’t really much to respond to.

    Even you said as scientifically true isn’t accurate. Science does recognize sameness, experimentation uses it after all.

    Though the tone of your responses sorta gave away the sort of person you are so I can’t say I was expecting much.
  • substantivalism
    311
    Like…to be blunt: what does this mean and why should one care? You haven’t answered this, just saying that it contradicts current materialist understanding, which tells me nothing. You also didn’t answer my initial questionsDarkneos
    What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice.

    The Human language is really adept at treating verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs just as easily. There are so many ordinary language analogies/metaphors we use which intermix these things all the time without issue.

    You just need to go a step further and start asking whether the metaphors/analogies you use influence your thinking. You obviously think they do because one of the issues you've had so far with process philosophy has been how it makes you emotionally view other people. Clearly, the language one uses can influence that just as for you its depressing while for @punos its liberating and inspiring.

    Our depictions of materialism aren't conceptually 'objective' and independent of the same kind of metaphorical speech that poets use either as its also filled with strange analogical depictions of things. This is present with analogical models and this is present with speech that talks about quantum 'particles' or 'particle wave states'.

    Well from what I understand it’s particles and matter. The “everything is made of fields” thing is a misunderstanding of it, it makes people foolishly think there is nothing solid.Darkneos
    Solidity whether it be 'from fields' or 'particles' or 'matter' is always going to make itself seem illusory and nonexistent if you think that the reason we don't fall through the floor is not because there is no empty space in objects but because of their repulsive interactions. Regardless of what analogical language you use whether its 'water waves' or 'billiard balls' or 'balls & springs'. Solidity becomes something that may not be a part of the micro-constituent parts of the world around us at least as proposed.

    There are also aspects of it that we've quickly abandoned such as no interpenetration which is what bosons do. Those can occupy the same place at the same time and therefore on a fundamental level lack solidity. However, if we use the strawman 'everything is fields' idea then this weirdness goes away and we can just say the field is more intense there but not that there are multiple collocated particles. The particle analogy doesn't allow you this and would have to accept multi-particle collocation or interpenetration on a fundamental level as interpreting this.

    Further, how is the fields analogy a misunderstanding of this? These 'particles' have to interact with each other some how and the field is just the proposed thing that is meant to do that in rather esoteric quantum interpretations or a version of pilot wave theory. It can also been seen as being the name for the only thing doing the 'physical' work here as you can imagine in a hydrodynamical analogue model of Schrodinger's equation.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Solidity becomes something that may not be a part of the micro-constituent parts of the world around us at least as proposedsubstantivalism

    Well not really. The level of atoms is so small that most people couldn’t fathom it or what it means, so when you learn atoms are mostly empty space it doesn’t mean much.

    However, if we use the strawman 'everything is fields' idea then this weirdness goes away and we can just say the field is more intense there but not that there are multiple collocated particles. The particle analogy doesn't allow you this and would have to accept multi-particle collocation or interpenetration on a fundamental level as interpreting thissubstantivalism

    It’s hard to say one way or the other because at that level it’s just math. Anything philosophical is up in the air. Field theory is just a mathematical model, physics doesn’t tell us what reality is made of, it just uses math to predict it.

    What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice.substantivalism

    Well it’s more like I’m not sure if the people talking to me really understand it. When I’m asking Punos they just insist that it’s not cold or dehumanizing but can’t really explain why while I have.

    The Human language is really adept at treating verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs just as easily. There are so many ordinary language analogies/metaphors we use which intermix these things all the time without issue.substantivalism

    Not in my experience. Can you give an example?

    You just need to go a step further and start asking whether the metaphors/analogies you use influence your thinking. You obviously think they do because one of the issues you've had so far with process philosophy has been how it makes you emotionally view other people. Clearly, the language one uses can influence that just as for you its depressing while for punos its liberating and inspiring.substantivalism

    Unless you’re going to answer my original question about process philosophy this isn’t really getting anywhere.

    Like I told them, if they’re just a process and not an individual then they don’t exist per process philosophy, so there isn’t really regarding them any way or other. They references Buddhism as an example but Buddhism isn’t process philosophy. Even process philosophy fails when it comes to describing reality as we see and experience it per the philosophy dictionary and some papers that have been linked. You still need substance for process philosophy to work.

    So unless you’re going on explain how it’s not cold or dehumanizing then this post isn’t really informative. I’ve asked that question time and again and people can’t explain how, they just insist it’s not which isn’t an argument.

    Philosophy only matters if we can tie it to our daily lives and so far no one has been able to demonstrate that with process philosophy which was my original question. I know one other person who seems to live a normal life but believes in this but when I ask him to explain it he can’t.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Further, how is the fields analogy a misunderstanding of this? These 'particles' have to interact with each other some how and the field is just the proposed thing that is meant to do that in rather esoteric quantum interpretations or a version of pilot wave theory. It can also been seen as being the name for the only thing doing the 'physical' work here as you can imagine in a hydrodynamical analogue model of Schrodinger's equation.substantivalism

    All I know is from what other physicists have told me, that a lot of people misunderstand quantum field theory and think it means what it doesn’t.

    But as for the bosons I don’t think that means they aren’t solid it just means quantum mechanics is weirder than we thought. But from the answers I’m reading, YES it does mean there are multiple collocated particles.

    Everything you’ve mentioned are still particles, it’s just that at the level things are weird.
  • Darkneos
    848
    But my main question is what does this look like in day to day life and how one manages and interacts. That’s all I care about, what does it look like in action.

    With Buddhism it’s easy (ish), it’s just doing it. Though that’s also what makes it hard but at least it’s something. But so far no one can explain what it looks like in action.
  • substantivalism
    311
    Well not really. The level of atoms is so small that most people couldn’t fathom it or what it means, so when you learn atoms are mostly empty space it doesn’t mean much.Darkneos
    Why should that stop physicists from proposing them as lacking intuitive physical properties if they are as un-fathomable as you say they are?

    That would imply that they haven't gone far enough or could go farther. We've already stripped them of emotions, wants, needs, mental states, colors, or other secondary qualities. Why not get rid of solidity as well?

    It’s hard to say one way or the other because at that level it’s just math. Anything philosophical is up in the air. Field theory is just a mathematical model, physics doesn’t tell us what reality is made of, it just uses math to predict it.Darkneos
    Okay. . . so why are physicists so upset about these 'misinterpretations' if they aren't meant to tell us what it's 'really' made of?

    Yes, it is just math. We can agree on that.

    However, there is value in a heuristically and a pedagogical sense to that speculation regardless of whether it's true or can even be shown to be true. Even Bohr's model of the atom served its role at a point in time even if without experimental investigation by naive EM that it clearly is a way the world would not behave if we demand its stability.

    Well it’s more like I’m not sure if the people talking to me really understand it. When I’m asking Punos they just insist that it’s not cold or dehumanizing but can’t really explain why while I have.Darkneos
    To me its completely irrelevant. Whether process philosophy or static object substance philosophies only emphasize different aspects of the same thing.

    You shouldn't be so focused on the material substance of a person because in the end it gives you only a base but not a handle on why you attach yourself to them despite their changes. It also doesn't bode well for illusory characteristic such as consciousness if the 'real' reality lacks those. Their ability to change does not make them some fleeting collection of individuals you can't make out but a process you happily indulge in. It's not like your friend losses a single strain of hair and all of sudden he is someone new to you.

    Not in my experience. Can you give an example?Darkneos
    In a trivial sense there are tons of verbs that are also nouns. Then there are many examples of metaphorical/analogical speech that give things which are abstract a concrete element to them.

    'Time is like a flowing river' - Time isn't really a river here and frequently the word time is treated as a noun that can do things.
    'The past is behind us.' - Common spatialize temporal metaphor that is similar across cultures but also changes from area to area.
    'The wave interacts with the atom.' - Technically, wave can be a verb as well as a noun as in this case. It denotes both the thing doing the waving as well as the action itself.

    All I know is from what other physicists have told me, that a lot of people misunderstand quantum field theory and think it means what it doesn’t.Darkneos
    I get that. . . you won't stop talking about why this is all for nought because of those physicists you have previously read. Specifics as to why seem to be lacking on your part I have to say.

    But as for the bosons I don’t think that means they aren’t solid it just means quantum mechanics is weirder than we thought. But from the answers I’m reading, YES it does mean there are multiple collocated particles.Darkneos
    Solidity is the ability to not be interpenetrated so to allow for interpenetration is what I would not take as them possessing solidity as intrinsic to them.

    Unless you mean by solidity a completely different thing than our intuitions would provide but then you aren't talking about the same thing.

    Everything you’ve mentioned are still particles, it’s just that at the level things are weird.Darkneos
    Oh, okay. . . so as long as the math is correct we can just make up whatever. . . right? Or is there some proper methodology as to how to do this absent the math?

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________

    To say there is a misunderstanding of QM implies there is a right way to do this even if no experiment would showcase any of these interpretations as wrong or that they are consistent with the mathematical models. What is this mysterious philosophical methodology you are appealing to but don't make explicit?

    Is the proper scientific approach to tell the philosophers to, "shut up while we calculate because you can't figure anything out!" Or is it, ". . . you aren't doing this interpretational work correctly, here is how you actually do it. . ."
  • Darkneos
    848
    To say there is a misunderstanding of QM implies there is a right way to do this even if no experiment would showcase any of these interpretations as wrong or that they are consistent with the mathematical models. What is this mysterious philosophical methodology you are appealing to but don't make explicit?

    Is the proper scientific approach to tell the philosophers to, "shut up while we calculate because you can't figure anything out!" Or is it, ". . . you aren't doing this interpretational work correctly, here is how you actually do it. . ."
    substantivalism

    Well there is a “right way” but I’m not versed enough in it to know. We aren’t even done with it so any philosophical stab at it is moot right now.

    Far as I know philosophers don’t add much to the discussion since they don’t understand the math.

    What I do know is that so far it defies our intuitions about reality and maybe one of those is that solid things can’t occupy the same space. Physics models reality, doesn’t tell us what it’s ultimately made of.

    Solidity is the ability to not be interpenetrated so to allow for interpenetration is what I would not take as them possessing solidity as intrinsic to them.

    Unless you mean by solidity a completely different thing than our intuitions would provide but then you aren't talking about the same thing.
    substantivalism

    Well you’re talking classical sense.

    Why should that stop physicists from proposing them as lacking intuitive physical properties if they are as un-fathomable as you say they are?substantivalism

    That’s not what I said, I said people can’t really pictures what it means for something to be that small.

    You shouldn't be so focused on the material substance of a person because in the end it gives you only a base but not a handle on why you attach yourself to them despite their changes. It also doesn't bode well for illusory characteristic such as consciousness if the 'real' reality lacks those. Their ability to change does not make them some fleeting collection of individuals you can't make out but a process you happily indulge in. It's not like your friend losses a single strain of hair and all of sudden he is someone new to you.substantivalism

    It’s funny you mention that last part because that’s exactly why process Philosophy is saying. If they lose a hair they are someone entirely new. Again if they are a process then they don’t exist, per the philosophy itself.

    I also wouldn’t say consciousness is illusory, that’s a funny thing to say.
  • Darkneos
    848
    In a trivial sense there are tons of verbs that are also nouns. Then there are many examples of metaphorical/analogical speech that give things which are abstract a concrete element to them.substantivalism

    Right but that’s not process philosophy.

    Again none of this gets to my real questions and it doesn’t seem like you understand process philosophy either.
  • substantivalism
    311
    Well there is a “right way” but I’m not versed enough in it to know.Darkneos
    Then challenge yourself to actually figure it out. That way these conversations can go way easier.

    I'm going through the process right now to finish my own physics degree and am learning the basics of Hilbert spaces as well as bra/ket notation right now.

    You want to show some incentive too!
  • Darkneos
    848
    Then challenge yourself to actually figure it out. That way these conversations can go way easier.

    I'm going through the process right now to finish my own physics degree and am learning the basics of Hilbert spaces as well as bra/ket notation right now.

    You want to show some incentive too!
    substantivalism

    I just ask people who know better, I don’t have the time or money for a degree.

    Not that any of this is relevant to the topic or my questions.
  • substantivalism
    311
    I just ask people who know better, I don’t have the time or money for a degree.Darkneos
    Just reposting this. For reasons.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Just reposting this. For reasons.substantivalism

    This assumes you know what you’re talking about, which from the replies wouldn’t suggest it.
  • substantivalism
    311
    @Darkneos You don't need a money or a degree. . . you need an internet connection and the will as well as the desire to dive into this.

    Here is a pdf version of the Griffiths book on quantum mechanics. Get reading!

    I always like watching PBS spacetime as they cover these topics for layman viewers. There are also numerous YouTube channels that cover mathematical background needed for quantum.

    Here is the entirety of the Feynman lectures on quantum.
  • Darkneos
    848
    You don't need a money or a degree. . . you need an internet connection and the will as well as the desire to dive into this.

    Here is a pdf version of the Griffiths book on quantum mechanics. Get reading!
    substantivalism

    Way to illustrate my point behind a lot of the misunderstandings behind QM.

    But again none of this is relevant nor answers my questions so you’ve effectively said nothing. I don’t even know how this got to quantum physics…

    You don’t understand process philosophy to answer my initial concerns so none of this means anything.

    So again unless you’re telling me how this philosophy looks in daily life I don’t care. I’ve already asked everywhere else and got nowhere.
  • substantivalism
    311
    Way to illustrate my point behind a lot of the misunderstandings behind QM.Darkneos
    Except those books or lectures don't actually usually address the interpretational issue regarding it. Usually, they actually feel its irrelevant to the mathematical formulation and my textbook from the university makes that expressly clear where the math ends to where the uncertain philosophy begins.

    Which is a key point that I'd like to emphasize.

    But again none of this is relevant nor answers my questions so you’ve effectively said nothing. I don’t even know how this got to quantum physics…Darkneos
    You know, given process philosophy is supposed to be a more faithful interpretation of QM by its adherents its actually really tangential but close to it.

    Also you already made up your mind. . .

    This is why I often take the Buddhas stance on metaphysics in this; it doesn’t matter. Also why I don’t partake in philosophy often.

    I also, agree. Course, I'm bored and I didn't take to heart a previous morbid thread that you had started so I'm left with a good amount of personal free time.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Except those books or lectures don't actually usually address the interpretational issue regarding it. Usually, they actually feel its irrelevant to the mathematical formulation and my textbook from the university makes that expressly clear where the math ends to where the uncertain philosophy begins.

    Which is a key point that I'd like to emphasize.
    substantivalism

    Last time I tried to dive into it I couldn’t understand a word of it, so I just ask people.

    You know, given process philosophy is supposed to be a more faithful interpretation of QM by its adherents its actually really tangential but close to it.substantivalism

    So what does that mean exactly? You’re not really telling me much with that. From what others tell me that’s not the case and that process philosophy runs into issues when applying it to reality let alone our lives.

    From your earlier posts it doesn’t sound like you understand because you said your friend losing a hair wouldn’t make them a whole new person when according to process philosophy it would.

    Also physics doesn’t really answer what reality is made of so…

    I also, agree. Course, I'm bored and I didn't take to heart a previous morbid thread that you had started so I'm left with a good amount of personal free time.substantivalism

    I say that with Buddha but really I’m trying to understand this but people are either vague or don’t know. Like I said, I’m asking how does this look in our daily lives and no one can explain that.
123456Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.