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'.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. — 180 Proof
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 don’t know why I bother responding when it’s evident you know nothing of which you speak. — Darkneos
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:Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions. — Gnomon
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 — Gnomon
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
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
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
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
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
It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring. — AmadeusD
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
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
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
Not exactly. — Darkneos
Like I said I’m trying to understand this — Darkneos
Not really. — Darkneos
t might appear as such but that doesn’t make it so — Darkneos
Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious. — Darkneos
Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that. — Darkneos
It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others. — 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. — AmadeusD
Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true. — AmadeusD
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
Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here. — AmadeusD
What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice.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 questions — 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.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 becomes something that may not be a part of the micro-constituent parts of the world around us at least as proposed — substantivalism
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 — substantivalism
What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice. — substantivalism
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
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
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
Why should that stop physicists from proposing them as lacking intuitive physical properties if they are as un-fathomable as you say they are?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
Okay. . . so why are physicists so upset about these 'misinterpretations' if they aren't meant to tell us what it's 'really' made of?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
To me its completely irrelevant. Whether process philosophy or static object substance philosophies only emphasize different aspects of the same thing.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
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.Not in my experience. Can you give an example? — 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.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
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.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
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?Everything you’ve mentioned are still particles, it’s just that at the level things are weird. — Darkneos
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
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
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
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
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
Then challenge yourself to actually figure it out. That way these conversations can go way easier.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! — substantivalism
Just reposting this. For reasons.I just ask people who know better, I don’t have the time or money for a degree. — Darkneos
Just reposting this. For reasons. — substantivalism
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
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.Way to illustrate my point behind a lot of the misunderstandings behind QM. — 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.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
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.
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
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
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
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.