• Darkneos
    848
    I asked the question on Stack Exchange: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it

    But the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entries on it and so I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it.
  • punos
    647

    Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static. Everything moves, and is made of things that move, that are made of things that move, that are made of things that move. At the very bottom it's just space, or the vibrating void. If a thing were to truly stop moving, then it would simultaneously cease to exist, and it will no longer be a thing.
  • Amity
    5.6k
    Process Philosophy:
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy
    A bit too hefty. Then there is:

    ***

    Process philosophy is characterized by an attempt to reconcile the diverse intuitions found in human experience (such as religious, scientific, and aesthetic) into a coherent holistic scheme.

    Process philosophy seeks a return to a neo-classical realism that avoids subjectivism. This reconciliation of the intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity, with a concern for scientific findings, produces the explicitly metaphysical speculation that the world, at its most fundamental level, is made up of momentary events of experience rather than enduring material substances.

    Process philosophy speculates that these momentary events, called “actual occasions” or “actual entities,” are essentially self-determining, experiential, and internally related to each other.

    Actual occasions correspond to electrons and sub-atomic particles, but also to human persons. The human person is a society of billions of these occasions (that is, the body), which is organized and coordinated by a single dominant occasion (that is, the mind). Thus, process philosophy avoids a strict mind-body dualism.

    [...]

    1. What Counts as Process Philosophy
    a. The Perennial Process Tradition
    Process philosophy argues that the language of development and change are more appropriate descriptors of reality than the language of static being. This tradition has roots in the West in the pre-Socratic Heraclitus, who likened the structure of reality to the element of fire, as change is reality and stability is illusion. Heraclitus is famous for the aphorism that one can never step in the same river twice.

    In Eastern traditions, many Taoist and Buddhist doctrines can be classified as “process.” For example, the Taoist admonition that one should be spontaneously receptive to the never ending flux of yin and yang emphasizes a process worldview, as do the Buddhist notions of pratyitya-samutpada (the inter-dependent origination of events) and anatma (the denial of a substantial or enduring self).

    More recently on the continent, one finds process philosophers in Hegel, who saw the history of the world as processive and dialectic unfolding of Absolute Spirit and in Gottfried Leibniz, Henri Bergson, Nikolai Berdyaev, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Even David Hume (insofar as he rejected the idea of a substantial self in favor of a series of unconnected perceptual “bundles”) can be considered a process philosopher....
    IEP - Process Philosophy

    Just for starters.
  • Amity
    5.6k
    I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it.Darkneos

    I am not one of those who knows what 'process philosophy' is, or means. Getting lost is part of finding out. From chaos comes clarity. Sometimes!
    First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun!
    I don't suppose there is a simple answer to your question of 'exactly'...there never is...

    There is a strong tendency to overlook process and to think we simply live in world full of separate things. We use nouns, which indicate some kind of stable entities — what in the philosophical tradition have been called “substances.” It’s quite normal to think of the world as a thing, filled with other things — rivers, mountains, lions, mosquitos, people, all sort of things. It’s also quite normal to think of these individual things as distinct from other things, which they are not. The fish is not the river. It is in the river. The river is not the river valley. It flows through the valley. The valley is not the region. But it is a part of a region. Objects are parts of bigger objects still. Wholes are parts of other wholes. [...]

    We cannot understand the things mentioned without understanding the processes in which they are involved. Process philosophers tend to emphasize these processes that interlink these various things, and they emphasize that the things themselves have fuzzy boundaries and are also characterized by their processes.

    The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital. [...]

    ...the first four characteristics that Rescher views as basic tendencies of process thinkers. In Rescher’s words:

    1. Time and change are among the principle categories of metaphysical understanding.
    2. Process is a principle category of ontological description.
    3. Processes are more fundamental, or at any rate, not less fundamental than things for the purposes of ontological theory.
    4. Several, if not all, of the major elements of the ontological repertoire (God, nature as a whole, persons, material substances) are best understood in process terms.
    5. Contingency, emergence, novelty, and creativity are among the fundamental categories of metaphysical understanding. (5-6)
    The Basics of Process Philosophy - Reason and Meaning

    Interesting to read the 16 thoughts on the article.
    Also that 'a future post will focus on Heraclitus, Laozi, and the Buddha as some of the original process thinkers.'

    ***
    the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entriesDarkneos

    If we take only one example, from many, why doesn't this make sense to you? :

    Ecology
    With its perspective that everything is interconnected, that all life has value, and that non-human entities are also experiencing subjects, process philosophy has played an important role in discourse on ecology and sustainability.
    Wiki - Process philosophy
  • Amity
    5.6k
    OK. Re my questions as to why it is important to you, I should have looked at this first.


    And the final question and response:

    1
    Uhhh…what does that mean exactly? I know that things change but what exactly does that mean and what does that mean for what I’m saying about people and society? –
    BoltStorm

    Your question, "I'm wondering I guess how would such a worldview function if it stopped seeing living things as "things". ... From an understanding of semiosis, you would not see people as discrete, concretely bounded 'things'. You would see each person as an amazing manifestation of what their genetic, epigenetic, and cultural influences autopoietically combined to form what you recognize as their form and identity. ... Think of a dust devil, and how just the right combination of circumstances came together to create a fleeting form. This is probably not the best analogy but please consider. –
    Sarah C Tyrrell
    [emphasis added]

    I think that response sounds about right, from the very little I've gleaned so far.
    What is it that you are saying about people and society? This?:

    At a glance it seems to think that what individuals are is a collection of processes, though to me that would appear to have serious ethical implications since it seems kinda dehumanizing to just label people as just processes. Would that change our view of "people" and would it be for the better? I'm wondering I guess how would such a worldview function if it stopped seeing living things as "things".

    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.

    I just seems like it would be a bad philosophy if one is concerned with well being and things like that, thoughts?

    So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static.
    Just as in:
    Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is staticpunos
  • unenlightened
    9.4k
    I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
    How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
    That every boy and every gal
    That’s born into the world alive
    Is either a little Liberal
    Or else a little Conservative!
    Fal, lal, la!

    Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe.

    How the mind loves to classify, and no mind more so than the philosopher's! And if something, or someone does not fit neatly into the compartments one has, then a new compartment must be created, named, and defined. And for many, perhaps most, the classification of a philosophy or philosopher counts as a sufficient understanding thereof. Hence the proliferation of names of 'isms.

    Processism: a philosophy characterised by the prioritising of 'happens' over 'is'; of event over object; of doing over being. Now I can relax! I still know everything!
  • Amity
    5.6k
    How the mind loves to classify, and no mind more so than the philosopher's! And if something, or someone does not fit neatly into the compartments one has, then a new compartment must be created, named, and defined.unenlightened

    I know, I know. It's crazy!

    Love the Gilbert and Sullivan quote. Most apt.
    Looked for some others. To lighten the day...

    “Gilbert's response to being told they (the words 'ruddy' and 'bloody') meant the same thing was: "Not at all, for that would mean that if I said that I admired your ruddy countenance, which I do, I would be saying that I liked your bloody cheek, which I don't.”
    ― W.S. Gilbert

    “It's love that makes the world go round.”
    ― W.S. Gilbert

    Now that's all settled, we can get on with today's play, or not...

    Now I can relax! I still know everything!unenlightened

    Yup, indeedy, you do :nerd:
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    The lable is very diffuse and is applied in different ways by different people. It tends to be self-consciously adopted most in continental philosophy and unfortunately this sometimes leads to be it being defined in a waterfall of confusing continental speak. 's citation is a good effort, but it makes the definition appear to be in terms of Whiteheadian terminology, but then massively expands it with applications to other, earlier areas of thought. This is not the fault of the author, the term is used equivocally, sometimes mostly for the descendents of Whitehead and a few others, sometimes encompassing Hegel, Hume, or even Aristotle and some of the Scholastics and some of the Islamic thinkers.

    There is "process theology," "process metaphysics," etc. The term is most used to apply to metaphysics. Nicholas Rescher's introductory book is the best text I've found introducing it because it explains the benefits and aims of the process view without doing injustice to contrary views, making clear arguments, and most importantly, not using a ton of foreign terminology. Rescher also takes a broad view, so he looks back to process views in Aristotle, Neoplatonism (e.g. exitus and redditus), Hegel, etc. instead of just 20th+ century continental philosophy and its main precursors.

    Mark Bickhard has a really neat paper on process and systems philosophy in the North Holland Handbook for philosophy of complexity. It is a bit naive, and mislabels historical thinkers with process elements to their thought as squarely "substance metaphysics," but he does show a good job showing how process philosophy gets around problems related to emergence that have been identified in reductionist accounts, particularly in Jaegwon Kim's influential monograms.

    I've quoted some of these sources in some places if it's helpful:


    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826619 -Bickhard
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/885631 - Rescher and Aquinas
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/837241 - Deacon

    There are, of course, difficulties with "everything is changing," and "everything is mutable." For one, if this was true, then even these statements are subject to change, implying things will become immutable. Moreover, if everything is changing, even the meanings of our words and change itself, how shall we ever say anything true about anything? How does this affect our intuition that certain things won't change (e.g. Napoleon will never become the first president of the USA)?

    One can posit "stabilities" in change, but this does not do much good if such stabilities are themselves subject to unrestricted flux, as well as what it even means to be stable or enduring itself subject to change. This is why Heraclitus has the Logos to invoke as the stability within change.
  • Amity
    5.6k
    ↪Amity's citation is a good effort, but it makes the definition appear to be in terms of Whiteheadian terminology, but then massively expands it with applications to other, earlier areas of thought.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Thank you. Not bad for an initial foray, huh? :smile:
    I've never stepped into this river before, so I thank @Darkneos for starting the thread.

    There is "process theology," "process metaphysics," etc. The term is most used to apply to metaphysics. Nicholas Rescher's introductory book is the best text I've found introducing it because it explains the benefits and aims of the process view without doing injustice to contrary views, making clear arguments, and most importantly, not using a ton of foreign terminology. Rescher also takes a broad view, so he looks back to process views in Aristotle, Neoplatonism (e.g. exitus and redditus), Hegel, etc. instead of just 20th+ century continental philosophy and its main precursors.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good to know. I had continued my quick, superficial search and posted part of a paper which mentioned Rescher: The four characteristics that Rescher views as basic tendencies of process thinkers. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963482

    ***

    The lable is very diffuse and is applied in different ways by different peopleCount Timothy von Icarus

    Yes, well. No single, short and sweet answer to the thread title:
    'What exactly is Process Philosophy?' Didn't expect there would be!

    Nevertheless, it raises interesting questions, like:

    ...if everything is changing, even the meanings of our words and change itself, how shall we ever say anything true about anything? How does this affect our intuition that certain things won't change (e.g. Napoleon will never become the first president of the USA)?

    One can posit "stabilities" in change, but this does not good if such stabilities are themselves subject to unrestricted flux, as well as what it even means to be stable or enduring.
    Count Timothy von Icarus

    ***

    So, what is the point of 'Process Philosophy'?

    The second part of @Darkneos's query:

    What are its ethical implications? Or any other kind, for that matter?
  • Amity
    5.6k
    Insights from Nicolas Rescher's Philosophy: Process Metaphysics (06:43)


    In this enlightening video, we unwrap the philosophical gift of process metaphysics, a perspective that sees the foundation of reality not as a collection of static entities, but as a dynamic collage of processes and happenings. We delve into the essence of change and contemplate the notion that change is not merely an occurrence within the universe but the very fabric of the universe itself. [...]

    As we navigate the moral whirlwind of advancements in genetic engineering, process metaphysics offers a framework to consider the implications of our actions as processes with trajectories that shape humanity's course. We also examine how culture, through literature and storytelling, channels the spirit of process metaphysics, with narratives that reflect transformation and moral awakening.

    In our current discourse on climate change and social justice, process metaphysics challenges us to consider the spectrum of possibilities that unfold over time, prompting critical thinking about the patterns of development we weave into our collective future.

    This video is not just a philosophical exploration; it is an invitation to reflect on how seeing the world as a series of processes can change your perspective. It encourages you to ponder your contributions to these processes and to consider what verse you will add to the grand symphony of life.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    What exactly is Process Philosophy?Darkneos
    IMHO, by reductive conceptual conflation of (e.g.) Heraclitean flux + Democritean ceaselessly swirling atoms in void + Spinozist conative infinite & finite modes (sub specie durationis) + Schopenhaurian Will + Bergsonian élan vital + Peircean-Deweyan truth as inquiry ... A.N. Whitehead produces a baroque panpsychist teleology he calls (the) "process" as the fundamental property, or ground, of reality – there are only happenings ("occasions of (possible?) experience") and their inter/relations (i.e. "complexes", or patterns of events); there aren't any static or unrelated 'things' (i.e. Aristotlean substances (or unmoved mover)). Yeah, okay. So an explicit "process philosophy" seems to me preposterously redundant (re: predecessors), and almost Heideggerian in its obscurant ponderings and neologisms (or Hegelian prolixity). But I'm a quixotic pandeist so what the hell do I know? :smirk:
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    What is Process Philosophy?
    But the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entries on it and so I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it.Darkneos
    Years ago, I too, got lost in Whitehead's complex & convoluted abstract & abstruse explication of Process and Reality. So, although the general gist seemed to be agreeable to my own Holistic & Information-based amateur worldview, I couldn't answer your question. Therefore, I was prompted to do a Google search on : "process philosophy compared to what?"

    Here's the response from Google A.I. Overview : "Process philosophy is often compared to substance metaphysics, which is the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy. Process philosophy differs from substance metaphysics in its focus on becoming and change, rather than the static nature of being."

    I suppose "substance metaphysics" is the modern scientific worldview : reductive and materialistic. But Whitehead's dynamic "process" of the universe may be more like a living evolving Organism than a soulless cycling Mechanism. I'm still not sure what "transient occasions of change" might be in a more vernacular expression. It may refer to the perplexing Phase Changes of Physics, or to the unmeasurable exchanges of energy & information (Entanglement) on the quantum level of reality. The Information Philosopher says : "in PNK Whitehead calls the instantaneous and infinitesimal points of special relativity "event-particles." Not much more enlightening.

    Even the quantum pioneers, who inspired Whitehead, didn't understand what was going-on in the basement of the world. Heisenberg called that essential mystery & unpredictability "The Uncertainty Principle". :nerd:


    "Process and Reality" by Alfred North Whitehead is a philosophical work that presents a system known as "process philosophy," arguing that reality is fundamentally a process of becoming rather than a collection of static objects, where the core concept is "creativity" as the driving force behind this ongoing process of actual entities coming into existence; it emphasizes the interconnectedness and relational nature of all things within the universe, with each "actual occasion" (moment of experience) drawing from past events and contributing to future ones, essentially viewing the world as a dynamic flow of becoming rather than a fixed state.
    ___ Google A.I. Overview
    Note 1 --- In my own thesis, I refer to that creative "driving force" as EnFormAction : Energy + Form + Actualization. It's basically aimless Energy combined with a program of Information --- like a guided missile --- to convert static Matter into dynamic substance (Life) and sentient stuff (Mind). Does any of that make sense?
    Note 2 --- The Big Bang, as described by physicists, would be like a bullet : powered by momentum, but otherwise unchanging. Yet if the power was EnFormAction, the material bullet might transform into a living butterfly along the way : a Process of Becoming. The universe began as formless Plasma, and eventually became the living & thinking organism we call Our World. It's a philosophical metaphor, not a scientific fact to be taken literally.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static. Everything moves, and is made of things that move, that are made of things that move, that are made of things that move. At the very bottom it's just space, or the vibrating void. If a thing were to truly stop moving, then it would simultaneously cease to exist, and it will no longer be a thing.punos

    That seems kind of a stretch.
  • Darkneos
    848
    First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun!Amity

    I dunno, why is anything important?

    The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital.The Basics of Process Philosophy - Reason and Meaning

    It's sorta the opposite effect really, if they just reduce this stuff to processes then people stop giving a damn about them.
    So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static.Amity

    Except from what I gather they are, I posted something about teleonomic matter which seems to say the same. We care about individuals not processes.
  • Darkneos
    848
    Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe.unenlightened

    Doesn't seem very smart or insightful TBH. Why bother commenting if that's the response?
    This video is not just a philosophical exploration; it is an invitation to reflect on how seeing the world as a series of processes can change your perspective. It encourages you to ponder your contributions to these processes and to consider what verse you will add to the grand symphony of life.

    Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist.

    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/84439/88743

    Alfred North Whitehead is a philosophical work that presents a system known as "process philosophy," arguing that reality is fundamentally a process of becoming rather than a collection of static objects, where the core concept is "creativity" as the driving force behind this ongoing process of actual entities coming into existence; it emphasizes the interconnectedness and relational nature of all things within the universe, with each "actual occasion" (moment of experience) drawing from past events and contributing to future ones, essentially viewing the world as a dynamic flow of becoming rather than a fixed state.Gnomon

    PEople often use that in a similar vein to the "no self" in Buddhism, though that idea is way more complicated.
  • punos
    647
    That seems kind of a stretch.Darkneos

    I admit it does take some stretching of the imagination, but one should expect to do so when learning new things. What part of my description do you take issue with, or is it the whole thing?
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.5k
    Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist.Darkneos

    But the semblance and the process continue on.

    Change, change, change… constant change, as fast as it
    Can happen—the speed of light being foremost
    The speed of causality—o’er 13 billion years now,
    From the simple on up to the more complex.

    The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
    This Base Existent forced as something,
    Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
    If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot.

    At the indefinite quantum level,
    Zero must be fuzzy, not definite;
    So it can’t be zero, but has to be
    As that which is ever up to something.
  • Amity
    5.6k
    So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static.
    — Amity

    Except from what I gather they are, I posted something about teleonomic matter which seems to say the same. We care about individuals not processes.
    Darkneos

    Well, it seems we 'gather' things differently.
    We can care about both individuals and processes. It's not an either/or scenario.

    I've never heard of 'teleonomic matter', read about it and your conversation:
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121491/does-teleonomic-matter-imply-subjectivity-without-identity

    ***

    Your responses and questions flow from one idea to another. I think that is one of the many ways we can process our thoughts/feelings and confusion. There is a chain of interaction between individual brains/minds. This is part of a philosophical process. Just as writing can be a process of clarifying.

    Process: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/process.html

    What do we hope to achieve by following a process. Improved understanding?
    For what purpose? That depends on goals and aims. It's why I asked you:

    First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun!
    — Amity

    I dunno, why is anything important?
    Darkneos

    So, here is where the process can go off on another tangent, away from a response which would reveal something specific. What would it matter if replies to your question didn't satisfy you? Is it that you just want to talk? See what others think? What motivated this question, other than other questions...
    Is it 'turtles all the way down'?

    ***

    Either way, it seems that some can never get enough of trying to find the 'true' answer.
    And will argue until blue in the face, that they are right and others are wrong.
    Some like it hot.

    But sometimes it's good just to chill out. Get out of your head and any mental tensions.
    There are other ways of getting tied up in knots. Following a process to a satisfying end product.
    Chains of individual stitches, creating a whole.

    In a world that often feels hurried and chaotic, finding solace in simple, rhythmic activities can be a gateway to peace and mental well-being. Knitting, a timeless craft cherished across generations, emerges not just as a creative hobby but as a surprising ally in the quest for mindfulness and relaxation. From the gentle click of needles to the tactile pleasure of yarn, knitting is more than just a means to create; it’s a meditative journey that offers a unique blend of focus, repetition, and creativity.Therapeutic effects of knitting - a guide to mindfulness and relaxation

    Garter Stitch Scarf Pattern – Simple For Beginners
    https://www.handylittleme.com/easy-knit-scarf-pattern/

    You can multi-task and listen to music at the same time. Or watch a video. You can even think about teleonomic matter...
  • unenlightened
    9.4k
    Doesn't seem very smart or insightful TBH.Darkneos

    I dunno, why is anything important?Darkneos

    Your honesty is admirable. But unimportant. Your estimation of my responses likewise.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Processism: a philosophy characterised by the prioritising of 'happens' over 'is'; of event over object; of doing over being. Now I can relax! I still know everything!unenlightened

    Not over, but as. Happenings as is, object as event and doing as being. It seems to me that these terms are interchangeable depending upon which view we are taking at any given moment. It's not that the process philosopher is abandoning those terms but is instead re-purposing them.

    Here's the response from Google A.I. Overview : "Process philosophy is often compared to substance metaphysics, which is the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy. Process philosophy differs from substance metaphysics in its focus on becoming and change, rather than the static nature of being."Gnomon
    What is a substance. What is a process? Which one is more difficult to define?

    We've discussed our ideas before and I think we share a lot in the way we view the world. I would add that process and relations can be used interchangeably here, and information is another relation or process - a causal process/relation.

    I personally do not like to invoke the term, "becoming" as that seems to imply some sort of goal, or intent, and nothing lasts forever, so becoming nothing would essentially be the case for everything and "becoming" becomes meaningless.

    Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist.Darkneos
    It's not saying that at all. It's saying that individuals are processes. You are a process. Your mind is a process. Your body is a process, or relation between organs. Your organs are a process, or relation between molecules. Molecules are a relation between atoms, and atoms a relation between protons and electrons, and protons a relation between quarks. It's possible we could go on for infinity as we continue to dig deeper. The point is that when we try to get at actual objects we are actually getting at relations between smaller objects, which are themselves relations.



    If you think process philosophy is nonsensical then please explain exactly what is substance?
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Here's the response from Google A.I. Overview : "Process philosophy is often compared to substance metaphysics, which is the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy. Process philosophy differs from substance metaphysics in its focus on becoming and change, rather than the static nature of being." — Gnomon

    What is a substance. What is a process? Which one is more difficult to define?

    We've discussed our ideas before and I think we share a lot in the way we view the world. I would add that process and relations can be used interchangeably here, and information is another relation or process - a causal process/relation.

    I personally do not like to invoke the term, "becoming" as that seems to imply some sort of goal, or intent, and nothing lasts forever, so becoming nothing would essentially be the case for everything and "becoming" becomes meaningless.
    Harry Hindu
    Whitehead's Process philosophy is over my head. But it seems to be describing a worldview that is similar to my own. For example, reductive physical Science tends to use the word "substance" to mean composed-of-static-stable-immobile-Matter. But quantum Science has found that Matter is fundamentally a process of energy & form exchanges*1. So Aristotle's definition of "substance"*2 may be more appropriate for our understanding of Nature's fundamentals. On the sub-atomic level of reality, nothing stands still, and formless Energy (causation ; E=MC^2) is the essence of the material substances we see & touch, and depend-on to stay-put when we leave them alone.

    Therefore, our world is not a finished product, but an evolving process. Yet classical Newtonian*3 Physicists tend to dislike the notion of progression toward some future goal, as in Teleology. I don't know what that final denoument will be, but I doubt that the end-state of this process will be heat-death. That's because disorderly Entropy is off-set by a tendency toward order (Negentropy) that I call Enformy*4. And the root of Enformy is Information : knowledge of inter-relations as both frozen snapshots and dynamic movies.

    The Big Bang universe is typically portrayed as an open-ended expansion from almost nothing (singularity) to a lot more of nothing {image below}. But my Enformationism thesis describes it as Progression {image below} instead of just Expansion. That's because the original Singularity of big bang theory is an immaterial mathematical concept, so where did all the organized Matter and sentient Minds come from? Some scientists think the Big Bang ex nihilo notion is erroneous --- implying a Creation event and Teleonomy --- but so far no other First Cause concept has taken its place as a scientific Theory of Everything. :smile:


    *1. Quantum form change refers to the transition of a quantum system from one state to another, such as a phase transition.
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    *2. In Aristotle's metaphysics, essence is what makes a thing what it is, while substance is what makes a thing a general thing. Aristotle believed that primary substance and essence were essentially the same.
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    *3.Newtonian forces push and pull physical bodies in specifiable spatiotemporal directions. But, in an important sense, evolutionary forces do not “act” like physical Newtonian forces. Evolutionary forces push and pull populations of organisms (not bodies) in evolutionary space, not in space and time.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/605799

    *4.Enformy :
    In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, meta-physical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


    Universe-Expansion-Over-Time.jpg

    Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg

    PS___Since the notion of Dissipative Systems*5 has been raised --- presumably to deny the possibility of cosmic or social Progress --- I here note that what some scientists dismissively call "Negentropy" is what I call positive "Enformy", in order to emphasize the role of Information (power to enform or transform) in physics. The depressing prediction of ultimate Heat Death, due to triumphant Entropy, ignores the subtle ways in which thermodynamic digression can be transformed into progressive forms, such as Life & Mind & Technology.

    The dominance of information-sharing humans on Earth is merely one sign of Enformy at work, converting world-destroying Entropy into a world-conquering species of Information consumers and Entropy expellers. Purpose is the paddle by which we propel ourselves into the future (telos). Enformy is the fuel of Progress and Entropy is the exhaust. Elon won't make it to Mars --- in his dissipative rockets --- if he surrenders to Entropy. :wink:

    *5. The maintenance of the structural, non-equilibrium, low entropy, order involves continuous entropy production, which is exported to the outside the system (its environment). In other words, dissipative structures import negentropy (“negative entropy”) and export entropy to maintain internal order.
    https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-cities/articles/10.3389/frsc.2020.523491/full
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    :sparkle: :lol:

    Direction¹ (entropy) =/= purpose (telos).

    [1] dissipative systems e.g. cosmogenesis, nucleogenesis, black hole evaporation, natural selection, autopoiesis ...
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Whitehead's Process philosophy is over my head. But it seems to be describing a worldview that is similar to my own. For example, reductive physical Science tends to use the word "substance" to mean composed-of-static-stable-immobile-Matter. But quantum Science has found that Matter is fundamentally a process of energy & form exchanges*1. So Aristotle's definition of "substance"*2 may be more appropriate for our understanding of Nature's fundamentals. On the sub-atomic level of reality, nothing stands still, and formless Energy (causation ; E=MC^2) is the essence of the material substances we see & touch, and depend-on to stay-put when we leave them alone.

    Therefore, our world is not a finished product, but an evolving process. Yet classical Newtonian*3 Physicists tend to dislike the notion of progression toward some future goal, as in Teleology. I don't know what that final denoument will be, but I doubt that the end-state of this process will be heat-death. That's because disorderly Entropy is off-set by a tendency toward order (Negentropy) that I call Enformy*4. And the root of Enformy is Information : knowledge of inter-relations as both frozen snapshots and dynamic movies.
    Gnomon
    Whitehead invokes God as a fundamental part of his metaphysical system which, I believe, is why he uses the term, "becoming" in describing the behavior of processes.

    The problem is that any stable state some process (which we perceives a solid, static objects) achieves is only temporary. It is our skewed perception of time and the projection of our mental categories that leads us to believe that there is some goal, or permanent state some process is trying to become. Is a newborn wildebeest becoming an adult or becoming the dinner for a pride of lions, or the energy it gives them when they devour it? If things never stop becoming something else, then I think the more appropriate word is simply, "change". Everything is not becoming. Everything is changing, and everything changes at different rates. The relative frequency of change in the mind in the way it perceives and informs an organism is relative to the change in the environment, or other processes, so processes will appear as solid, static objects when their frequency of change is slower relative to your mental processes. Faster processes will appear as blurs of change (waves?) and may appear to have no cause at all from our perspective.


    The Big Bang universe is typically portrayed as an open-ended expansion from almost nothing (singularity) to a lot more of nothing {image below}. But my Enformationism thesis describes it as Progression {image below} instead of just Expansion. That's because the original Singularity of big bang theory is an immaterial mathematical concept, so where did all the organized Matter and sentient Minds come from? Some scientists think the Big Bang ex nihilo notion is erroneous --- implying a Creation event and Teleonomy --- but so far no other First Cause concept has taken its place as a scientific Theory of Everything.Gnomon
    I still have not completely bought into the Big Bang theory. How do we know that the rate of expansion has been the same through time? How do we know if the universe has ever undergone contraction during its history? The "expansion" could be the effect of something else "outside" our universe interacting with our universe. Could it be multiverses, or something in this universe in different dimensions than what we can't perceive (dark matter/energy) causing the expansion?

    *3.Newtonian forces push and pull physical bodies in specifiable spatiotemporal directions. But, in an important sense, evolutionary forces do not “act” like physical Newtonian forces. Evolutionary forces push and pull populations of organisms (not bodies) in evolutionary space, not in space and time.Gnomon
    What is the scope of evolutionary space when the human species has left the planet and can live in space? I don't like the term, "physical". Evolutionary forces are natural forces. Predator and prey are forces acting on each other. The dynamic environment is a force acting on the organism and the organism is itself part of the environment. Gravity is a force that plays a role in the shape and structure of organisms as well as the shape and structure of planets, stars and galaxies.

    The dominance of information-sharing humans on Earth is merely one sign of Enformy at work, converting world-destroying Entropy into a world-conquering species of Information consumers and Entropy expellers. Purpose is the paddle by which we propel ourselves into the future (telos). Enformy is the fuel of Progress and Entropy is the exhaust. Elon won't make it to Mars --- in his dissipative rockets --- if he surrenders to Entropy. :wink:Gnomon
    It seems to me that the sun's energy is the biggest player in the battle against entropy, here in our local area of the universe. The sun won't last forever. I do hope Elon succeeds in his plans to colonize Mars. I hope we go much further because when the Sun goes nova, or a major solar flare occurs, even Mars won't be safe. I hope humans are destined to become a star-faring species. We should not keep our eggs all in one basket.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Whitehead invokes God as a fundamental part of his metaphysical system which, I believe, is why he uses the term, "becoming" in describing the behavior of processes.Harry Hindu
    I too, postulate a philosophical god-like First Cause*1 as an explanation for the something-from-nothing implication of Big Bang theory. The Multiverse hypothesis just assumes perpetual causation, with no beginning or end. But what we know of physical Energy is that it dissipates. So, I find the open-ended Big Bang theory to be adequate for scientific purposes.

    Although it could be interpreted in various ways, the notion of becoming*2 does not necessarily imply moving toward a specific destination. But, if an intelligent designer initiated the process, some teleological destination would make sense. :smile:


    *1. What is the Whitehead concept of God?
    Moreover, Whitehead understands God as the Principle of Limitation in the sense that it is God who gives structure and order to the universe. In the Whiteheadian understanding God is the source of potentiality and source of novelty and the wisdom that permeates the universe.
    https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/35371/1/Unit-3.pdf
    Note --- I would interpret the "principle of limitation" as the Natural Laws that limit infinite possible states to the few that we humans view as "structure & order".

    *2. In philosophy, becoming is the process of change, growth, and evolution. It's a way of understanding reality as dynamic and ever-changing, rather than fixed or static.
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    Faster processes will appear as blurs of change (waves?) and may appear to have no cause at all from our perspective.Harry Hindu
    Yes. I interpret the use of "acausal" in quantum physics to mean simply "no known cause". On the macro scale, sudden Phase Transitions, such as water to ice, also seem mysterious because there is no instantaneous change in the gradual inflow or outflow of energy. So, the potential to transform a liquid to a solid or gas state may be inherent to the geometry of the system, not to a particular cause. :nerd:

    I still have not completely bought into the Big Bang theory. How do we know that the rate of expansion has been the same through time?Harry Hindu
    Some scientists object to the Big Bang theory, primarily because of its implication of a creation event. But they have not yet found a better alternative. The current rate of expansion can be measured, and is called the Hubble Constant. Yet some scientists hypothesize that the early rate of inflation was faster than the speed of light, then suddenly slowed down to its current leisurely pace of "67.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec." But the exponential inflation rate is theoretical, not measurable. :grin:

    I don't like the term, "physical". Evolutionary forces are natural forces.Harry Hindu
    Evolutionary "forces" are metaphors*3 based on the physical forces of nature. And the "mechanisms" --- mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection --- are also metaphors, not directly observable procedures. Would you prefer to call them "meta-physical"? :wink:

    *3. “Force-Talk” in Evolutionary Explanation: Metaphors and Misconceptions
    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0282-5

    It seems to me that the sun's energy is the biggest player in the battle against entropy, here in our local area of the universe. The sun won't last forever.Harry Hindu
    Yes. The sun is a blob of stored energy from the big bang, and is the source of anti-entropy (Enformy) for our local system, including Life & Mind. Since Sol's stores of energy are finite, those living & thinking beings may need to find a new home in about 5 billion earth years. So, Elon Musk needs to step-up the pace of his Starship program. :joke:
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Dunning-Krugers are in full effect. :zip:
  • Darkneos
    848
    I admit it does take some stretching of the imagination, but one should expect to do so when learning new things. What part of my description do you take issue with, or is it the whole thing?punos

    More like how stuff would stop existing, it wouldn't. Stretching the imagination doesn't always mean learning new things, it could be delusion too.

    So, here is where the process can go off on another tangent, away from a response which would reveal something specific. What would it matter if replies to your question didn't satisfy you? Is it that you just want to talk? See what others think? What motivated this question, other than other questions...
    Is it 'turtles all the way down'?
    Amity

    If you don't know you don't know, I don't see the need for all that.

    It's not saying that at all. It's saying that individuals are processes. You are a process. Your mind is a process. Your body is a process, or relation between organs. Your organs are a process, or relation between molecules. Molecules are a relation between atoms, and atoms a relation between protons and electrons, and protons a relation between quarks. It's possible we could go on for infinity as we continue to dig deeper. The point is that when we try to get at actual objects we are actually getting at relations between smaller objects, which are themselves relations.Harry Hindu

    But they're still objects and that's what leads us to giving a damn about anything. If it's just a process then who cares because that would mean nothing exists...

    Dunning-Krugers are in full effect. :zip:180 Proof

    That's the impression I'm getting, no one really knows what this means even the people who subscribe to it. No wonder it never took off.
  • punos
    647

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Is there anything that you know about which does not undergo some kind of process, or that is not in some kind of flux state?
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.5k
    In quantum field theory particles are excitations of underlying quantum property fields rather than discrete, static objects.punos

    Really great post!

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

    Here's a song video that I made today, somewhat pertaining; turn on closed captions (CC) to see the words in the video:



    The weave of the quantum fields as strokes writes…
    (The letters of the elemental bytes—
    The alphabet of the standard model…)

    Each galaxy a grand epic unfolds,
    As dark matter’s grammar shapes and upholds
    The syntax of celestial motion,
    While space-time’s meter measures and molds.

    Like metaphors that bridge world and mind,
    Consciousness emerges, strange and refined,
    From neural verses sparking patterns
    That mirror cosmic rhythms intertwined.

    The double helix writes in four-base ink
    Life’s endless variations, link by link,
    Each mutation a new metaphor
    Teaching matter new ways to think.

    Black holes compress whole libraries of space
    Into singular points of time and grace,
    Where information dances on edges,
    Neither lost nor found—just changing its face.

    Through quantum entanglement’s subtle rhyme,
    Particles poetry-slam through space-time,
    Speaking in spooky correlations
    That make Einstein’s certainties sublime.

    We are stanzas in this cosmic text,
    Each generation writing what comes next,
    Adding chapters to evolution’s tale,
    As simple atoms grow more complex.

    The vacuum teems with virtual verse,
    Particles borrowing time to rehearse
    Their brief soliloquies of being,
    Before returning to the universe.
  • punos
    647
    Really great post!PoeticUniverse

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

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

    For me, the existence of multiple "fundamental" particles, at least as presented in the Standard Model, suggests that none of them are truly fundamental in the strictest sense. I believe absolute fundamentality can only really be found in the void itself, as a property of space one might say.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    I believe absolute fundamentality can only really be found in the void itself...punos
    :fire: :up:
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.