• PoeticUniverse
    1.5k
    I believe absolute fundamentality can only really be found in the void itself, as a property of space one might say.punos

    :up:

    I think that's why they are called 'elementary' instead; however, they are directly quanta of fields.

    Another video from today - that's mostly what I do every day:



    When the universe ends—sparse photons left…

    The last black holes will whisper to the void,
    Their Hawking radiation’s fading song
    A requiem for galaxies long dead,
    For stars that danced and planets that once bloomed;

    Yet in that darkness sleeps infinite seed,
    The quantum foam of possibility,
    Where virtual particles embrace and part
    Like thoughts within the cosmic mind unborn.

    The vacuum teems with spectral symmetries,
    Mathematics’ ghosts that never sleep,
    Platonic forms in timeless hibernation
    Awaiting their next chance to manifest.

    In this great pause between the cosmic acts,
    The stage is empty but the script remains,
    Written in the grammar of pure space,
    In laws that transcend any single world.

    Perhaps some deeper rhythm pulses here
    In realms where time itself dissolves to now,
    Where every ending holds beginning’s heart,
    And death is just geometry in flux.

    The constants and the forces hibernate
    Like winter seeds beneath dimensional frost,
    Until conditions ripen once again
    For space and time to blossom into form.

    See how the void begins to ripple now
    With fluctuations in the quantum deep,
    As virtual becomes the actual,
    And possibility ignites to mass.

    The eternal math starts singing once again,
    Its abstractions clothing themselves in fire,
    As from the ashes of our universe,
    Another cosmos learns to read its lines.
  • flannel jesus
    2k
    I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I like Jo Whelers answer.

    I would consider myself a "process philosophy" believer when it comes to the emergence of human minds.

    I consider myself a physicalist, which is to say everything is either physical, or the consequence of physical events. When you mix that with Process Philosophy, you get a view of the mind where it makes sense to say "the mind isn't physical, but the mind IS the result of physical events - the mind is the consequence of physical processes".

    So the physical stuff is real, the events are real, the processes are real, and that is a way of discussing how things like minds can emerge from non-mind things like chemicals in the brain.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    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.Gnomon
    God is a something from nothing and isn't necessary as the universe could be eternal without intelligent design. God just complicates the matter. I find it easier to contemplate a perpetual causation than the idea of something from nothing. To say that God is eternal yet never does anything (cause anything to happen) is to relegate the notion of god into meaninglessness. How would we know how many Big Bangs have occurred before ours if god is eternal?

    Meaning is a causal relation. In asking what life and the universe means is to ask what caused it and if there was an intentional purpose for its existence (intention is a type of cause). Without causation there is no meaning, no information, no existence as things are a relation between other things. God does not exist unless it does something, and if it exists eternally then it has acted eternally (perpetual causation (infinite Big Bangs)).
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    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.Darkneos

    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...Darkneos
    It doesn't mean any of that at all. To say that they're still objects while never being able to point to objects, only processes, is stretching the imagination as a delusion.

    To even say that things change is to say that things are processes.

    You're failing to take into account the relative rate at which your brain processes information about the environment and the rate at which the other processes in the environment change, and how that affects how you perceive them as static "objects".

    Giving a damn about anything is a process. :cool:
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    God is a something from nothing and isn't necessary as the universe could be eternal without intelligent design. God just complicates the matter. I find it easier to contemplate a perpetual causation than the idea of something from nothing.Harry Hindu
    Perhaps, prior to the 20th century, a self-existent universe may have been plausible. But the astro-physical evidence of a singular point-of-origin for space-time made our cosmos seem contingent upon some outside force. Also, the laws of physics indicate that our evolving space-time world, began with high energy and low entropy, and will eventually end in a Big Sigh*1. Moreover, "Perpetual Causation" is an illicit violation of the second law of Thermodynamics, unless an inexhaustible source of Energy can be found outside the finite physical system we find ourselves dependent upon.

    So, apart from non-empirical speculations, the before & after states are missing from our current scientific model of reality. Hence, philosophers are free to theorize about those gaps in the empirical facts. Personally, I long-ago gave-up on the Hebrew Genesis model of creation. But the Greek notion of First Cause*2 and Prime Mover are still in play, logically. Also, the emergence of human intelligence, has yet to be explained in terms of Biology & Physics. So, some kind of apriori creative Mind is a philosophically reasonable account for that explanatory gap.

    We can dismiss these non-empirical conjectures as God-of-the-Gaps-guesses, until science fills-in the lacuna in our understanding of how physical evolution could produce human beings and worldwide culture from chaotic random mutations without an algorithm of Intelligent Selection criteria. But there's no law against philosophical speculation is there? Is it pseudoscience or merely creative thinking? :smile:


    *1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.
    https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/

    *2. Plato (429-347 BC) was an early proponent of intelligent design (ID), a pseudoscientific idea that posits an intelligent cause for certain features of the universe
    ___Google A.I. Overview
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    You're doing it, right here, right now...
    There is no right or wrong approach to it truthfully.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Really great post! — PoeticUniverse
    Thank you, although i'm sure others might not agree. :smile:
    punos
    On a philosophy forum we expect to have disagreements. But we also have a right to expect the disputes to be articulated in calm rational counter-arguments ; instead of infantile schoolyard name-calling with big words, such as "Dunning-Kruger", as a supercilious way to call someone an idiot, and get it past the forum censors, who frown on ad hominems.

    A more acceptable response might be : I don't understand ; please define "X", or explain "Y". But mutually exclusive worldviews, such as Atheism vs Theism and Immanentism vs Transcendentalism, have ancient dug-in roots. And for those with dogmatic positions, no amount of reasoning would be persuasive. Even moderate positions, such as Deism or Preternaturalism, would be unacceptable for those who style themselves as defenders of Truth & Science. :grin:

    TIP : Be on the lookout for a forum ID image of a mean 'widdle kid ; they bite with sarcasm! :angry:

    3656363_m.jpg
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    But the astro-physical evidence of a singular point-of-origin for space-time made our cosmos seem contingent upon some outside force.Gnomon
    :yawn:

    Yeah well there's no scientific EVIDENCE to support this anachronistic (crypto-creationist, woo-of-the-gaps :sparkle:) claim about the planck era universe.
  • punos
    647

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


    I didn't particularly like this film, but i did love this scene. It's just a reminder for those that know, and a lesson for those that don't.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Moreover, "Perpetual Causation" is an illicit violation of the second law of Thermodynamics, unless an inexhaustible source of Energy can be found outside the finite physical system we find ourselves dependent upon.Gnomon
    This would be a problem for your god as well. As I pointed out before, for you god to exist eternally prior to the universe it would have to have done something, move, think, etc. to exist at all, which would require an inexhaustible source of energy. It seems to me that you're saying that god did not exist until it created the universe.

    Also, the emergence of human intelligence, has yet to be explained in terms of Biology & Physics. So, some kind of apriori creative Mind is a philosophically reasonable account for that explanatory gap.Gnomon
    If intelligence needs an intelligent creator then why would god's intelligent mind not need a creator?

    But there's no law against philosophical speculation is there? Is it pseudoscience or merely creative thinking?Gnomon
    This isn't creative thinking. This is projection - anthropomorphizing the natural properties and laws of the universe.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Although i agree with you, i'm not sure what to say or how to say it.punos
    When bullied by a forum troll, the best thing to say is nothing. That's why I long ago stopped responding to my own philosophical gadfly, who doesn't know what he doesn't know. Since he considers himself to be superior, he doesn't need my opinions anyway. My role now is to warn others being browbeaten to use the best pest control : silence. It doesn't affect him, but leaves him isolated in an echo chamber. :cool:
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    This would be a problem for your god as well. As I pointed out before, for you god to exist eternally prior to the universe it would have to have done something, move, think, etc. to exist at all, which would require an inexhaustible source of energy. It seems to me that you're saying that god did not exist until it created the universe.Harry Hindu
    Thermodynamics is not a problem for "my god"*1, because it is not a physical system subject to natural laws, but the source of those laws. This Platonic First Cause*2 did not exist as a real thing, but as an Ideal Potential. Potential doesn't do anything until Actualized. Aristotle's Prime Mover doesn't move, because it's the Unmoved Mover. Infinite Eternal Potential --- not limited by space-time --- is, by definition, an "inexhaustible source of energy". Space-time energy is doomed to entropic anihilation ; so where did our limited supply come from?

    These First Principles are not Gods, in the usual anthro-morphic sense, but fundamental logical Necessities to explain the ontological origin of the finite material & thermodynamic world we live in. Do you have a better philosophical answer to the Cause of the Big Bang? My "god' is more like Spinoza's 17th century pantheistic deity, except that it takes into account the 20th century evidence for a Big Bang beginning. If the physical world is temporal instead of eternal, his all-god requires a creation story.

    Are you aware of a scientific answer to the Big Bang ex nihilo problem? The Multiverse Conjecture is not scientific because it has no physical evidence. Instead, both Multiverse and Many Worlds are philosophical conjectures that are no more empirically valid or explanatory than my own notion of Infinite Potential. Besides, they may be bound by their own definitional Paradox*3. Since our brains are physical systems subject to the given laws of Nature, we are baffled by the notion of anything outside of space-time. And yet, the Big Bang was the birth of space-time. So we go in circles trying to make sense of timelessness and placelessness. :smile:


    *1. G*D :
    This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole (panendeism) of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
    I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.

    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

    *2. Platonic Potential :
    In Platonic philosophy, the "first cause" or "potential" is often understood as the realm of "Forms" - perfect, unchanging, and eternal ideas which serve as the ultimate source and blueprint for everything that exists in the physical world, including the potential for all things to manifest and become actualized; essentially, the Forms act as the underlying cause of all existence, without themselves being directly created or caused by anything else.
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    *3. The Multiverse Paradox :
    Physicists say the multiverse saddles us with a paradox. Multiverse cosmology builds on cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe underwent a short burst of rapid expansion in its earliest stages. Inflationary theory has had a wealth of observational support for some time but has the inconvenient tendency to generate not one but a great many universes. And because it doesn’t say which one we should be in — it lacks this information — the theory loses much of its ability to predict what we should see. This is a paradox. On the one hand, our best theory of the early universe suggests we live in a multiverse. At the same time,the multiverse destroys much of the predictive power of this theory.
    https://bigthink.com/hard-science/paradox-stephen-hawking-cosmology/
    Note --- Cosmic Inflation is not a scientific theory because it has no possible empirical evidence to support interpretations of abstract arcane mathematical calculations.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.5k
    Space-time energy is doomed to entropic anihilation ; so where did our limited supply come from?Gnomon

    Heck if I know; I'm on vacation…

    To the Ends of the Universe: A Cosmic Road Trip

    The Departure

    I took a road trip through the universe recently,
    Rolled down the windows of my consciousness,
    Cranked up some space-time tunes real loud—
    The cosmic background radiation was a bit repetitive.

    Holy-moly, what an inhospitable joint!
    Forget about finding a decent truck stop
    Or even a patch of habitable space.
    I’d rather be stuck in rush hour in Melbourne.

    The Void

    96% of everything was invisible stuff—
    Dark energy pushing, dark matter lurking;
    Like driving through Nebraska at midnight
    With no headlights and a broken compass.

    The other 4% was mostly cosmic litter:
    Hydrogen loitering on street corners,
    Helium hanging out in bad neighborhoods,
    And dust that would never settle down.

    Man, I’m starting to miss Toronto’s winters—
    At least there you can wear enough layers.
    Out here it’s absolute zero or plasma inferno,
    No comfy medium for flesh and bone.

    The Design Flaw

    Whatever cosmic architect drew up these plans
    Clearly wasn’t thinking about the tenants;
    No OSHA regulations, no safety rails,
    Just vacuum, radiation, and chaos galore.

    Evolution had to work overtime for billions of years
    Just to make Earth somewhat livable,
    Like a contractor fixing a badly built house
    While the foundation’s still settling.

    And even then we almost got evicted
    By asteroids, volcanoes, and ice ages,
    Our species squeezed through a genetic bottleneck
    So tight you could count our ancestors on fingers and toes.

    The Stellar Tour

    Passed by some stellar graveyards,
    Where white dwarfs sat cooling their heels;
    Saw nurseries of baby stars throwing tantrums,
    Spewing stellar winds across their cosmic cribs.

    Watched black holes playing vacuum cleaners,
    Sucking up anything that came too close;
    While supernovas lit up the neighborhood
    Like cosmic fireworks gone terribly wrong.

    The Pit Stop

    Made a quick stop at that famous restaurant
    At the universe’s outer rim—
    The one with good food but no atmosphere!
    Their health inspection rating was abysmal.

    The menu was pretty limited:
    Everything pre-cooked by background radiation,
    Microwaved to three degrees Kelvin,
    Served on a plate of quantum fluctuations.

    The Wasteland

    What a cosmic dump of celestial debris!
    A wilderness of wreckage stretching forever,
    Like a junkyard that goes on for infinity
    In every conceivable direction and dimension.

    Not a single ‘Rest Area Next Exit’ sign,
    No ‘Gas, Food, Lodging’ for light years,
    Just emptiness occasionally interrupted
    By things that could kill you instantly.

    The Return

    Back home now, counting my lucky quarks,
    Realizing that after 14 billion years
    Of cosmic evolution’s trial and error,
    We somehow slipped through probability’s fingers.

    Like winning the lottery while being struck by lightning
    During a solar eclipse on a leap year—
    We beat odds so astronomical
    They don’t even have numbers for them.

    The Punchline

    Oh wait—what’s that in the rear-view mirror?
    A mountain-sized rock with Earth in its GPS?
    All that cosmic luck about to cash out
    Like a rigged slot machine’s final spin.

    Well, it was fun while it lasted.
    The house always wins in the end.
    At least we got to see the show
    Before the curtain came crashing down.

    The Epilogue

    Just another day in the cosmos,
    Where time deals exclusively in infinities,
    And life is just a temporary glitch
    In the universal operating system.

    Perhaps somewhere past Andromeda
    There’s a better-designed universe
    With comfortable temperatures
    And free parking for conscious beings.

    But I doubt it.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.5k
    I didn't particularly like this film, but i did love this scene. It's just a reminder for those that know, and a lesson for those that don't.punos

    A Conversation with the Great Lama
    (Who lives near me)
    On Reality and Illusion


    “Lama, I’ve heard that this world isn’t real,
    That all we perceive is mere illusion’s deal—
    That rain isn’t wet, and pain doesn’t hurt,
    And nothing that seems to exist is quite real.”

    “Indeed, that’s the teaching passed down through time,
    That reality’s nature is more sublime
    Than what our senses tell us is true.
    Tell me, does this help when your problems climb?”

    “Well, Lama, I’ve tried to see through the veil,
    To treat life’s hard knocks as just details that fail
    To pierce the true nature of ultimate truth—
    But hunger still hungers, and storms still assail.

    “The sunrise still wakes me, the night makes me sleep,
    My heart still can love, and my eyes still can weep,
    Each moment feels solid, each pain cuts as sharp
    As if this illusion weren’t merely skin-deep.”

    “You speak what you find with admirable sight.
    The world does persist, through both day and night,
    Appearing exactly, in every small way,
    As if the illusion were really quite right.”

    “But Lama, this puzzles my practical mind:
    If something looks real, and no test can find
    A difference between the false and the true,
    Then what does it mean to leave reality behind?”

    “Ah now, dear seeker, you touch something deep—
    The paradox many find hard to keep:
    How can the unreal seem perfectly real,
    Yet still be untrue as a dream in our sleep?

    “For when I am hungry, rice fills my bowl,
    And when I am weary, rest makes me whole,
    Each cause has effect, each action bears fruit,
    As if the illusion were truth’s very soul.

    “You notice with wisdom how things seem to be,
    How perfectly matched is all that we see,
    How every detail of life’s complex dance
    Performs as if real—that’s the mystery.”

    “Then Lama, forgive me, but I must say plain:
    A difference that makes no difference at train
    Of thought or experience, action or choice,
    Seems rather like truth with a different name.”

    “You’ve stumbled on something worth contemplating—
    Perhaps the distinction we’ve been debating
    Is itself an illusion, a conceptual trap,
    A duality not worth celebrating.”

    “Are you saying, Lama, the teaching itself
    Might be like a book on the wisdom shelf
    That points to a truth beyond true and false,
    Beyond the division of self and not-self?”

    “Now there’s a question worth sitting with long,
    As deep as a temple bell’s evening song!
    Perhaps the real truth lies not in the words,
    But in seeing through both ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’”

    “So whether it’s real or a dream that we see,
    The point isn’t arguing what it might be,
    But living each moment with full presence here,
    Accepting what is, letting all else flow free?”

    “Your wisdom grows like a lotus in rain,
    Finding truth beyond pleasure and pain.
    The question of real versus unreal fades
    When we stop trying to grasp and explain.”

    “Then maybe the teaching’s not meant to deny
    The world that we live in, or label as lie
    The experiences filling our everyday lives,
    But to free us from concepts that make the soul sigh?”

    “You’ve touched the heart of the matter at last:
    The teaching’s not meant to deny what is vast
    And present before us, but free us to live
    Unbound by the concepts we cling to so fast.”

    "So Lama, perhaps we can say this is true:
    The world that we live in, both ancient and new,
    Is neither illusion nor solid-set fact,
    But something more subtle, seen fresh and anew?”

    “Now that’s a wisdom worth taking to heart—
    Beyond the false wisdom of tearing apart
    What’s real and unreal, true self and false self,
    Is simply this moment, where all things start.”
  • punos
    647

    That was excellent PoeticUniverse. Very good.. :smile: :100:
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Thermodynamics is not a problem for "my god"*1, because it is not a physical system subject to natural laws, but the source of those laws. This Platonic First Cause*2 did not exist as a real thing, but as an Ideal Potential. Potential doesn't do anything until Actualized. Aristotle's Prime Mover doesn't move, because it's the Unmoved Mover. Infinite Eternal Potential --- not limited by space-time --- is, by definition, an "inexhaustible source of energy". Space-time energy is doomed to entropic anihilation ; so where did our limited supply come from?Gnomon

    :roll: Here we go again... dualism on a runaway train. How does a system not subject to natural laws become a source of those laws? Unmoved movers? Something from nothing? All you are doing is complicating things unnecessarily. I think our ideas about the fundamental nature of "objects" as bundles of process/relations/information are compatible up to the point where you invoke some sort of intelligent design.

    Potential is an idea that stems from our ignorance of the deterministic effects of some cause. We think of probabilities and potentials as having some objective existence apart from our minds, but they are just projections of our own ignorance.

    There is also the possibility that causation is a loop. No need for infinite regresses or something from nothing.
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    :roll: Here we go again... dualism on a runaway train. How does a system not subject to natural laws become a source of those laws?Harry Hindu
    The First Cause concept may seem like Dualism from your perspective, but it's Monism*1 from mine.

    I can't tell you "how" it happens. That's a job for physical science. But I may be able to suggest "why" : temporal Natural Laws are a subset of eternal principles. From a physical scientific viewpoint, this notion will sound like non-sense ; which it is literally : beyond the scope of physical senses. Yet, from a philosophical metaphysical viewpoint, we can trace what is (Being : Ontology) back to its Origin. The Big Bang theory was an attempt to do just that. Unfortunately, the receding physical evidence disappeared into a Black Hole Singularity that is invisible to our eyes. So, we can never know (Epistemology) via our physical senses, what lies beyond that point of beginning.

    Fortunately, our philosophical minds can extend the trail of evidence (conjecture) beyond the instance of Causation toward its inception. Imagine an arrow passing by your face, then try to discover "where did that come from?" When you look in the direction of the assumed Source, you may only see dark bushes. But your reasoning powers can conclude that an intentional human agent with a bow was hiding in the underbrush. Similarly, philosophers, from time immemorial, have looked for the Source of our Cosmos in the bushy stars.

    Those attempts at understanding where our temporary world came from have yielded a variety of other-worldly models : from ancient Brahman (ultimate reality underlying all phenomena), to an anthro-morphic god-head (pantheon), and eventually to the monistic notion of Monotheism. More modern notions are Multiverse (infinite regression of what is) to Many Worlds (Schrodinger's Cat metaphysics). Yet, another modern worldview is based on the ubiquity of Information*2 (power to enform), in many different forms : Energy, Matter, Mind. My thesis provides links to scientific evidence for this non-sense.

    I won't belabor this theme in a forum post. But the bottom-line is that a single creative force, EnFormAction (negentropy), operating in this world as Energy & Matter & Mind can be traced back to a Casual Principle that Plato called First Cause, and Aristotle labeled Prime Mover. These are not Gods in the traditional sense, but hypothetical explanations for the impetus that jump-started our evolving world on its journey through Space-Time. Nothing in this theory violates any laws of physics. But it gives us some idea about how an explosion of space-time came to be governed by logical laws. :smile:


    *1. Mind/Body Problem :
    Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

    *2. Enformationism :
    A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
    Note --- Spinoza described his "God" as the infinite eternal substance. But he knew nothing of the singular Big Bang theory or infinite Multiverses, so assumed that the material world was infinite & eternal.

    :roll: Here we go again... dualism on a runaway train. How does a system not subject to natural laws become a source of those laws?Harry Hindu
    It's traditionally called Creation Ex Nihilo. But in my non-dual version it's called EnFormAction : the power to create something new, not from nothing, but from infinite Potential. We don't know anything about infinity or omnipotence, but we have the mental power to imagine such non-things as Zero, Infinity and Mathematics (e.g. transcendent functions). Again, nothing dual here, just a finite world existing as a limited-but-integral component of an infinite singular non-physical whole : the Monad*3. According to Leibniz, you can't get any simpler than Unity. But according to Virgil, you can get e pluribus unum. I feel sure that such philosophical profundities are not too "complicated" for you ; if you think outside the physical box (metaphysics). :nerd:

    *3. "“Monadmeans that which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible."
    https://iep.utm.edu/leib-met/
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    ... dualism on a runaway train. How does a system not subject to natural laws become a source of those laws? Unmoved movers? Something from nothing? All you are [@Gnomon is] doing is complicating things unnecessarily.Harry Hindu
    :100:
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Whatever cosmic architect drew up these plans
    Clearly wasn’t thinking about the tenants;
    PoeticUniverse
    Yes. The architect of our cosmic habitation apparently was designing for non-divine inhabitants who are subject to the same natural laws as the house itself : gravity, entropy, cause & effect. If humans were supposed to be angels, we would be walking on clouds in heaven. Instead we are temporary tenants, not owners. We are no more divine than the other tenants, including rats & roaches. But we do have an extra clause in our lease : we get to complain to the landlord. And self-maintenance is in the contract. But you-break-it-you-fix-it is the rule. :halo:
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    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

    One way to understand an obscure philosophical opus is to learn what prompted it, or what it is arguing against. A few years ago, since I never fully understood what Whitehead was going on about, I just accepted that some of what he said sounded vaguely like an oriental worldview, such as Taoism. I have no formal academic indoctrination or experience in Philosophy --- other than what I get on this forum. So I often Google perplexing questions in order to get a quick dumbed-down overview : what-it's-all-about-Alfie?*1.

    According to the summaries below, it seems that Whitehead was presenting a worldview in opposition to Substance Metaphysics (Materialism) and religious Monotheism (divine omnipotence)*2. Ironically, this wishy-washy position is likely to piss-off both hard-nosed Materialistic Philosophers and dogmatic Religious Believers. For example, modern science, since Newton"s Principia, took Materialism and Mechanism for granted. But then, Quantum Mechanics came along and made a mishmash of step-by-step deterministic mechanisms at the foundations of physical reality. And Quantum Uncertainty made even the existence of subatomic particles appear probabilistically fuzzy & conceptually immaterial*3. More like processes than particles. Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview.

    Whitehead also watered-down the certainty of traditional Monotheism, by noting that the physical world shows no signs of Omnipotent once-and-for-all creation. Instead, the cosmos seems to be both Logical (mathematics) and Irrational (capricious). And yet he reserved a place for a God in his worldview*4. His Deistic god-model is also similar to my own in some ways. So now, I'm gradually coming to a general understanding of his Evolutionary Process worldview. BTW, his contemporaries, Henri Bergson (Creative Evolution), and J.C Smuts (Holism and Evolution) also wrote subversive books on how the world progresses from simple primitive forms to the complexities of today. :smile:


    *1. The opposite of process philosophy is typically considered to be substance metaphysics; this is because process philosophy emphasizes the fundamental nature of change and becoming, while substance metaphysics views reality as primarily composed of static, unchanging substances, like the idea of a "thing" with fixed properties"
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    *2. Materialism : Whitehead believed that reality is made up of processes, not material objects. He rejected the idea that reality is made up of independent bits of matter.
    Divine omnipotence :
    Whitehead rejected the idea that God is all-powerful. He believed that God is necessary for everything that happens, but not in the traditional sense of omnipotence.

    ___Google A.I. Overview

    *3. Whitehead's Mission :
    In light of the rise of electrodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, Whitehead challenged scientific materialism and the bifurcation of nature “as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived”, and he clearly outlined the mission of philosophy as he saw it:
    . . . . Philosophy is not one among the sciences with its own little scheme of abstractions which it works away at perfecting and improving. It is the survey of the sciences, with the special object of their harmony, and of their completion. It brings to this task, not only the evidence of the separate sciences, but also its own appeal to concrete experience.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

    *4. Alfred North Whitehead's concept of God is a unified actual entity that is necessary for his metaphysical system. Whitehead believed that God is the source of order, novelty, and wisdom in the universe. . . .
    Whitehead believed that God's nature is primordial and unified. He also believed that God is present and immanent in the world. . . .
    Whitehead believed that God is the Principle of Limitation, giving structure and order to the universe. He also believed that God provides an aim for all entities

    ___Google A.I. Overview
    Note --- "Source of order" = Logos???
    "Primordial" = First Cause???
    "Aim" = teleology???
    No "independent existence" = Holism???

    quote-the-misconception-which-has-haunted-philosophic-literature-throughout-the-centuries-alfred-north-whitehead-46-31-14.jpg
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    What exactly 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
    This is a continuation of my previous post. In which I noted that Whitehead's book seemed to be arguing in favor of Idealism/Mathematical Platonism, and against Materialism/Empirical Realism. Since those conflicting categories (physics vs metaphysics) are commonly cussed & discussed on this forum, I was motivated by your OP to look more deeply into what Whitehead was trying to say. Were you approaching the book from a scientific/materialistic perspective? If so, the book might be contrary to your personal "common sense".

    In my search, I came across this webpage : Asking Terrence Deacon about Whitehead’s Reformed Platonism*1. One comment caught my eye : "Deacon praises Whitehead for defiantly pursuing a realist philosophy despite the tide of nominalism rising all about him during the first half of the 20th century." I was generally familiar with the contrasting worldviews of Idealism vs Realism, and Forms (mental abstractions) vs Materialism (physical objects).

    I identified Realism with Materialism, but Nominalism was not in my vocabulary, so I Googled it*2. Apparently, Nominalism --- numbers are mere names, not real entities --- is the standard viewpoint of modern "hard" science, in that it prefers to focus on particular things, and to leave generalizations & universals ---such as Qualia (redness) and Geometry (relationships) --- to feckless philosophers and number-loving chalk-pushers. Unfortunately, pragmatic science in a complex world is seldom that black & white.

    Personally, I'm not an empirical scientist. So I don't see why we can't have both real things and ideal concepts about things. But a language problem arises when Plato & Kant claim that conceptual Ideals are in some sense more "real" than perceptual Objects. A similar categorical difficulty emerges from Quantum Physics, which concluded that physical particles of Matter (quanta) are ultimately waves of Energy (processes). Again, which is more real or useful depends on your perspective*4.

    Another Real vs Ideal problem is concerned with Whitehead's Panentheistic notion of Nature as a manifestation of God. Yet, again the quantum pioneers reached similar conclusions in order to explain some of the quantum queerness that didn't fit their deterministic and materialistic presumptions*5. Their god-models were not amenable to the Judeo-Christian traditions, but closer to the Cosmos-organizing Logos of Plato.

    Again, although my first philosophically-naive reading of Process and Reality challenged my mostly materialistic worldview at the time, I have since come to accept that the Real World can be viewed from two different, but valid perspectives : Scientific materialism & Philosophical idealism. The notions of Compatibility & Complementarity ; Holistic & Systems Thinking are essential to my BothAnd*6 philosophy. And I suppose that Whitehead had come to a similar compromise between Scientific Objectivity and Philosophical Subjectivity. After all, his specialty of Mathematical Logic did not claim to study physical material objects, but meta-physical mental subjects : inter-relationships. :nerd:


    *1. Whitehead’s Reformed Platonism :
    Deacon doesn’t seem to have much patience for theology. The idea that God conditions Creativity, shaping it according to some primordial valuation is obviously not attractive to him. He would rather seek an explanation for value that finds it emerging later on in the creative advance, perhaps about the time life emerges. He quotes Nietzsche approvingly, and perhaps there is some Nietzschean sense in which he finds the will to live is the ultimate source of value.
    https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/04/27/asking-terrence-deacon-about-whiteheads-reformed-platonism/

    *2. "Realism and nominalism are philosophical theories that differ in their views on the existence of universal concepts. Realists believe that universals are just as real as physical things, while nominalists believe that universals are not real in the same way as physical things."
    ___Google A.I. Overview
    Note --- It would make more sense to me to label the "realists" above as "subjectivists" or "mentalists" or "Idealists". The two kinds of Reality are basically Material vs Mental. Are ghosts "real"? Is PI a real thing? Seems like we have a language confusion, not a philosophical problem.

    *3. "Idealism and nominalism are philosophical theories that differ in their views on the nature of reality. Idealism holds that reality is mental, while nominalism holds that reality is made up of particulars"
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    *4. Werner Heisenberg : “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
    Note --- What we conceive is not necessarily what we perceive.

    *5. Werner Heisenberg : "Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think" and "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

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

    quote-systems-thinking-is-a-discipline-for-seeing-wholes-it-is-a-framework-for-seeing-interrelationships-peter-senge-69-55-86.jpg
  • Darkneos
    848
    A similar categorical difficulty emerges from Quantum Physics, which concluded that physical particles of Matter (quanta) are ultimately waves of Energy (processes). Again, which is more real or useful depends on your perspective*4.Gnomon

    That’s a common misunderstanding on quantum physics and not actually what it says. Particles are real.

    "Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think" and "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."Gnomon

    Not…really?? Also none of this answers my questions.

    So I guess you don’t understand it either.
  • Darkneos
    848
    But then, Quantum Mechanics came along and made a mishmash of step-by-step deterministic mechanisms at the foundations of physical reality. And Quantum Uncertainty made even the existence of subatomic particles appear probabilistically fuzzy & conceptually immaterial*3Gnomon

    Not exactly. There is a reason the quantum stuff doesn’t really apply to the macro state so it’s not really affecting our day to day.


    This is just a misunderstanding of quantum physics.

    Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview.Gnomon

    Based on what the physicists told me there are no philosophical implications, just people who don’t understand it saying there are.
  • Darkneos
    848
    “You’ve touched the heart of the matter at last:
    The teaching’s not meant to deny what is vast
    And present before us, but free us to live
    Unbound by the concepts we cling to so fast.”
    PoeticUniverse

    Poem is pretty much nonsense and not true but this part is definitely so.

    Based on what we know today there is no being unbound by concepts.

    Same this with this moment, what you experience now is based on everything before. This moment isn’t where things start.

    Like I said, it’s just wrong.
  • Darkneos
    848
    I consider myself a physicalist, which is to say everything is either physical, or the consequence of physical events. When you mix that with Process Philosophy, you get a view of the mind where it makes sense to say "the mind isn't physical, but the mind IS the result of physical events - the mind is the consequence of physical processes".flannel jesus

    Based on current evidence you’d be wrong. The mind is physical, it’s the brain.
  • Darkneos
    848
    So far my questions haven't really been answered about it.

    I'm beginning to see why this philosophy never really took off.
  • Darkneos
    848
    . Werner Heisenberg : “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
    Note --- What we conceive is not necessarily what we perceive.
    Gnomon

    allegedly. Though QM has come a long way since his time and turn out it doesn't agree with eastern philosophy.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Also none of this answers my questions.

    So I guess you [@Gnomon] don’t understand it either.
    Darkneos
    :smirk:

    :up:
    :up:

    I'm beginning to see why [process] philosophy never really took off.Darkneos
    As I see it, this is why ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963559
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    That’s a common misunderstanding on quantum physics and not actually what it says. Particles are real.Darkneos
    That assertion depends on how you define "real". If your interest is in statistical mathematical predictions, picturing the wave crests of a quantum field as billiard balls will work. But if you define material objects in terms of definite location & mass, those mathematical particles seem to be more like waves of energy.

    Note that in the description below, "to consider" means "to imagine" an object to have a specified quality that is useful in a specific context. Events (processes) in the quantum field do have measurable effects on the macro level. And if you like to visualize those invisible events as little spherical particles, the math will still work. But billiard balls and cannon balls are "real" in a different sense. :smile:

    Quantum particles are considered "real" in the sense that they are the fundamental building blocks of matter, as described by quantum mechanics, and their existence is confirmed by numerous experiments which accurately predict their behavior and interactions, even though their properties like superposition and entanglement may seem counterintuitive to our everyday experience at larger scales
    ___Google A.I. Overview

    Are Quantum Particles Real? :
    It depends how you define “real”. If you define reality as what is “really” macroscopically observable, than particles are real. Quantum Field Theory cannot predict the “value” of an observable quantity except probabilistically. Just like with “normal” Quantum Mechanics pure “quantum” is not describing reality. . . . .
    Talking about particles is a way to talk about fields but in different terms.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-particles-actually-real-or-is-everything-ultimately-just-composed-of-fields
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview. — Gnomon
    Based on what the physicists told me there are no philosophical implications, just people who don’t understand it saying there are.
    Darkneos
    So your unnamed "physicist" is saying that the pioneers of quantum physics didn't understand the philosophical implications of statistical (versus deterministic) quantum mechanics. Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc, all used philosophical metaphors in their attempts to make sense of the non-classical results of their experiments. That Quantum Theory works is not disputed. But what it means, in terms of philosophical worldview*1, remains open to question a century later.

    For example, Einstein debated Bohr hoping to prove that Bohr's interpretation of quantum events was wrong. History records that Bohr was vindicated*2. Whitehead's Process Philosophy*3 was an attempt to create a new non-classical worldview that would take into account the Statistical Uncertainty and Indeterminate Mechanics of the New Physics, which eventually became the most validated scientific theory*4, despite it's unorthodox philosophical implications.

    Apparently your understanding of quantum physics is closer to Einstein's. But Whitehead was also a certified genius. His "understanding" had little effect on the practical science of physics, but his philosophical interpretation is still discussed on this forum. Is pragmatic Science more important to you than theoretical Philosophy? If so, why do you waste time posting on a philosophy forum? :nerd:

    *1. The Copenhagen interpretationis a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

    *2. Quantum Philosophy Debate :
    Einstein and Niels Bohr began disputing Quantum Theory at the prestigious 1927 Solvay Conference, attended by top physicists of the day. By most accounts of this public debate, Bohr was the victor.
    https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory

    *3. Quantum process philosophyis a philosophical approach that combines process philosophy with quantum mechanics. It views the world as a collection of processes that are constantly changing, rather than a collection of static objects.
    Quantum mechanics challenges traditional ideas of time and causality. For example, it describes scenarios that make it difficult to understand how cause and effect work at the quantum level.
    Quantum process philosophy can be used to describe consciousness, which is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to explain using traditional scientific methods.

    ___Google A.I. Overview :

    *4. Quantum Physics isn't as weird as you think. It's weirder.
    It is one of the best-tested theories of physics, and we use it all the time. On the face of it, however, the quantum realm is extraordinary: Within it, quantum objects can be “in two places at once”; they can move through barriers; and share a connection no matter how far apart they are.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-isnt-as-weird-as-you-think-its-weirder/
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.