Although Whitehead was a remarkable mathematician, apparently he was not a hard-nosed logician, or empirical scientist. Instead, like many mathematicians --- going back to Pythagoras, Pascal, and Ramanujan --- he seemed to view the world from the open-minded perspective of an artist or mystic — Gnomon
How does the super-atomic world approaching absolute zero temperature and the cessation of motion become a 0-dimensional point? — ucarr
Time and space coalesce and break symmetry only to spawn a new symmetry of anti-object pairs extruded at 180 degrees from each other? — ucarr
Time and space persist in independence, each holding its own properties? — ucarr
You describe temporal energy by taking recourse to a description of a river. Absolute time is a logical narration of something we cannot visualize directly? I'm wondering if time - even posited as absolute - emerges from mass_energy, especially given the eternity of mass-energy. Might the relationship be bi-conditional? — ucarr
So absolute zero temperature in the way you are describing has never been the case, ever. Also, absolute primordial time is not defined by spatial motion. It is better defined as temporal motion, which can appear as stationary and not moving. This temporal motion can be visualized as a kind of spin: a spherical object spinning inside a 0-dimensional point. It can move but only as rotation, not linearly. As soon as the object moves linearly in relation to another object, it breaks into the 1st dimension. — punos
By your description - as I understand it - absolute time conserves the mass_energy symmetry. — ucarr
My question relates to another question of mine, Does causation have a temporal component? Let's imagine that Plant A releases Pollen A. Joe is not allergic to Pollen A, so Pollen A WRT Joe is not a cause of hay fever, an effect. Bill is allergic to Pollen A, so Pollen A is a cause of hay fever WRT Bill. Since Pollen A has two incompatible identities simultaneously, it seems to me causation is atemporal. — ucarr
I have this idea that if consciousness is emergent from gravitational fields interacting, then around event horizons of black holes, in the run up to the infinite curvature of spacetime, continuity of events, vis., history, becomes deterministic. That light cannot escape a gravitational circularity means that it is determined. The visible light reflected off things determined illuminates that determination. Everything that happens must happen. Cosmic reality overall, however, isn't deterministic when sufficiently far from black holes. This might suggest to us black holes are anchors of cosmic history in that they constrain to some degree what can happen. — ucarr
Might our "pure reason and logic together with what we already know" also be distorted by the insuperable relative time subject to the distortions of the speed of light, gravity, and our nervous systems? — ucarr
Perhaps you did not like that i used the word "idealism"? — punos
??? — 180 Proof
However, if we adopt the perspective of the universe itself, everything should appear as conceptual. So idealism in general terms, is probably correct. — punos
(non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived. — 180 Proof
"If we consider a container that is packed maximally tight with marbles as a near-zero entropy, do we arrive at picture of a zone wherein physics is almost at a standstill and relative time likewise?" — ucarr
"Might such a zone have extreme asymmetry because, being near the zero state, there can be only asymptotic progression in one half of the oscillation cycle towards the storage of energy (as opposed to the consumption of extreme heat)?" — ucarr
"From this we see that causation is perhaps a specifically complex type of motion. Specific complex states of material systems are configured for specific functions that are their effects." — ucarr
"Here perhaps the time element becomes tricky to track. If something is a cause, then it's implied the effect co-exists in time with its effect, otherwise a thing is just a thing, not a cause, and vice versa." — ucarr
"If all fundamental components of mass-energy are re-configurable across the total scope of material creation, then each thing emergent is a road map to all other things." — ucarr
"You're saying entropic time is an emergent dynamism of mass-energy-motion-space? If so, does this let us envision entropic time as a higher order of mass-energy-motion-space?" — ucarr
"Since acceleration and gravitation de-accelerate passing time, history as sentient reality is configured by the bending and stretching and curving of the higher order of ductile time?" — ucarr
"Is it possible to configure an experiment that makes predictions about the natural world that will point a phenomenal finger at a logically necessary conclusion about the necessity of making an inference to absolute time?" — ucarr
So where do I go wrong?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/970076 — 180 Proof
"I'm not familiar with the notion of "Primordial Time" as a "non-physical process". And I can't imagine a temporal process that does not involve physical objects : e.g. Darwinian Evolution. Our intuition of Time and Process is based on the changes we observe in the material world. But we also create Metaphors from that sensory experience to explain apparent changes in mental states over time : alterations in mood, behavior, thought patterns, and level of awareness. Can you explain "timeless time" in an example that is not an oxymoron*1?" — Gnomon
"Do you see any parallels between your "non-physical process that yields physicality", and Husserl's "flow, that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions"?" — Gnomon
I had never heard of "Neutral Monism", so I Googled it. If the Monistic Entity (Singularity?) is "neither physical nor mental", what is it? Spiritual ; Essence ; Substance? Is the "Neutral Entity" G*D? — Gnomon
"Is "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" an extant philosophical concept, or did you just make it up for this thread?" — Gnomon
"Who or what does the separating? Is the separation physical or conceptual??? How does this plugging & unplugging fit into Whitehead's Process Philosophy?" — Gnomon
Primordial time is active logic. The logical operation of negation, or more precisely inversion, is its main function. The temporal operation of inversion contains within it the operations of disjunction and conjunction. It's a bit tricky to explain correctly, but inversion implies two opposite states. If NOT 0, then 1; if NOT 1, then 0. This means that NOT includes within it 0 AND 1, but only 0 OR 1 at a time. This logic in time resembles a kind of trinity of NOT, AND, OR, and neither one can exist without the others thus they are one. These three operators can not be broken down any further without destroying logic itself, it is indivisible. It is the maximum simplicity, and minimal complexity needed for the universe to exist as it is.
The trinity of logic:
NOT = (AND, OR)
OR = (NOT AND)
AND = (NOT OR) — punos
Because the small hydrogen atom rolls around the much larger oxygen atom, plus the hydrogen ions are freely traded back and forth. — PoeticUniverse
"Your use of "emergence" in your context here refers to the existence of material things as distinguished from the sense of "emergence" that describes attributes of a system emergent from the parts of the system acting collectively? An example of the latter sense is water emergent from the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms." — ucarr
"How is the simplicity of a physical thing logical? As a clarification of what I'm asking: when an oxygen atom bonds with a hydrogen atom, any logic pertinent to the sharing of electrons between the two atoms is an abstract thought within the mind of the observer." — ucarr
"These are physical boundaries established by the covalent bonding in water. If we picture an initial state of matter without the physical boundaries of chemistry, how does logic go about holding atoms and molecules together?" — ucarr
"I have a distinction between passive, and active logic. Passive logic is what we humans do, but the universe does active logic. It's a reversal of polarity in the process of logic. The universe processes logic forward onto itself (creating what is true and real), and people process logic from the universe onto themselves to ascertain the truth of the universe or what is real. — punos
The arrow of time is future to present? Passive logic is reactive whereas active logic is creative?" — ucarr
"Cause and effect form a temporal relation?" — ucarr
"Non-entropic time absent of space and matter holds tucked within itself entropic time?" — ucarr
"Non-entropic time passes independent of activity and events?" — ucarr
"Non-entropic time is non-physical?" — ucarr
"Humans know of non-entropic time only indirectly through inference?" — ucarr
"Since non-entropic time never stops, can we infer to no absolute zero temperature and no cessation of motion?" — ucarr
"Is motion an effect of causation?" — ucarr
"Is the logical ordinality of the universe: time, causation, and space-motion-energy-mass?" — ucarr
"Help me examine whether your first two sentences directly above are incompatible with each other. First you say "time can be analyzed..." thereby suggesting time can be broken down into more fundamental parts.
Next you say "If it is its own reason, then by that reason we can know it..." thereby declaring time is fundamental and cannot be broken down into more fundamental parts. " — ucarr
That "disembodied quality", its causal value or voltage, is imagined as an inherent property of the particle, but where does the causal charge come from? — Gnomon
What about gravity (re: GR)? — 180 Proof
First, a fantastic post and analysis! I rarely get this deep of an analysis, I'll hopefully rise to the occasion. — Philosophim
Correct, though I would slightly recast that into, "Logic is an essential principle in any existence." — Philosophim
Your idea of time is interesting, though for my purposes I'm not trying to assert any one thing which has to be uncaused. Still, great read and neat idea. — Philosophim
So "space" is "disembodied" (i.e. non-physical)? What about gravity (re: GR)? :chin:
[energy is] a property of space from which particles emerge
Yes, afaik, makes sense. — 180 Proof
By saying "there is no limitation to the number of forms that can be via emergence." are you making reference to abstract thought? — ucarr
These are boundaries of a physical system in its initial state? — ucarr
These rules are prescriptive restrictions on what the universe can be? — ucarr
Reason and logic are mental abstractions tied to (and emergent from) physical antecedants? — ucarr
Passing time is the engine of causation? Is there a form of passing time both eternal and non-relative? — ucarr
Time-authored energy is subject to the symmetries and their conservation laws? — ucarr
Time appears to be the centerpiece of your cosmology. The universe reduces to time passing eternally without interruption? — ucarr
If energy is the ability to move, then time supports a multiplex with mass-energy-motion-space as its components? — ucarr
Time is fundamental and thus unapproachable by analysis? — ucarr
What would you expect to happen if you could exorcise a particle of its soul? :wink: — Gnomon
"For example, we may not know exactly what causes a quark to exist, let alone 'this' specific quark in the nylon string. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something that makes up that quark. The limits of knowledge are not the limits of reality." — Philosophim
"I like to describe this as a chain as there is a start and end with various possible points of scoped time and composition along this line that link the two together." — Philosophim
"Unlimited or Limited?
With this all in mind, there comes the ultimate question and scope: Is there an origin to existence itself? This is as expansive of a scope as you can get, both compositionally and through time. Can we handle such a question? I think we can construct a rational conclusion using logical limits." — Philosophim
"1. There is no limitation as to what 'could' have been, or can be." — Philosophim
"Imagine a universe which is composed only entire of rocks. If it formed, there would be no prior cause for why it formed, and no prior cause for what it should not have formed. Meaning it could form, or could not form. There is nothing to prevent nor necessitate that it does or does not form. Our U formed. But it didn't 'have' to form." — Philosophim
Doctor Who diagnosed gravity as being the cause of Time's tumor, and in the operating room, when they opened him up, they found a black hole inside. — PoeticUniverse
The medium is the message? Nah. — Arcane Sandwich
That's what philosophers do. I'm a professional philosopher. I don't do that. Not often, at least. — Arcane Sandwich
Because it's like a mind drug. — Arcane Sandwich