TPF : What exactly is Process Philosophy?

[Gnomon]

So, no, I’m not trying to argue against process philosophy. I’m saying, like Heraclitus said, “the barley-drink stands, only while stirring.” I’m saying there is no need to speak of process (nor is there an ability to do so) if process is all there is to say. There’s more, or if not, there is nothing more to say. — Fire Ologist

I agree that Process alone, with no Substantial change, would be meaningless. But that's not what Whitehead, or Quantum Physics, was saying. Instead, he seemed to be making a philosophical application of the scientific evidence that tangible malleable Matter is essentially a form of invisible causal Energy*1*2. And Energy is also insubstantial, consisting only of statistical relationships, between material states (hot/cold). Hence, Energy and Causation are mental concepts*3, Ideas, not material things.

Yet, Matter seems real to us --- we see, hear, touch & taste it --- while Energy is merely an intellectual concept. We only know it by what it does, not what it is. That may be why our languages are mostly materialistic*4, with an emphasis on things instead of processes. We only use verbs when something changes. But we give material objects names, just for being there. Nevertheless, Reality consists of both Matter & Energy, both Substance & Causation, both Tangible & Conceptual, both Real & Ideal*5.

Therefore, Whitehead's worldview is essentially Idealistic (concepts vs things) instead of Materialistic. So, his book, Process and Reality, implies that Processes are what's philosophically essential, not the dumb stuff (the clay) that has no intelligible form apart from causal energetic inputs (creativity of the sculptor). Hence, without Matter/Stuff there are no things to talk about, and without Energy/Mind*6, there is "nothing more to say". But. together, Substance & Process are our Reality.


*1. Matter is Energy :
Matter takes up space, has mass and composes most of the visible universe around you. Energy, on the other hand, takes multiple forms and is essentially the force that causes things to happen in the universe. Yet both matter and energy are variations of the same thing. Each can convert into the other.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... matter.htm

*2. Energy is Invisible :
Yes, energy itself is considered "invisible" because we cannot directly see it with our eyes; we only perceive its effects when it manifests in different forms like light, heat, or motion, which are then visible to us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +invisible

*3. Energy is a Concept, not a Thing :
Yes, "energy" is considered a concept, meaning it's an abstract idea that describes the capacity to do work, and is not a physical object itself, but rather a property of matter that can be transferred and transformed into different forms like heat, light, or motion; it's a fundamental principle in physics used to explain various phenomena in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +a+concept

*4. Language is Materialistic :
In most languages, nouns tend to be used more frequently than verbs; meaning, when analyzing a large corpus of text, you will typically find more noun occurrences than verb occurrences.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ouns+vs+verbs+frequency#cobssid=s

*5. Materialism vs Idealism :
Alfred North Whitehead was a philosopher who rejected materialism in favor of a philosophy of organism, or process philosophy. He believed that reality is made up of processes, not material objects. Whitehead's philosophy views the world as a web of interrelated processes, rather than a collection of independent material objects.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... aterialism
Note --- Even quantum particles are now described as statistical states instead of substantial matter. Yet, on the macro scale those states are interpreted by our senses as solid objects.

*6. Mind is Energy :
The idea that the mind is a form of energy is a theory that's gaining traction in neuroscience and quantum physics. It suggests that thoughts and consciousness are generated by electromagnetic fields in the brain.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +is+energy

[Gnomon]

These two points, both of which are interesting and worthy of more exploration, are either contradictory, or point to something magical/supernatural in the universe. If matter converts to energy and energy converts to matter (1), and energy is a concept (3), then matter converts to concept and concepts convert to matter. This needs more investigation before I could accept both. Let’s see where it goes: — Fire Ologist

The quoted words are not my opinion. You can click on the links to see the original search results. Look to the right of the screen to see links to other more technical sites on the same topic.

The interchangeability of Energy and Matter are not magic, but physics. Albert Einstein boggled minds with his E=MC^2 equation ; where E refers to causal power as in atom bombs, M (mass) is mathematical measurement of matter, and C is lightspeed : the cosmic constant. But physicists soon got used to the idea that the visible stuff of reality is ultimately a form of invisible energy.

The second Einstein quote below*1*2 implies that Photons are pure energy, but as they slow down to less than lightspeed, and expand their wavelength, they naturally, not magically, convert into particles of matter. That may sound like ancient Alchemy, but Lead is indeed a heavier form of Gold*3. Note the term "transform", meaning to change physical properties of matter.

If you are not a physicist, you don't need to concern yourself with the Energy/Matter equation. But if you are interested in accommodating modern physics into your philosophical worldview --- as Whitehead was --- a general understanding of Einstein's theories and Quantum concepts will be mandatory. What will be more mind boggling is to accept the implications of the fact that Matter is Energy, which is a mental concept. Perhaps even Mind itself, as noted in the previous post.

*1. The most well-known quote from Einstein regarding matter and energy is: "Everything is energy and that's all there is to it.". This essentially means that matter is just a concentrated form of energy, which is encapsulated in his famous equation E=mc².
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ergy+quote

*2. ___Einstein : "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/161207 ... at-we-have
Note --- These "quotes" on the net may be apocryphal or a paraphrase, but they sound like an appropriate interpretation of technical physics for laymen.

*3. Gold is related to lead because they are both elements on the periodic table, and historically, alchemists famously attempted to "turn lead into gold" through chemical processes, believing they could transform one element into the other, although this is scientifically impossible with traditional methods; however, in extremely controlled nuclear reactions, it is possible to create small amounts of gold from lead by altering the atomic structure through nuclear bombardment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ed+to+lead

Note : ↪Darkneos will argue against Process theory, because it violates his faith in metaphysical Materialism. Physical science can be interpreted to conform to that faith in the primacy of Matter, but he will present that opinion as a settled fact. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter either way. The actual world doesn't rate matter & energy for primacy. But for the impractical purposes of Philosophy it does make a difference in how you view the world : as a lump of inert things or as an evolving process. As a philosophical worldview, Physicalism is more complete, because it includes both Matter & Energy in its scope.

[Gnomon]

You said energy is a concept. So then matter is energy and therefore matter is a concept.
So is Whitehead interchangeable with Berkeley? — Fire Ologist

Both are considered to be idealists, but I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable", unless you want to trivialize their work as proponents of woo-woo. The link below characterizes Berkeley as a "subjective idealist", and Whitehead as "more complex", perhaps combining subjective concepts and objective percepts. For example, matter is both a tangible percept (experience) and a philosophical concept, as in Materialism.

How Matter can also be Mind may sound like woo-woo to some skeptics. And if immaterial ideas are woo-woo (can't see'em or touch'em), then this forum of sharing ideas via spooky action-at-a-distance is also mystical mumbo jumbo.


While both Whitehead and Berkeley are considered idealists, a key distinction lies in the nature of their idealism: Berkeley is considered a "subjective idealist" believing reality only exists as perceived by minds, while Whitehead's philosophy, often called "process philosophy," is more complex, suggesting that reality is composed of "actual occasions" which are essentially experiences, thus incorporating a more dynamic and interconnected view of existence, not solely dependent on a perceiving mind like Berkeley's concept.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... y+idealism