Hello Stephen,
I'm sorry to be so late in replying, but with the holidays and also
with trying to delve a bit deeper into process philosophy wanted to
wait unti; I had soemthing with sense to say. First, let me say at the
outset that I've noticed some Process "folks" agree to the distinction
between, Physicality and mind but they don't think the physicality is
restricted to unmoving or shall we say.... confined substance (I
think, I ask if you agree). I have no problem at all with this... as
long as the "physicality" / mind distinction is maintaned in some
manner, I agree with that. That leads me to my second overall
observation . That is, even inside Process Philosophy you appear to
get those who follow various "bents" that I call Idealist or Realist
or Phenomenological or Nominalist.
I still have to read Hole argument and Prigonine, so I'm still in the
dark but maybe you can expalin to me (scientifically ignorant in large
part, as I am) how quantum mechanics makes or allows stuff to
vanish?... Let me ask my question this way... is the "disappeared
stuff" or component that Quantum Mechanics accounts for but can"t
"see"....definitely absent or NOT there at all ? or is it
"disappeared" because, at our current stage of knowledge we lack the
"sense" instrument to be able to show the "disappeared" stuff to us...
The analogy I make is to the notion of telescopes and especially
microscopes... before they were developed, human knowledge had no idea
of germs... or atoms... etc.Is there a chance, even way out there in
advanced knowledge that the disappeared will appear to those who've
made the right sense tools... or genetically evolved them... HAR....In
other words, is the Process part of quantum mechanics (or other
topics) just an explanation of theory.. or is it an established
"observable" that will not evewr sustain any categorization as
substance (even as force) whatsover... never ever...?
On Dec 28 2012, 1:49 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net>
wrote:
> On 12/28/2012 12:10 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your reply, Stephen.... Process Philosophy is something new
> > (as such) to me... so I looked it up in a pretty good Philosophical
> > encyclopedia....Does the article below do it ("Process Philosophy")
> > justice, more or less?
>
> Hi N9,
>
> OK to shorten your handle? Yes, the article
> @http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/is great, hitting
> all the notes requires for at least an introduction.
>
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
> > The "founding" notion seems to be that Process is diverse from
> > Substance, as a principle of order or organization....
>
> Right. You might also wish to read the article (by the same people)
> on Substance:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
>
>
>
> > Very naively on my part.....I ask....and challenge....In seeking to
> > supplant "Substance" with Process... what happens to all that the
> > "Substance" folks... thinkers and scientists... have discovered and
> > learned... about... Physical Matter and .. Thought... ?
>
> What forced me to P.P. is the Hole argument of General
> Relativity:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/It argues in
> powerful ways against the notion of substance as ontologically
> primitive. If space-time itself cannot be consistently defined as a
> substance and the "stuffness" of my desk vanishes when I examine it
> closely enough, as we learn from Quantum Mechanics, what is the point to
> the very idea of a ontologically primitive substance? What does
> "substance" do, other than act as a "bearer of properties" that some how
> binds those properties together? Is there a better way of doing ontology
> that allows an epistemology to be constructed that "makes sense" given
> what our amazingly accurate physics theories tell us?
>
> > Is all that "stuff" useless and for naught?... I mean, I guess, what
> > do the Processists replace each and every bit of that "learned" stuff
> > with?
>
> Processes generates "products": relatively invariant patterns of
> relations. Ever read any Prigogine or any articles on dissipative
> structures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
>
> > But, I will look more into it... read the abstract you gave and try to
> > respond better to your replies, Stephen... At first blush, looking at
> > the Stanford Encyclopedia article above... it looks to me like Process
> > Philosophy has much in common (as method, at least) with what
> > phenomenologists like to do... "Bracketing"
>
> Right. Bracketing is a good way of looking at this as it allows for
> the explicit reference to context, boundary and constraints. One reason
> I like it is that it helps avoid tacit assumptions of omniscience.
>
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
> > Personally... I don't much care for phenomenology....just saying... I
> > think it is too "internal" and cerebrally based... doesn't really look
> > at the external "thing" (physical thing especially) under examination
> > for its own explanations of itself (i.e., not "empirical" or inductive
> > [GOOD IMO] but instead abstractly "logical" and deductive[BAD IMO])
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>
>
> > snip
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
