Process Cosmology --- a worldview for our time

[Gnomon]

Life's a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows,
Stretched as time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows.

I'm currently reading a science book for the general public : The Science of Why We Exist, A history of the universe from the Big Bang to Consciousness. Understandably, the author presents his story in a linear cause & effect fashion --- like a computer program --- instead of a non-linear web of Fate. Ironically, given the title, the book is about the Hows, not the Whys*1.

In his chapter on Beginnings, he says : "Physics is the science that explains why the universe behaves like it does". Yet again, the explanation is a list of mechanical sequential causes (Hows) instead of a single synopsis of an intentional Why. Nevertheless, I found one expression to be suggestive of a Why motive for beginning the evolutionary sequence of our Cosmos. He said : "If physics is the universe's way of turning energy into atoms, then chemistry is the cosmos's way of transforming elements into life". Hence : A Physics = Energy ➜➜➜ Atoms (matter), and B Chemistry = Elements ➜➜➜ Life (animated matter). The arrows indicate the steps & direction of transformation. So the general direction of Evolution is from simple to complex, and from Matter to Mind. But what step came before Physics?

In a marginal note, I extended that programming logic to say : Biology is the cosmos's way of transforming Energy into purposeful behavior : *C* Biology ➜➜➜ Purpose (intentional action). Then, Psychology is the cosmos's way of transforming Energy into Thought : *D* Psychology = Energy ➜➜➜ Mind (intellectual function). This step by step story of evolution begins with an undifferentiated burst of cosmic scale energy (the input), which gradually, over billions of solar cycles, transforms from A generic causation, to B the diversity of things, to *Ω* meaningful ideas (the output??) via the process of differentiation*4. This notion of omni-causal power is amenable to my own theory of EnFormAction : the generic power to transform. Of course all those logical stages along the way are also inter-related by our minds into a cosmic web of whos, whats, wheres & whys. You could say that Evolution is the Cosmos's way of weaving a world of intellectual interest to its questioning elements.


Note --- Since I lack your talent for rhyme & reason, I thought you might be able to turn the linear logical path of causation into a poem of creative computation. Although, 180proof may cringe at the pre-causal (First Cause) implication, here's my crude attempt :

THE WHYS OF EVOLUTION
The universe behaves as it does,
Not randomly, but because. . . .
It was designed to evolve via telesis*2
'to a world of life, mind and poiesis*3.

It was programmed to transform
Potential into material forms.
By means of Logic, not Accident,
Yet who knows what it meant.

It possessed both Power and Purpose
To evolve a world that slowly goes
From Bang to Thing to Think,
In the space of a god's eye blink.

Yet the motive behind the act
Is concealed in the syntax
Of a world creating algorithm
And an Easter Egg*5 with'em.


*1. "Why" questions seek to understand the reason or cause behind an action or event, while "how" questions focus on the process or method of achieving something. "Why" delves into the purpose and motivation, whereas "how" examines the mechanics or steps involved.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... why+vs+how

*2. "Telesis" refers to progress that is intentionally planned and directed towards a specific end, often through the application of human intelligence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... &q=telesis

*3. Poiesis : (poetry)In philosophy and literary theory, poiesis refers to the act or process of creation, or the making of something that didn't previously exist.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... &q=poiesis

*4. Differentiation : The act or process of differentiating. 2. Development from the one to the many, the simple to the complex, or the homogeneous to the heterogeneous.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rentiation

*5. Easter Egg : Computer easter eggs are hidden, undocumented features, messages, or jokes embedded within software or hardware. These "secrets" are often discovered by users who find a way to activate them through specific keystrokes, commands, or actions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... aster+eggs

[Gnomon]

creative process — Gnomon
The answer to your quest!

Yes, others have joined in the quest to understand the "creative process" of our evolving universe. Some even liken that Process to a line-by-line computer program, as-if designed by a creative mind. For example, Charles Seife makes use of the computer analogy in his 2007 book Decoding The Universe. But, since he is not a philosopher, he does not attempt to define the logically necessary Programmer, other than a vague reference to Infinity*1. Also, Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe, presents the evidence of coded information in Nature, but leaves the inference of a cosmic coder to the reader's reason. Unlike free-thinking philosophers, professional scientists are limited by their empirical method to physical evidence.

As usual, [reply="180 Proof;983707"] demands immanent physical "evidence"*2 of the programmer, but all we have access to is the lines of code known as Natural Laws : the syntax of cosmic creation. So, we can follow the trail of evidence back to the scene of the "crime" (Big Bang), and use our detective skills to pin the crime of creation on the transcendent perpetrator. Yet, if the programmer is infinite & indefinite, what kind of evidence would you expect to find : footprints in the mud, or fingerprints on the DNA? For philosophers, logical & rational evidence, interpreted from the physical evidence, should suffice, to prove within reason that the programmer got away with, not murder, but creation of Life from scratch*3.


*1. “This is the definition of the infinite : it is something that can stay the same size even when you subtract from it.” — Charles Seife
Note --- Since our space-time universe is always increasing in size, his "infinity" must be referring to the concept of an entity Greater Than the physical world. His Cosmic Coder could be described as PanEnDeism : physical universe within meta-physical Mind. Hence, the only physical evidence is the creation itself.

*2. Btw, I recommend Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd (2006); also Stephen Wolfram's work on complexity / computation, David Deutsch's work on MWI quantum computing and Carlo Rovelli's work on RQM. ___excerpt from [reply="180 Proof;983707"]'s post above
Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently.

*3. "Deus absconditus," a Latin term meaning "hidden God," refers to the Christian theological concept that God's essence is fundamentally unknowable and that God is often perceived as absent or hidden, even when actively present. This idea contrasts with the concept of "Deus revelatus," or the revealed God, as seen in Christ.
Note --- My philosophical thesis is amenable to the hidden god concept, but not the revealed god of Theology

[Gnomon]

The hidden hand that writes creation's tale
Leaves traces of intent we might unveil,
If only we could read between the lines
Of DNA and stars that never fail.

Excerpt from [reply="180 Proof;984104"] post above :
" Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently. — Gnomon
Except that your interpretations consist in appeals to ignorance fallacies, as quite a few members have exhaustively pointed out over the years, and my interpretations do not."

As usual, 180 alcohol content responds to my philosophical arguments --- in favor of a Cosmic Cause (hidden hand) for the contingent universe we living & thinking beings inhabit --- with ad hominem political attacks : e.g. liberal (logical) inference bad vs conservative (physical) evidence good. I assume he is appalled at the worldwide popularity of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, who frequently punished his chosen people with mass death and deportation. 180 may also have had a bad experience with pedophile priests or knuckle-rapping nuns.

What he calls an “argument from ignorance”*1 is actually a logical inference from circumstantial evidence to a general conclusion, not the ridiculous claim that “absence of evidence is evidence of presence”. Even scientist & skeptic Carl Sagan*2 used the reverse argument to indicate that we should keep an open mind about hypotheses that lack conclusive, “I rest my case”, evidence.

However, this thread is about the “God” of A.N. Whitehead*3, which is essentially what Blaise Pascal called the “God of the philosophers”*4 --- referring to Spinoza. The Philosopher's God doesn't reward or punish anybody; She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence which inspires philosophers to ask “Why” questions. Spinoza inferred from the evidence of Nature that there must be some universal & eternal substance or essence with infinite attributes, which he, like Whitehead, reasoned to be a “necessary assumption”*3 for understanding the world.

I suspect that Spinoza might agree with Whitehead's god of organism, if he had lived in the 20th century. Both inferred from circumstantial evidence that a universal Substance/Essence was logically necessary to explain the existence, persistence, and consistence of the world we questioning beings inhabit.



*1. An appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when someone claims something is true or false simply because there's no evidence for or against it. It's essentially arguing "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" or "absence of evidence is evidence of presence", which is a flawed logical leap.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... y+examples
Note --- 180 demands physical (material) evidence of a god immanent in the space-time world. But Gnomon presents metaphysical (logical) evidence of the necessity for a transcendent (pre-bang) Cause of the innate Process we know as Evolution.

*2. The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" means that the lack of proof for something doesn't necessarily mean that the thing doesn't exist. It's often attributed to Carl Sagan, who famously stated that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This means that the absence of evidence for a hypothesis doesn't automatically prove that the hypothesis is false.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... f+presence

*3. Whitehead's conception of God, articulated in his philosophy of process and organism, is not presented as a proof of God's existence in the traditional sense, but rather as a necessary assumption for understanding the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ce+for+god

*4. The phrase "not the God of the philosophers" often refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as distinguished from the God of philosophical inquiry. Blaise Pascal famously used this distinction, highlighting a personal, relational God rather than a purely abstract or logical one. Some interpret this as a contrast between a God who is part of religious belief systems and a God who is understood through reason and logic, often portrayed as more impersonal.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ilosophers

*5. Evidence for universal Substance : Spinoza has not proved but assumed that God is an - or rather the - existing substance.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... oof-of-god
Note --- Ironically, 180proof's favorite philosopher didn't present physical evidence for his universal Substance. Instead, the natural world was taken for granted as beyond argument, and the God Substance was assumed as a logically necessary Axiom.

[Gnomon]

She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence

The video begins with a wardrobe malfunction, and concludes with a philosophical malfunction. If you ignore the progression of the Evolutionary Process, and assume it is totally random, then the Pale Blue Dot in the cosmic blackboard "should not exist". We're not playing darts here, but from the perspective of the only sentient beings we know, that "dot" is in the center of the target. How did we get here from the propulsive Singularity? :joke:

ONE SMALL PLANET DEFIES THE ODDS


PS___ I'm skeptical of some of the interpretations of "coincidences" in the video. But I can agree that Evolution has hit a lot of coincidences on the nose.

[Gnomon]

So dance upon these threads while still you may,
For though they quiver, still they hold their sway,
And in their intricate connecting lines
Lies meaning for our brief cosmic stay.

Humans did not compose the rhythms of reality, but we are motivated by necessity to dance to the music of Evolution. For some, the dancing may look like quivering spasms, to others like sexy swaying, but the dancers create their own meaning to explain why they do what comes naturally.

In another god-related thread*1, I said :
"That's why I prefer A.N. Whitehead's notion of God (Nature) as the inexorable Process of Evolution. The Darwinian Procedure works like a program*1, via And/Or/Not (selection & combination & elimination), to improve the current stock for the next generation. Like Spinoza, Whitehead uses the term "god" in a technical, not religious, sense to designate the implicit Programmer of this ongoing process of cosmic Creation. So, God is still in "the mix", not as the intervening manager, but as the program and/or programmer of the creative system we call "Evolution" or "Nature". The manager is not at the front desk, but at the cosmic computer console."

I also opined about those "intricate connecting lines" :
"Obviously, the goal of evolution is not you or me. So we are merely means to some other end. Meanwhile, we philosophize." To what end are you doing the wishful waltz? :joke:


*1. The 'Hotel Manager' Indictment (anti-theodicy)
But this framing of the problem reflects a profound misunderstanding of its nature. It assumes a particular conception of God — one that is, in effect, a kind of cosmic hotel manager. The world is imagined as a well-appointed establishment where the guests expect, indeed are entitled to, a decent standard of accommodation.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/984441

[Gnomon]

we philosophize — Gnomon
My new books in Lounge:

I looked at the Rubaiyat Weave webpage. Is the artwork yours? Fantastic!
What is your connection to the The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam?*1

I noticed the Sean Carroll quote : "there is no life after death". And I must agree, except that my Enformationism thesis concludes, as an aside comment, that causal Enformation {power to give form to the formless} --- besides being a vectored process*2 --- is a pattern of interrelationships (information ; meaning). So, a particular form-pattern could in principle be reconstituted, just as computers can copy & paste data. I wouldn't organize my life around the expectation of a better life in the hereafter (bird in hand . . .). But it's a possibility that philosophers could argue endlessly about.


Life Is the Flame of a Candle :
So I decided on a cheerful topic: Death and Physics. I talked about modern science gives us very good reasons to believe (not a proof, never a proof) that there is no such thing as an afterlife. Life is a process, not a substance, and it's a process that begins, proceeds along for a while, and comes to an end.
___ Sean Carroll
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... nt-page-2/


*1. "Sadegh Hedayat commented that "if a man had lived for a hundred years and had changed his religion, philosophy, and beliefs twice a day, he could scarcely have given expression to such a range of ideas". . . .
FitzGerald . . . . describes Omar's philosophy as Epicurean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam
Note --- "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die." ___ Epicurus ; Ecclesiastes???

*2. The cosmic process of Enformation (EnFormAction ; Evolution) appears linear to us limited-life beings. But on an eternal-infinite scale, the process could be cyclic, as some scientists speculate.

PS___ I'll append my *thanks* to the Transcendental Troll for his unrequested political opinions in the post below. :joke: