"We do not learn our way out of this world, but can only learn our way into deeper, more intimate, more correlate embodiment of the intelligibility of the Universe" -- this constitutes a goal for a real practice, no? And if evolution is a universal *learning* process, than wouldn't this be the "direction" it follows? How does this change our conception of "information" as fundamental ....
What could that even *mean*? for the atom not to transcend itself in becoming human... rather it is a process of becoming *more of itself*, i.e. becoming *real* ... That's where the insight lies, IMO...
Eager for that conversation. I think there are two big bugs in this conversation: 1) theory of entropic universe and 2) Darwinian attitude ... they plague all the best work, including Michael Levin (who is attached to the Darwinian attitude). I think you rightly called the other out the entropic fallacy here " It is somewhat ironic, then, that the whole shebang is supposedly governed by entropy."
I have offered an altnernative theory of cosmic "growth" with my (albeit naive stab) at A Theory of Complex Potential States, which can simply be understood as the entropic universe and the Darwinian attitude both stem from the fact (as Whitehead complained) we only count actuals and not potentials.
In my book (forthcoming) I will argue that when we look into the past, either with cosmological or biological-evolutionary orientation, the potentials that were in play (the potential field as a whole) gets substracted out of the calculations and observations. How then do we account for them? The "singularity" before the universe has maximum latency (creativity), minimun potency (existence) which means that it would look like "nothing." I suspect that dark matter and dark energy represent the missing, unobservable "links." The situation is much like what Levin is finding out -- that what the cells are doing are choreographed by bio-electric fields, the complex potential state in which they maneuver (navigate morphogenic space), communicate, and generate new information. Something like that will trump entropy in the cosmological sciences, I believe. Eventually, we might be imagining cosmological and biological evolution more like radiant centers that grow (harking back to what you wrote above)
And yeah, let’s make Alfred Russel Wallace great again! Bateson was convinced his rendering of natural selection in terms of the regulatory governor on a steam engine was the most far-reaching idea to emerge in the 19th century. Unlike the Darwinians he was convinced some deeper telos was also at play in the evolutionary process.
Me too! I am so impressed by how Brendan can write so much good stuff so fast. For me, the sentences pour out like cold mollasses. But they are coming.... Thanks. I'm counting on you to proof read in so far that I do not want to bastardize Whitehead ... even as I put a spin on him. You've already helped out a lot!
I am going to take a closer look at this, Matt. But my first impressions suggest that there is a direct connection to Ruth Kastner's Relativistic Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Physics--NOT quantum 'mechanics' because quantum science can be viewed as an undoing of the mechanistic formalism as a scientific model, recognizing that what is deep and central is the process of informational exchange between entities, as well as a connection to the recent paper by Jaeger et al looking at the non-computational nature of 'relevance realization' in the functionality of organisms, and how this all relates in a deep, fundamental way, not only to the processual philosophy of organism of AN Whitehead, but also to the relational biology of Robert Rosen. All of this, in my mind is critical in making a very clear distinction between the functionality of living organisms and the limited entailment capacity of relational systems that conform to the mechanistic formalism--ie. 'machines'. In my mind, this distinction that Rosen made using the mathematical theory of categories to show that living organisms are categorically distinct from fabricated machines, is of profound significance for many different reasons that I won't go into here. Other than to say that I am now involved in co-editing an issue of the journal, Pari Perspectives, which is the journal of the Pari Center ( http://www.paricenter.com/ ) on the general theme of 'Life Beyond Mechanism. Undoing the Legacy of the Machine Metaphor' ... if you or anyone you may know might have an interest in contributing an essay to this special issue of Pari Perspectives, please reach out to me and let me know! Thank you.
When you say 'God and the world recreate in one another' - what do you mean by God? It feels like 'as above so below' or a sort of dualism. Do you not think God is outside of time?
I’m assuming the process-relational understanding of the divine nature as dipolar, with an eternal pole and a historical pole. God’s complete nature includes the world-process. The growth of the world contributes to the divine nature. God is enriched by creation.
"We do not learn our way out of this world, but can only learn our way into deeper, more intimate, more correlate embodiment of the intelligibility of the Universe" -- this constitutes a goal for a real practice, no? And if evolution is a universal *learning* process, than wouldn't this be the "direction" it follows? How does this change our conception of "information" as fundamental ....
What could that even *mean*? for the atom not to transcend itself in becoming human... rather it is a process of becoming *more of itself*, i.e. becoming *real* ... That's where the insight lies, IMO...
Eager for that conversation. I think there are two big bugs in this conversation: 1) theory of entropic universe and 2) Darwinian attitude ... they plague all the best work, including Michael Levin (who is attached to the Darwinian attitude). I think you rightly called the other out the entropic fallacy here " It is somewhat ironic, then, that the whole shebang is supposedly governed by entropy."
I have offered an altnernative theory of cosmic "growth" with my (albeit naive stab) at A Theory of Complex Potential States, which can simply be understood as the entropic universe and the Darwinian attitude both stem from the fact (as Whitehead complained) we only count actuals and not potentials.
In my book (forthcoming) I will argue that when we look into the past, either with cosmological or biological-evolutionary orientation, the potentials that were in play (the potential field as a whole) gets substracted out of the calculations and observations. How then do we account for them? The "singularity" before the universe has maximum latency (creativity), minimun potency (existence) which means that it would look like "nothing." I suspect that dark matter and dark energy represent the missing, unobservable "links." The situation is much like what Levin is finding out -- that what the cells are doing are choreographed by bio-electric fields, the complex potential state in which they maneuver (navigate morphogenic space), communicate, and generate new information. Something like that will trump entropy in the cosmological sciences, I believe. Eventually, we might be imagining cosmological and biological evolution more like radiant centers that grow (harking back to what you wrote above)
And yeah, let’s make Alfred Russel Wallace great again! Bateson was convinced his rendering of natural selection in terms of the regulatory governor on a steam engine was the most far-reaching idea to emerge in the 19th century. Unlike the Darwinians he was convinced some deeper telos was also at play in the evolutionary process.
And I’m eager to read your book!
Me too! I am so impressed by how Brendan can write so much good stuff so fast. For me, the sentences pour out like cold mollasses. But they are coming.... Thanks. I'm counting on you to proof read in so far that I do not want to bastardize Whitehead ... even as I put a spin on him. You've already helped out a lot!
I am going to take a closer look at this, Matt. But my first impressions suggest that there is a direct connection to Ruth Kastner's Relativistic Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Physics--NOT quantum 'mechanics' because quantum science can be viewed as an undoing of the mechanistic formalism as a scientific model, recognizing that what is deep and central is the process of informational exchange between entities, as well as a connection to the recent paper by Jaeger et al looking at the non-computational nature of 'relevance realization' in the functionality of organisms, and how this all relates in a deep, fundamental way, not only to the processual philosophy of organism of AN Whitehead, but also to the relational biology of Robert Rosen. All of this, in my mind is critical in making a very clear distinction between the functionality of living organisms and the limited entailment capacity of relational systems that conform to the mechanistic formalism--ie. 'machines'. In my mind, this distinction that Rosen made using the mathematical theory of categories to show that living organisms are categorically distinct from fabricated machines, is of profound significance for many different reasons that I won't go into here. Other than to say that I am now involved in co-editing an issue of the journal, Pari Perspectives, which is the journal of the Pari Center ( http://www.paricenter.com/ ) on the general theme of 'Life Beyond Mechanism. Undoing the Legacy of the Machine Metaphor' ... if you or anyone you may know might have an interest in contributing an essay to this special issue of Pari Perspectives, please reach out to me and let me know! Thank you.
You're on fire with this one, Matt! Nicely done. I'm excited to hear your discussion with Brendan.
Thanks for clarifying.
“Whether or not God existed in the beginning, the World has since created God.”
I do not see how you can make this statement in sincerity? It feels extremely slippery.
I would be interested to know in what way the “world has since created God” ?
I don’t believe that, I was characterizing what I take to be the metamodern view of God as an emergent product of collective human activity.
When you say 'God and the world recreate in one another' - what do you mean by God? It feels like 'as above so below' or a sort of dualism. Do you not think God is outside of time?
I’m assuming the process-relational understanding of the divine nature as dipolar, with an eternal pole and a historical pole. God’s complete nature includes the world-process. The growth of the world contributes to the divine nature. God is enriched by creation.
thanks. If you were to explain this to a child, how might you say it?
God suffers, too.
Who is God?