I haven't yet listened to the dialogue, but what you wrote here jumped out at me: "the tension between unitarity and non-unitarity in interpretations of quantum physics mirrors Whitehead’s idea of a continuous realm of possibilities giving way to the discrete actuality of events," and, "the exchange between the limitless realm of possibility and the sharply defined realm of actualization is fundamental, and she drew clear parallels between this process and the measurement problem in quantum physics, where unitarity gives way to the collapse of the wave function."
I will ignore all references to "unitarity and non-unitarity etc." because it's a few quantum leaps beyond me, but to put into plain English what I understand you are saying here so matter-of-factly (unless you have discussed at length elsewhere), is the seeming parallel if not identification of Whitehead's concrescence of all possibilities into one real occasion/event with the collapse of the wave function, which suddenly got me thinking, "Well, isn't that obvious?" Have I got it right?
Which then got me thinking, when did Whitehead first come up with this idea? Heisenberg first published his concept of wavefunction collapse in 1927. What's the chronology, or is synchronology a more appropriate word?
At the continued risk of sounding like I have discovered the wheel, Whitehead definitely did have quantum physics on his mind. Science and the Modern World, based on lectures given in 1925, has a chapter called Quantum Theory.
But I was speaking specifically about the point of the similarity between the collapse of the wave function (the undiscernible point of the particle = the infinite possibilities) into the specific point of "manifestation" to Whitehead's concrescence of all possibilities into one actual occasion/event, both processes effectuated through some form of consciousness.
I searched through digital editions of Whitehead's publications and lectures after 1927 and found no mention at all of Heisenberg who first published the collapse theory in that year. Neither was there any mention of "wave" or "collapse."
But it seems that for some reason Whitehead himself did not explicitly make the connection, as I found several articles and books that discuss this point as if they have discovered the wheel.
Here is one short article:
Kent Forbes
ST3150 - Process Theology
Prof. Christina Hutchins
Schrodinger [sic] Wave Collapse and Whitehead’s Concept of Prehension
The well-established phenomena of observer interaction with the wave-like aspect of subatomic particles that results in a collapse of the wave into a detectable particle has some striking similarities to the process of ‘prehension’ that Whitehead describes as the ‘becoming of an actual occasion’. It occurs to me that the collapse of the wave function must contain the essential features of prehension, and further, that particle decay could be described with Whitehead's term ‘perishing’. And, since a subatomic particle like a proton can also be described as a ‘nexus of actual occasions’ (since it is itself composed of quarks), the analogy can be preserved and extended down to the level of quarks, and
possibly beyond.
The wave aspect of a subatomic particle (a proton let's say), first posited by Edwin Schrodinger, is spread out infinitely through space. Richard Feynman used Schrodinger’s initial description and calculated the infinite probabilities of the wave in his ‘sum over paths integral’. That is to say, prior to collapse, the wave is everywhere in space. The proton has the potential to be anywhere until it interacts with an observer and collapses into one specific location. Likewise, in Whitehead's description of the prehension and satisfaction of an actual occasion, infinite potential must be shaved down to a single
point of concrescence. If we view the Schrodinger wave aspect as simply infinite potential, it becomes hard to see a difference between the metaphysics of Whitehead and quantum mechanics. Certainly, his ‘prehension’ and Schrodinger’s ‘wave collapse’ are difficult to differentiate.
Since a collapsed wave in the form of a proton may also be described as a nexus of actual
occasions, we could imagine that there is more than one wave function collapse for each particle that emerges from the field of potential (one for each quark in the proton). Similarly, since quarks are known to decay back into a vacuum and become potential, this can be seen as analogous to Whitehead's description of perishing back into potential.
In this description there is a necessary relationship between the observer and the field of
potential, in which the creative process is ‘enjoyed’ as the observer works within the field to create an experience. In other words, the act of observation is a creative process resulting in material experience.
The similarities between process metaphysics and what we now know to be true from
experiments in the science of particle physics seems striking. One might say that process metaphysics maps onto, and has been proven out along with, quantum theory.
Two longer articles: "Towards a Process-based Approach to Consciousness and Collapse in Quantum Mechanics" and "Whitehead, James, and Quantum Theory."
And a book: "Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead," that has a chapter called, "Correlation of Quantum Mechanics and Whitehead's Philosophy," with a sub-chapter, "The Phases of Quantum Mechanical Concrescence."
I really am swimming here over my head, so forgive me if I know not what I say.
SO glad you had this walk with Ruth Kastner. Her "Quantumland" book was excellent. Unfortunately her appearance on Curt's podcast felt a bit like jumping into "Process and Reality" for the first time - with the "Categoreal Scheme" laid out like a austere no-mans-land to cross! Too deep. Too fast.
Glad to listen, instead, to her conversing with you here. Excellent that you sent her your "Eternal Objects" paper and that she most definitely got into it, asked the right questions, etc. That paper is quite a provocative beast. It is clearly a portal to many realms of thought. Maybe to another book.
I hope her GR physicist collaborator takes a serious look at Whitehead's GR formulation. That could be so fruitful.
So what if Whitehead’s "eternal objects" are simply in a different information space than possiblity space? That possiblity space is one means of generating eternal objects? That Whitehead’s conjecture that the manifestation has an effect on the eternal object is an evolutionary feedback loop, as is the the effects of possiblity space on eternal objects?
I feel like the thinkers of the past that we take our philosophies from, as brilliant as their insights were for their time, didn't have the capacity to conceptualize or articulate the complexities of reality in a way that reflects how it works. They were heavily influenced by a culture of either/or thinking and their excursions into new thought processes became "the new right way" rather than something to integrate with other ways of thinking. Much of what we perceive as contradiction in their writings is an attempt to acknowledge a recognition of an aspect of reality while struggling to find the connections that would relieve their confusion.
I also think that humans have evolved a deeper capacity for conceptualization over the millinea. Maybe we shouldn't limit ourselves to what the thinkers of the past perceived as real. Including the innovative scientists of the early 20th century.
Hi Matt,
I haven't yet listened to the dialogue, but what you wrote here jumped out at me: "the tension between unitarity and non-unitarity in interpretations of quantum physics mirrors Whitehead’s idea of a continuous realm of possibilities giving way to the discrete actuality of events," and, "the exchange between the limitless realm of possibility and the sharply defined realm of actualization is fundamental, and she drew clear parallels between this process and the measurement problem in quantum physics, where unitarity gives way to the collapse of the wave function."
I will ignore all references to "unitarity and non-unitarity etc." because it's a few quantum leaps beyond me, but to put into plain English what I understand you are saying here so matter-of-factly (unless you have discussed at length elsewhere), is the seeming parallel if not identification of Whitehead's concrescence of all possibilities into one real occasion/event with the collapse of the wave function, which suddenly got me thinking, "Well, isn't that obvious?" Have I got it right?
Which then got me thinking, when did Whitehead first come up with this idea? Heisenberg first published his concept of wavefunction collapse in 1927. What's the chronology, or is synchronology a more appropriate word?
Whitehead first started developing the idea of concrescence in 1926. He definitely had quantum physics in mind.
At the continued risk of sounding like I have discovered the wheel, Whitehead definitely did have quantum physics on his mind. Science and the Modern World, based on lectures given in 1925, has a chapter called Quantum Theory.
But I was speaking specifically about the point of the similarity between the collapse of the wave function (the undiscernible point of the particle = the infinite possibilities) into the specific point of "manifestation" to Whitehead's concrescence of all possibilities into one actual occasion/event, both processes effectuated through some form of consciousness.
I searched through digital editions of Whitehead's publications and lectures after 1927 and found no mention at all of Heisenberg who first published the collapse theory in that year. Neither was there any mention of "wave" or "collapse."
But it seems that for some reason Whitehead himself did not explicitly make the connection, as I found several articles and books that discuss this point as if they have discovered the wheel.
Here is one short article:
Kent Forbes
ST3150 - Process Theology
Prof. Christina Hutchins
Schrodinger [sic] Wave Collapse and Whitehead’s Concept of Prehension
The well-established phenomena of observer interaction with the wave-like aspect of subatomic particles that results in a collapse of the wave into a detectable particle has some striking similarities to the process of ‘prehension’ that Whitehead describes as the ‘becoming of an actual occasion’. It occurs to me that the collapse of the wave function must contain the essential features of prehension, and further, that particle decay could be described with Whitehead's term ‘perishing’. And, since a subatomic particle like a proton can also be described as a ‘nexus of actual occasions’ (since it is itself composed of quarks), the analogy can be preserved and extended down to the level of quarks, and
possibly beyond.
The wave aspect of a subatomic particle (a proton let's say), first posited by Edwin Schrodinger, is spread out infinitely through space. Richard Feynman used Schrodinger’s initial description and calculated the infinite probabilities of the wave in his ‘sum over paths integral’. That is to say, prior to collapse, the wave is everywhere in space. The proton has the potential to be anywhere until it interacts with an observer and collapses into one specific location. Likewise, in Whitehead's description of the prehension and satisfaction of an actual occasion, infinite potential must be shaved down to a single
point of concrescence. If we view the Schrodinger wave aspect as simply infinite potential, it becomes hard to see a difference between the metaphysics of Whitehead and quantum mechanics. Certainly, his ‘prehension’ and Schrodinger’s ‘wave collapse’ are difficult to differentiate.
Since a collapsed wave in the form of a proton may also be described as a nexus of actual
occasions, we could imagine that there is more than one wave function collapse for each particle that emerges from the field of potential (one for each quark in the proton). Similarly, since quarks are known to decay back into a vacuum and become potential, this can be seen as analogous to Whitehead's description of perishing back into potential.
In this description there is a necessary relationship between the observer and the field of
potential, in which the creative process is ‘enjoyed’ as the observer works within the field to create an experience. In other words, the act of observation is a creative process resulting in material experience.
The similarities between process metaphysics and what we now know to be true from
experiments in the science of particle physics seems striking. One might say that process metaphysics maps onto, and has been proven out along with, quantum theory.
Two longer articles: "Towards a Process-based Approach to Consciousness and Collapse in Quantum Mechanics" and "Whitehead, James, and Quantum Theory."
And a book: "Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead," that has a chapter called, "Correlation of Quantum Mechanics and Whitehead's Philosophy," with a sub-chapter, "The Phases of Quantum Mechanical Concrescence."
I really am swimming here over my head, so forgive me if I know not what I say.
SO glad you had this walk with Ruth Kastner. Her "Quantumland" book was excellent. Unfortunately her appearance on Curt's podcast felt a bit like jumping into "Process and Reality" for the first time - with the "Categoreal Scheme" laid out like a austere no-mans-land to cross! Too deep. Too fast.
Glad to listen, instead, to her conversing with you here. Excellent that you sent her your "Eternal Objects" paper and that she most definitely got into it, asked the right questions, etc. That paper is quite a provocative beast. It is clearly a portal to many realms of thought. Maybe to another book.
I hope her GR physicist collaborator takes a serious look at Whitehead's GR formulation. That could be so fruitful.
So what if Whitehead’s "eternal objects" are simply in a different information space than possiblity space? That possiblity space is one means of generating eternal objects? That Whitehead’s conjecture that the manifestation has an effect on the eternal object is an evolutionary feedback loop, as is the the effects of possiblity space on eternal objects?
I feel like the thinkers of the past that we take our philosophies from, as brilliant as their insights were for their time, didn't have the capacity to conceptualize or articulate the complexities of reality in a way that reflects how it works. They were heavily influenced by a culture of either/or thinking and their excursions into new thought processes became "the new right way" rather than something to integrate with other ways of thinking. Much of what we perceive as contradiction in their writings is an attempt to acknowledge a recognition of an aspect of reality while struggling to find the connections that would relieve their confusion.
I also think that humans have evolved a deeper capacity for conceptualization over the millinea. Maybe we shouldn't limit ourselves to what the thinkers of the past perceived as real. Including the innovative scientists of the early 20th century.