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?
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.
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.