G, Thanks sincerely for this conversation. I am 'content' with the notion that what Frank calls supernatural might be 'natural' in an as yet unknown condition. In words that Frank might consider to be intelligible: there might be an infinite regression (think many, thus different, not identical) of what he calls 'supernaturals' or Gods. William James would say this describes a radical pluralism of discontinuous realms of non unified 'physics.' This might be correlated to Godel's theories too. It allows for a working hypothesis of reality (convicted trust or faith) that is solid, but always open to surprises and revisions for all entities--Gods (singularities) that don't know or remember each other, being a way of thinking about it. Best wishes, Randall
@Randall Paul, I like what you are saying here. Kurt Gödel's incompletenes and irreducability is probably at the heart of how we come to understand anything. "Is" (or "intentionality" to be about something) is only what the mind remembers anyway. Time's arrow itself prevents us from measuring "is." When we "measure" or observe something, we are measuring only what we call "material." We are really only taking account of the "affectation"(for lack of a better word) that material thing had in our earthbound realm (world). J.S. Bell called this "essence" of the measurment "unspeakable." Erwin Lazlo called it "Akashic." That nature of the mechanical universe does not prevent us from understanding it. It is no less mechanical. Consciousness in that respect is just fundamental.
I think consciousness is NOT "non-fundamental," but this doesn't mean that consciousness is THE fundamental aspect of reality. I see what we call consciousness as one of an entangled set of fundamental aspects of reality. I'm close to what Bertrand Russell called neutral monism, or dual-aspect monism. And as you say, consciousness and whatever we can say about the would are strongly conditioned by our experience of time, which perhaps is not a primary element of the reality of the thing itself.
What you say matches very closely my own views, but I'm not sure Frank would agree.
In my last book I quote and comment on some "leftovers" from "The Physics of Immortality" that I found especially interesting on a second read, such as:
--
Free will is real “only if our actual decisions are not determined by the rest of the universe, past, present, or future, but instead we ourselves are the ultimate and irreducible source of our decisions” [Tipler 1994].
Frank Tipler made similar considerations in [Tipler 1994]. Our laws of physics of the local here and now, he said, must necessarily “have a little vagueness” and cannot determine all decisions of all agents. “The free decisions of the agents are an irreducible factor in the generation of the physical universe and its laws, not merely the reverse,” he said. “For the free decisions of all the agents past, present, and future collectively generate the totality of existence.”
Frank Tipler argued that “the indeterminism in quantum gravity is ontological and logically irremovable: it ultimately comes from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem” [Tipler 1994].
--
It seems to me that, in his latest papers and in "The Physics of Christianity," Frank adopts a streamlined but oversimplified view.
Thanks for this response, Giulio. My working hypothesis is that monism should be considered monisms! No ultimate foundation, no ultimate purpose. Adequate foundations for adequate purposes--both functions of decisions of collaborative 'Gods' that 'set-up' social, material forms for penultimate purposes. As a Christian and LDS I trust that optimizing the joyful (& often sad) experience of 'ever-lasting' mutual interpersonal love is the main purpose for us (divine humans). LDS believe our infinite pasts are veiled from memory while we are mortal. Apparently this brief mortal learning experience provides a sense of loneliness, meaninglessness, bewildered by coming from nowhere, fear of becoming food for worms--all for the purpose of creating more value for long-lasting loving relations--whatever purposes we next develop and forms we decide to employ. Godel for the Gods. I especially enjoyed this citation: Free will is real “only if our actual decisions are not determined by the rest of the universe, past, present, or future, but instead we ourselves are the ultimate and irreducible source of our decisions” [Tipler 1994]. Whitehead's creative synthesis faced the matter by saying all the past 'merely limits' the infinite creativity of the next instant. So always everywhere 1+1=3. Because of conscious creative free will the summation of the past meets 'another apparently emerging term' each instant. He thought a kind of panpsychism might be real. I prefer the notion of different densities and complexities that made some existing stuff creative and other stuff not so much. Enough rambling on my part. So grateful you are sharing you work 'out loud.' Randall
I love Whitehead's "the past 'merely limits' the infinite creativity of the next instant" but I don't find this quote in Process and Reality, could you give me a source?
G, This was my paraphrase of my view of the idea of infinite continual creative future emerging 'out of' a past that is 'determined or finished' each instant.
Perplexity quickly answered my attempt to obtain an exact quotation that inspired my summation:
Your conclusion about A.N. Whitehead's process theory aligns closely with his philosophical ideas, though it simplifies a complex concept. Whitehead's process philosophy emphasizes the dynamic, creative nature of reality, where each moment builds upon the past while introducing novelty. This is how
In "Process and Reality," Whitehead introduces the concept of creativity as the ultimate principle, describing it as "the universal of universals characterizing ultimate matter of fact"[1]. This creativity is not constrained but rather conditioned by its past, allowing for both continuity and novelty in each new moment.
Whitehead's notion of "concrescence" supports your (Randall's) interpretation:
Concrescence is the process by which each actual entity forms itself, taking into account the entire universe of past events while also introducing new possibilities[1]. This process embodies the idea that the past limits but does not fully determine the present.
The phrase "the many become one and are increased by one" further illustrates this concept[5]. Each new actual entity (or moment of experience) unifies the many elements of the past while adding something new, thus increasing the potential for future becomings.
Whitehead's emphasis on the "creative advance" or "passage of nature" also supports your conclusion[2]. This ongoing process of creation is fundamental to his metaphysics, highlighting the continuous emergence of novelty within the constraints of what has come before.
While your summary captures the essence of Whitehead's theory, it's important to note that his philosophy is more nuanced. The past does more than "merely limit" - it provides the raw material for creativity, and each new moment is a complex synthesis of past and potential[1][5]. Nonetheless, your conclusion effectively captures the spirit of Whitehead's emphasis on ongoing creativity within the context of an interconnected universe.
Thank you Randall! I'm reading those passages in "Process and Reality" now. If only Whitehead had paid more attention to clarity of exposition :-( But he spoke as a genius speaks and it is up to us to interpret what he said.
I agree with Whitehead concept as far as I understand it. Robert Pirsig said similar things (see Chapter 7 of my last book), and I agree with both. Too bad I didn't quote Whitehead directly.
OMG! Eureka! This is it. Frank is another believer (like us) who doubts. When we say words like "unknowable", "unobservable" or "unspeakable' we realize those are "just words." And still, words are "representational" and not the "cause" of the information we communicate. Our words are merely the compaction of the thought we were having about the cosmological singularity that is happening. I tell you that mankind can speak God's name, but when you hear me say it and realize that I am only staring at you with the most blank stare mimicking a beckoning or invitation, suddeny Frank's and your words also start to sound poetic (even though you do not rhyme).
I think Frank has achieved a very high level of confidence in his own picture of reality, so he doesn't really doubt. To him, thinking that God is "unknowable", "unobservable" or "unspeakable" (which is what Christian, Jewish and Islamic theologians have been saying for centuries and more) doesn't contradict belief.
I talked about this idea of belief and doubt with my friend Josh last week. I said that belief is a strong confidence in the assertion and doubt is a low confidence in the assertion and we only treat belief and doubt as opposite because of that construct we create in society. He said no that belief and doubt are opposites because belief is a high confidence in the assertion and doubt is a high confidence in the counterfactual of the assertion. If the assertion is Frank's "3 singularities" then Frank holds a high level of confidence in that assertion (he says he has proven it mathematically) and he would like to convince us to have a low confidence in the counterfactual of 3 singularities.
Frank wants to persuade us that his mathematical proof that the three singularities are one and the same and God is correct. His confidence make him a true believer.
As a believer who doubts (or a doubter who believes), I see belief and doubt as complementary in many ways. They come together to me, I couldn't have one without the other.
Agreed Giulio. I always respect your insights (having read your books). There are many ways of looking at these questions concerning belief and doubt as opposites rather than levels (or perspectives) of the same thing. Do you think Frank would be more of a monist (idea that all things and particularly mind and body are all part of one great whole) or more of a dualist (mind and body are separate and distinct)? I think your "in the bedrock" approach in your three part "The Mind: Consciousness and Freewill in the Bedrock of Reality" tells me you might be more of a compatibilist. Though I think I take compatibility one step further and just say "fundamental" or "nature." The intentionality part of consciousness just is. It has to be that way because of the bedrock, not in spite of it.
If I'm to use these labels I see myself as more of a monist (mind and matter, or particles and fields, or the large and the small, are aspects of a whole and undivided "thing itself." Frank also seems more of a monist to me, but he comes closer to dualism regarding the difference between the cosmological singularity (aka God) and everything else.
G, Thanks sincerely for this conversation. I am 'content' with the notion that what Frank calls supernatural might be 'natural' in an as yet unknown condition. In words that Frank might consider to be intelligible: there might be an infinite regression (think many, thus different, not identical) of what he calls 'supernaturals' or Gods. William James would say this describes a radical pluralism of discontinuous realms of non unified 'physics.' This might be correlated to Godel's theories too. It allows for a working hypothesis of reality (convicted trust or faith) that is solid, but always open to surprises and revisions for all entities--Gods (singularities) that don't know or remember each other, being a way of thinking about it. Best wishes, Randall
@Randall Paul, I like what you are saying here. Kurt Gödel's incompletenes and irreducability is probably at the heart of how we come to understand anything. "Is" (or "intentionality" to be about something) is only what the mind remembers anyway. Time's arrow itself prevents us from measuring "is." When we "measure" or observe something, we are measuring only what we call "material." We are really only taking account of the "affectation"(for lack of a better word) that material thing had in our earthbound realm (world). J.S. Bell called this "essence" of the measurment "unspeakable." Erwin Lazlo called it "Akashic." That nature of the mechanical universe does not prevent us from understanding it. It is no less mechanical. Consciousness in that respect is just fundamental.
Thanks, James, for this thoughtful response.
Randall
I think consciousness is NOT "non-fundamental," but this doesn't mean that consciousness is THE fundamental aspect of reality. I see what we call consciousness as one of an entangled set of fundamental aspects of reality. I'm close to what Bertrand Russell called neutral monism, or dual-aspect monism. And as you say, consciousness and whatever we can say about the would are strongly conditioned by our experience of time, which perhaps is not a primary element of the reality of the thing itself.
Hi Randall, good to see you here.
What you say matches very closely my own views, but I'm not sure Frank would agree.
In my last book I quote and comment on some "leftovers" from "The Physics of Immortality" that I found especially interesting on a second read, such as:
--
Free will is real “only if our actual decisions are not determined by the rest of the universe, past, present, or future, but instead we ourselves are the ultimate and irreducible source of our decisions” [Tipler 1994].
Frank Tipler made similar considerations in [Tipler 1994]. Our laws of physics of the local here and now, he said, must necessarily “have a little vagueness” and cannot determine all decisions of all agents. “The free decisions of the agents are an irreducible factor in the generation of the physical universe and its laws, not merely the reverse,” he said. “For the free decisions of all the agents past, present, and future collectively generate the totality of existence.”
Frank Tipler argued that “the indeterminism in quantum gravity is ontological and logically irremovable: it ultimately comes from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem” [Tipler 1994].
--
It seems to me that, in his latest papers and in "The Physics of Christianity," Frank adopts a streamlined but oversimplified view.
Thanks for this response, Giulio. My working hypothesis is that monism should be considered monisms! No ultimate foundation, no ultimate purpose. Adequate foundations for adequate purposes--both functions of decisions of collaborative 'Gods' that 'set-up' social, material forms for penultimate purposes. As a Christian and LDS I trust that optimizing the joyful (& often sad) experience of 'ever-lasting' mutual interpersonal love is the main purpose for us (divine humans). LDS believe our infinite pasts are veiled from memory while we are mortal. Apparently this brief mortal learning experience provides a sense of loneliness, meaninglessness, bewildered by coming from nowhere, fear of becoming food for worms--all for the purpose of creating more value for long-lasting loving relations--whatever purposes we next develop and forms we decide to employ. Godel for the Gods. I especially enjoyed this citation: Free will is real “only if our actual decisions are not determined by the rest of the universe, past, present, or future, but instead we ourselves are the ultimate and irreducible source of our decisions” [Tipler 1994]. Whitehead's creative synthesis faced the matter by saying all the past 'merely limits' the infinite creativity of the next instant. So always everywhere 1+1=3. Because of conscious creative free will the summation of the past meets 'another apparently emerging term' each instant. He thought a kind of panpsychism might be real. I prefer the notion of different densities and complexities that made some existing stuff creative and other stuff not so much. Enough rambling on my part. So grateful you are sharing you work 'out loud.' Randall
I love Whitehead's "the past 'merely limits' the infinite creativity of the next instant" but I don't find this quote in Process and Reality, could you give me a source?
G, This was my paraphrase of my view of the idea of infinite continual creative future emerging 'out of' a past that is 'determined or finished' each instant.
Perplexity quickly answered my attempt to obtain an exact quotation that inspired my summation:
Your conclusion about A.N. Whitehead's process theory aligns closely with his philosophical ideas, though it simplifies a complex concept. Whitehead's process philosophy emphasizes the dynamic, creative nature of reality, where each moment builds upon the past while introducing novelty. This is how
In "Process and Reality," Whitehead introduces the concept of creativity as the ultimate principle, describing it as "the universal of universals characterizing ultimate matter of fact"[1]. This creativity is not constrained but rather conditioned by its past, allowing for both continuity and novelty in each new moment.
Whitehead's notion of "concrescence" supports your (Randall's) interpretation:
Concrescence is the process by which each actual entity forms itself, taking into account the entire universe of past events while also introducing new possibilities[1]. This process embodies the idea that the past limits but does not fully determine the present.
The phrase "the many become one and are increased by one" further illustrates this concept[5]. Each new actual entity (or moment of experience) unifies the many elements of the past while adding something new, thus increasing the potential for future becomings.
Whitehead's emphasis on the "creative advance" or "passage of nature" also supports your conclusion[2]. This ongoing process of creation is fundamental to his metaphysics, highlighting the continuous emergence of novelty within the constraints of what has come before.
While your summary captures the essence of Whitehead's theory, it's important to note that his philosophy is more nuanced. The past does more than "merely limit" - it provides the raw material for creativity, and each new moment is a complex synthesis of past and potential[1][5]. Nonetheless, your conclusion effectively captures the spirit of Whitehead's emphasis on ongoing creativity within the context of an interconnected universe.
Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becoming_(philosophy)
[2] https://www.religion-online.org/article/the-metaphysical-significance-of-whiteheads-creativity/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality
[4] https://encyclopedia.whiteheadresearch.org/entries/thematic/metaphysics/the-mystery-of-creativity/
[5] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/851541.Process_and_Reality
[6] https://iep.utm.edu/whitehead/
[7] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
[8] https://voicesofvr.com/primer-on-whiteheads-process-philosophy-as-a-paradigm-shift-foundation-for-experiential-design/
Thank you Randall! I'm reading those passages in "Process and Reality" now. If only Whitehead had paid more attention to clarity of exposition :-( But he spoke as a genius speaks and it is up to us to interpret what he said.
I agree with Whitehead concept as far as I understand it. Robert Pirsig said similar things (see Chapter 7 of my last book), and I agree with both. Too bad I didn't quote Whitehead directly.
I agree about A.N.W.’s dense prose. If only he had learned how to explain clearly (as well as to conceive pluralism) from William James!
OMG! Eureka! This is it. Frank is another believer (like us) who doubts. When we say words like "unknowable", "unobservable" or "unspeakable' we realize those are "just words." And still, words are "representational" and not the "cause" of the information we communicate. Our words are merely the compaction of the thought we were having about the cosmological singularity that is happening. I tell you that mankind can speak God's name, but when you hear me say it and realize that I am only staring at you with the most blank stare mimicking a beckoning or invitation, suddeny Frank's and your words also start to sound poetic (even though you do not rhyme).
I think Frank has achieved a very high level of confidence in his own picture of reality, so he doesn't really doubt. To him, thinking that God is "unknowable", "unobservable" or "unspeakable" (which is what Christian, Jewish and Islamic theologians have been saying for centuries and more) doesn't contradict belief.
I talked about this idea of belief and doubt with my friend Josh last week. I said that belief is a strong confidence in the assertion and doubt is a low confidence in the assertion and we only treat belief and doubt as opposite because of that construct we create in society. He said no that belief and doubt are opposites because belief is a high confidence in the assertion and doubt is a high confidence in the counterfactual of the assertion. If the assertion is Frank's "3 singularities" then Frank holds a high level of confidence in that assertion (he says he has proven it mathematically) and he would like to convince us to have a low confidence in the counterfactual of 3 singularities.
Frank wants to persuade us that his mathematical proof that the three singularities are one and the same and God is correct. His confidence make him a true believer.
As a believer who doubts (or a doubter who believes), I see belief and doubt as complementary in many ways. They come together to me, I couldn't have one without the other.
Agreed Giulio. I always respect your insights (having read your books). There are many ways of looking at these questions concerning belief and doubt as opposites rather than levels (or perspectives) of the same thing. Do you think Frank would be more of a monist (idea that all things and particularly mind and body are all part of one great whole) or more of a dualist (mind and body are separate and distinct)? I think your "in the bedrock" approach in your three part "The Mind: Consciousness and Freewill in the Bedrock of Reality" tells me you might be more of a compatibilist. Though I think I take compatibility one step further and just say "fundamental" or "nature." The intentionality part of consciousness just is. It has to be that way because of the bedrock, not in spite of it.
If I'm to use these labels I see myself as more of a monist (mind and matter, or particles and fields, or the large and the small, are aspects of a whole and undivided "thing itself." Frank also seems more of a monist to me, but he comes closer to dualism regarding the difference between the cosmological singularity (aka God) and everything else.