Is Process Physics compatible with WSM Physics?

[ptr.mrrs]

Dear fellow seekers,

Several years ago this site impressed me as a very wonderful site, not only for introducing WSM Physics but also as a source of general scientific and philosophical information.

However, since discovering WSM Physics, I have come across "Process Physics" which I also found very interesting.

Process Physics models reality as an iterative process in which time is more fundamental than space, and attempts to show that this iterative process would lead to the development of a three dimensional space which supports the existence of waves and matter.

I would be interested to know if this theory is compatible with WSM Physics.

An overview of Process Physics is provided at:
Process Physics: Self-Referential Information and Experiential Reality
(http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Cahill-FinalPaper.pdf)
and there are slides for the paper at:
(http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Cahill%20powerpoint.ppt)

My expectation is that if there is only one reality and if both theories correctly describe aspects of this reality, then they should be compatible with and support each other.


Best regards,
Peter Morris
Adelaide
Australia

[haselhurst]

Hi Peter,
Nice to have another Aussie here. Sorry for delay in replying.

I checked out the site on process physics (which i have read a bit about before relating to A.N. Whitehead). The article is nicely written / interesting, so thanks for the link.

As i see it, a process requires something to exist that is interconnected and changes in a logical way. Similar to foundations of Ancient Indian and Greek philosophy, particularly Heraclitus' Logos, and Aristotle's Metaphysics.
This dynamic unity of reality, which allows process to occur, is simply and sensible explained with the Wave Structure of Matter in a continuously connected Space.
So i guess you have to ask yourself, what is most simple and makes more sense. Waves in Space which cause matter, time, forces / fields, and thus all processes Vs. "Process Physics, which models reality as an iterative process where time is more fundamental than space, and attempts to show that this iterative process would lead to the development of a three dimensional space which supports the existence of waves and matter."

To me it is clear, as I can understand the wave structure of matter in an Absolute Space, and it deduces fundamentals of QT, relativity and cosmology precisely / mathematically.
However, I cannot understand how time can cause Space and its waves (putting the cart before the horse as i see things).

Hope this helps a bit.
Have a nice Christmas.
Geoff

[galaxy*19]

Indeed, I do not think that time even exists without space. If you crunch space up as small as you can make it, say like in a singularity of a black hole, then time is not only meaningless, but non-existant.

Time itself is a human construct, and one that makes sense to describe our reality, since there are things (events) that occur that change the dynamics of matter (take an egg breaking for example) and that can only be explained by including the construct of time. And, whereas quantum mechanics and its mathematical equations see time as something symmetrical, our experience of reality does not seem to align well with this, as some things in time do not appear the same in both directions (i.e. if we reverse time, the egg does not go back together in the way that watching forward times watches it shatter, thikn chaos,etc).

[haselhurst]

So how is the smiling bubbly young student of knowledge today?

A few quick comments to your post.

Indeed, I do not think that time even exists without space.

Geoff - True, as time is due to wave motion of space. However it is impossible to not have space (it is what exists) so we should not argue that way.

If you crunch space up as small as you can make it, say like in a singularity of a black hole, then time is not only meaningless, but non-existent.

Geoff - Not possible so argument is irrelevant. But I understand and agree with the point you are trying to make, just that you cannot use examples that are not real in reality to make it.

Time itself is a human construct, and one that makes sense to describe our reality, since there are things (events) that occur that change the dynamics of matter (take an egg breaking for example) and that can only be explained by including the construct of time. And, whereas quantum mechanics and its mathematical equations see time as something symmetrical, our experience of reality does not seem to align well with this, as some things in time do not appear the same in both directions (i.e. if we reverse time, the egg does not go back together in the way that watching forward times watches it shatter, think chaos,etc).

Geoff - Well said. The direction of time comes from in and out waves. In-waves are our future, wave center is our present, Out-Waves are our past (so the past does actually affect the future - similar to Buddha / Karma). But really Time is just an idea, reality is in motion as the wave motion of space, thus everything keeps changing. Things that appear to stay the same are due to repeating patterns of motion (earth about sun, electrons in wave functions / 'orbits', knowldge in our brains / body. Thanks for posting. Cheers. Geoff

[galaxy*19]

Thanks for your patience, I am here to learn. I think a lot of what I read about WSM connects with a lot of my intuitive ideas about how the universe functions. Thus why I am here and why I appreciate your continued patience to help me better express my ideas and hopefully get to offer you something useful.

"You can teach a student a lesson for a day; but if you can teach him to learn by creating curiosity, he will continue the learning process as long as he lives. " ~Clay P. Bedford

[haselhurst]

Hi G,
I was feeling a bit guilty for being so abrupt. I am actually pretty nice most of the time I think (pedantic pain in the ass some times!), so internet tends to display a more absolute, abrupt side of me (busy, hate typing).
I am obsessive about truth, that we are careful with the things we think and write.
So yes, curiosity is great, absolutely necessary, it is one of my central motivations - to understand how things work.
All you need to add to it is good knowledge of the sciences so that we constrain our fanciful imaginations!

Anyway, enough chatter. I was thinking about my above comment, and whether it is a valid argument to say that without space there would be no time (or matter), thus space must be necessary for their existence (which it is).
I am wary about arguing from foundations that do not exist (and cannot exist). But perhaps I should not have been so absolute - that in the case of Space we can use these arguments to show that it is necessary / it must exist (it is impossible to imagine world without it).
Not sure. Just want us all to be careful in our reasoning, truth is what matters.

Am glad that you take it in the right spirit of learning - good on you!
Cosmos,
Geoff