Krim Plato and Whitehead are rather different. Plato suggested ideal forms to explain universals. Whitehead is concerned with process and is trying to describe it. He is therefore forced to look at the status of the many possible outcomes a situation possesses. For Whitehead a process occurs when a single possible (of many) is chosen to become actual (one). I cannot see any other or better way to describe process. Without the possible we are stuck with a reality of combinations where nothing truly new ever emerges. Plato's forms are a limited set of ideals, Whitehead's includes all possible forms. As Shimon Malin argues, Whitehead's philosophy fits very well with QT. I'd suggest the actual is a subset of the possible, that what is expressed in the actual is an exploration or journey through the possible, i.e. one particular journey or path through it. A journey we help to direct, but influenced by what hasgone before, so that we can only keep walking from where we are standing, where we have reached. If the cosmos collapses and re-bangs, we could enjoy another journey from the sphere of the anything is possible, through another expression/iteration =actuality.
DM > DM, > >>From what I have gathered on this I think Whitehead makes the same mistake > as Plato in thinking the world of forms (primordial nature of God) is more > real than the grubby one we live in. I prefer to think the world of forms > is > abstracted from this one by scrubbing off the rough edges. > > Krimel > > ------------------------- > > Krim > > Good point I think, cos Whitehead addressed this himself > I believe. You have to cut to the key aspects and zoom > in and out. > > DM > > > ------------------------------ >>> [Krimel] >>> Any idea why Whitehead felt the need to explain ongoing creation instant >>> by >>> instant? It would seem that beyond the initial mystery of the Big Bang >>> and >>> the creation of space/time things roll along pretty smoothly. >>> >> >> DM: Sure I covered this, because every situation has a large number >> of possible futures and each moment requires a decision-event as to which >> of the many possibles becomes the next actual situation. And as >> Shimon Malin points out, quantum theory agrees. >> >> [Krimel] >> True enough but having to metaphysically analyze moment to moment not >> only > >> a >> whole new universe but a whole new set of rules for it gets really old >> really quick. The assumption of continuity between the past, present and >> future seems not only pragmatically justified but a real time saver. >> >> It's like I don't mind the occasional probing question but only up until >> the >> point that a migraine sets in. >> >> > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
