Is the world made of objects or processes?

[QED]

First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes.

Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread, but why do you consider this a fact where there is little scientific evidence to determine whether it is true or not, yet you firmly reject the existence of God where there is a large body of evidence to suggest that God does indeed exist? It seems as if you are being inconsistent with your treatment of evidence.

More to the point, explain how a process can create a result without at least referencing an object.

I don't know if it's worth starting a new debate topic for this, but the quest to bring relativity and quantum theory together is an interesting one. It sets out to answer the very fundamental question "What are time and space?" Most of us here are also interested in causality and a successful theory for Quantum Gravity should supply answers to all these questions. I mentioned the idea that the world is made of processes rather than objects because this latter notion is entirely artificial - in the same way that a movie comprised of sequential still-images is not the same as the unfolding of the captured events in time.

[harvey1]

First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes.

I mentioned the idea that the world is made of processes rather than objects because this latter notion is entirely artificial - in the same way that a movie comprised of sequential still-images is not the same as the unfolding of the captured events in time.

Be that as it may, this idea that processes are more fundamental is far from a universal held view. I would think that it is a minority view at this stage. There are ontologies which favor objects, events, predicates, etc..

By the way, in the latter statement here you said that you mentioned processes being fundamental as an "idea," whereas in the first statement you stated the idea as a fact. Which is a correct statement of your view on this subject? Do you believe this idea to be a fact?

[Curious]

First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes.

I mentioned the idea that the world is made of processes rather than objects because this latter notion is entirely artificial - in the same way that a movie comprised of sequential still-images is not the same as the unfolding of the captured events in time.

Be that as it may, this idea that processes are more fundamental is far from a universal held view. I would think that it is a minority view at this stage. There are ontologies which favor objects, events, predicates, etc..

By the way, in the latter statement here you said that you mentioned processes being fundamental as an "idea," whereas in the first statement you stated the idea as a fact. Which is a correct statement of your view on this subject? Do you believe this idea to be a fact?

I agree with you both here that a new thread is required to explore this particular avenue. While QED has a point concerning the movie analogy, it is also true that the movie makes reference to the objects within it.
Regarding your (Harvey1) question to QED concerning the final point in your reply, the idea is absolute fact. Whether this fact is true is another matter altogether.

[harvey1]

Regarding your (Harvey1) question to QED concerning the final point in your reply, the idea is absolute fact. Whether this fact is true is another matter altogether.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My question is whether QED still considers this "fact is true."

[Curious]

Regarding your (Harvey1) question to QED concerning the final point in your reply, the idea is absolute fact. Whether this fact is true is another matter altogether.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My question is whether QED still considers this "fact is true."

Sorry Harvey1, I had my pedantic head on.

[QED]

I have split this digression from the original topic: If a tree falls in a forest... into a new deabte.

First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes.

I mentioned the idea that the world is made of processes rather than objects because this latter notion is entirely artificial - in the same way that a movie comprised of sequential still-images is not the same as the unfolding of the captured events in time.

Be that as it may, this idea that processes are more fundamental is far from a universal held view. I would think that it is a minority view at this stage. There are ontologies which favor objects, events, predicates, etc..

I doubt if it's a minority in the physicists camp though.

By the way, in the latter statement here you said that you mentioned processes being fundamental as an "idea," whereas in the first statement you stated the idea as a fact. Which is a correct statement of your view on this subject? Do you believe this idea to be a fact?

You seem to be approaching me with some jump-leads in your hands I think I said "I would point out that..." and I did so in response to Nirvana-Eld's question "Does space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered". I am convinced that there is little value in conceptualizing atoms as existing as independent objects in space and time -- it seems very likely to me and to significant others that what we speak of as atoms are instead relational processes.

[harvey1]

By the way, in the latter statement here you said that you mentioned processes being fundamental as an "idea," whereas in the first statement you stated the idea as a fact. Which is a correct statement of your view on this subject? Do you believe this idea to be a fact?

You seem to be approaching me with some jump-leads in your hands I think I said "I would point out that..." and I did so in response to Nirvana-Eld's question "Does space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered". I am convinced that there is little value in conceptualizing atoms as existing as independent objects in space and time -- it seems very likely to me and to significant others that what we speak of as atoms are instead relational processes.

Okay, you are convinced that there are no independent objects per se, but do you see your view as a fact (i.e., scientific established truth)? I think it is an important question because I don't see any evidence at all to know the answer to this question. Even if you revise your first statement that you made to Nirvana-Eld, I would still like to know what convinces you so much that there are no atoms (if I'm understanding you correctly). It seems like a very unusual position to take on this issue.

[Curious]

I am convinced that there is little value in conceptualizing atoms as existing as independent objects in space and time -- it seems very likely to me and to significant others that what we speak of as atoms are instead relational processes.

Relating to what though?

[QED]

Well this is all the thanks I get for trying to shed my image as a die-hard materialist Seriously though, I'm trying hard to get my head around the theories concerning Quantum Gravity and in doing so it is prompting me to do a lot of thinking about the things I normally take for granted. IBM can make stick-men out of atoms and take images of them:
but what are we looking at?

I think I once mentioned that the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy formula suggested a surprising thing about the nature of information which leads the notion of a "holographic universe". Harvey, you seemed to get particularly excited about this -- as if it exonerated your views about a God inspired creation. Frankly I am simply left staring at the same old world and marvelling at the illusion.

[Rob]

The answer written in Chinese: