Quantum Field Theory might be regarded as closer to Heraclitus than Democritus.
Though QFT is perhaps more radical. A state is a superposition of all the possibilities at the same time but is not changing in time (unless something happens).
Patrick, the point is deeper than that: there are *no* things at all, only patterns and processes. Things are illusions generated by the fact that some processes are slow (and therefore some patterns persistent) when measured on human time scales.
There is no essence in process metaphysics (while there is in some versions of object metaphysics, for instance Aristotle).
Patrick, thanks for the kind words. Process metaphysics come in a series of different forms, some more defensible than others. You can find a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
But essentially, the difference is that standard metaphysics includes talk of stable objects, while process metaphysicians deny the existence of objects, proposing that everything is patterns and processes.
Regarding the logos, I suggest that the right question is not "what is the argument against it?" but rather "how would that agree with the modern scientific view of the world?" And the answer to the latter question is that it doesn't, which is why I reject it.
There is, in other words, no reason to think that the universe is a living organism. What we know about it simply doesn't fit what we know about living organisms in general, let alone intelligent ones.
Quantum Field Theory might be regarded as closer to Heraclitus than Democritus.
Though QFT is perhaps more radical. A state is a superposition of all the possibilities at the same time but is not changing in time (unless something happens).
Right, no particles at the bottom, only fields. Hence the title of Ladyman and Ross's book, Every *Thing* Must Go.
Patrick, the point is deeper than that: there are *no* things at all, only patterns and processes. Things are illusions generated by the fact that some processes are slow (and therefore some patterns persistent) when measured on human time scales.
There is no essence in process metaphysics (while there is in some versions of object metaphysics, for instance Aristotle).
Patrick, thanks for the kind words. Process metaphysics come in a series of different forms, some more defensible than others. You can find a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
But essentially, the difference is that standard metaphysics includes talk of stable objects, while process metaphysicians deny the existence of objects, proposing that everything is patterns and processes.
I think process metaphysics is largely right. The reason for that is because it agrees with the most up to date findings in modern physics, as for instance summarized in this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/757403.Every_Thing_Must_Go
Regarding the logos, I suggest that the right question is not "what is the argument against it?" but rather "how would that agree with the modern scientific view of the world?" And the answer to the latter question is that it doesn't, which is why I reject it.
There is, in other words, no reason to think that the universe is a living organism. What we know about it simply doesn't fit what we know about living organisms in general, let alone intelligent ones.