The myth of staticity

#1
Magical Realist Online
I find this article excitingly provocative. It suggests, as I have come to believe myself, that far from being a simultaneous array of unchanging structures or forms that reality is fundamentally really a vast percolating process of becoming and perishing. It aligns with the process philosophies of Heraclitus, Henri Bergson, Alfred North Whitehead, Thomas Nail, and David Bohm. See what you think:

"At the deepest level we can investigate, reality behaves less like a fixed structure and more like an ongoing event.

In quantum field theory, what we call empty space is saturated with underlying fields that never come to rest. Even in a perfect vacuum, fluctuations arise spontaneously, giving birth to virtual particles that briefly emerge, interact, and dissolve back into the field. This activity unfolds at speeds so extreme that it lies far beyond direct perception, yet its effects are measurable and foundational to modern physics.

These fluctuations reveal something essential. Matter is not a permanent object anchored in space. It is a stabilized pattern, continuously refreshed by deeper processes. Every particle, every atom, every structure persists only because it is being re-expressed moment by moment.

At this scale, reality flickers faster than time can register.

Yet this same principle appears again and again as scale increases.

Stars ignite, exhaust their fuel, and disperse their substance back into space. Galaxies assemble, stretch, collide, and reorganize. On the largest observable scales, spacetime itself expands, thins, and evolves. What appears solid and enduring within a human lifetime reveals itself, over cosmic durations, as part of immense cycles of emergence and dissolution.

The pattern remains. Only the tempo changes.

From subatomic events unfolding in fractions of a second to galactic motions spanning billions of years, reality is continuously forming, unforming, and reforming. Stability arises through coherence sustained across a given rhythm, not through permanence.

This raises a question that physics can gesture toward but not yet fully answer.

When matter blinks out of observable existence, where does it go?

What is the deeper domain into which form dissolves before reappearing again as motion, structure, and mass? What underlying realm stabilizes this universe of constant change? Is it another dimension, not of motion but of stillness, from which all fluctuations arise and into which they return?

If matter is a recurring expression, then what holds the memory of its patterns between appearances?

What carries the continuity that allows form to vanish and return without losing coherence?

Perhaps beneath the universe of motion lies a unified field of stillness, not empty, but saturated with potential. A domain where information, memory, and consciousness are not localized objects, but intrinsic features of the field itself.

Reality, seen this way, is not simply blinking in and out of existence.

It is oscillating between expression and source, between motion and stillness, between form and the deeper ground that remembers how to form it again, the underlying substrate of all that is."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is in an actual process of movement. That is to say, one can feel a sense of flow in the stream of consciousness not dissimilar to the sense of flow in the movement of matter in general. May not thought itself thus be a part of reality as a whole? But then, what could it mean for one part of reality to 'know' another, and to what extent would this be possible?"---David Bohm

"...reality is not a constellation of things at all, but one of processes. The fundamental 'stuff' of the world is not material substance, but volatile flux, namely 'fire', and all things are versions thereof (puros tropai). Process is fundamental: the river is not an object, but a continuing flow; the sun is not a thing, but an enduring fire. Everything is a matter of process, of activity, of change (panta rhei)."---Heraclitus
Reply
#2
C C Offline
Whether being is the case or not, I tend to agree with Parmenides that real being is eternal or at least has some significant degree of survival value. Any state that is ephemeral, whether physical or phenomenal -- there one instant and gone the next -- is pretty much an illusory candidate for being. A mere semblance of existence, a transient gasp on the ontic surface that never remains there, immediately drowning.

Heraclitus claimed that himself -- that there is no being, apart from the concept of "change" or that process he abstracts from the overall remembered sequence of particular instances of fleeting phantoms. Little wonder that Plato thereby tried to reconcile the two rival philosophies by introducing hierarchies of multiple abstract eternal forms that lurked behind or generated the concrete, temporal illusions constituting the sensible world.

"Heraclitus is known for his belief that 'change is the only constant in life,' emphasizing that the world is always in flux and nothing remains the same. He famously stated, "No man ever steps in the same river twice," illustrating his view that everything is in a state of becoming rather than being."

Albeit the general principle or its function that he endorses -- that the mutable or ephemeral appearances adhere to -- endures without modification of its own mandate or nature.
Reply
#3
Magical Realist Online
I have to admit that there seems a necessity, at some ontological level, for an unchanging substrate. Otherwise we have what the Buddhists and Hindus call the state of "impermanence" where nothing lasts and all is fleeting, which is basically a recipe for nihilism or some sort of Maya reality where all is illusory (see Kansas's "Dust In The Wind"). I'm still attracted to the Taoist model of a dialectic between opposites, the ultimate one being that between "Being" and "Becoming". Just as we cannot imagine an absolute being without the flow of becoming, so we cannot really imagine an absolute flow without contrast to some static state for it to flow thru like the present now or like the river bed underneath the river. The Tao would be the fundamental dynamism of Being and Becoming eternally empowering and yet warring against each other like two dragons. A monism of sorts, at least in some transcendental mystical sense, and a dualism of sorts, in a philosophical metaphysical sense.

Quote:Little wonder that Plato thereby tried to reconcile the two rival philosophies by introducing hierarchies of multiple abstract eternal forms that lurked behind or generated the concrete, temporal illusions constituting the sensible world.

A noble effort I'd say. But he was definitely against the idea of impermanence:

"Plato rejected impermanence, arguing against Heraclitus:

'How can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? ... for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other ... so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state .... but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever ... then I do not think they can resemble a process or flux ....' "---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence
Reply
Reply
#5
Magical Realist Online
"Nothing changes because it is all changing at once."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)