Process, Reality, and Context: Timothy E. Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot – Summaries of the Seminar Series

Below is a detailed summary of each of the nine seminar sessions that ran monthly from June 2021 through February 2022 focused on Dr. Timothy Eastman’s book, Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context (2020). This event was sponsored by the Cobb Institute’s Science Advisory Committee, which I chair. You can read my review of Dr. Eastman’s book in Process Studies journal here. You can also find additional handouts and a record of the Zoom chat from each session on the Science Advisory Committee webpage linked above.

Note that the summaries are produced with the aid of ChatGPT. While I did review and edit them for accuracy, they are not capturing the original nuance of the live discussion. For this reason I have also embedded the videos below.

Session 1

I began the session by welcoming everyone and explaining that the Science Advisory Committee is designed to further the Cobb Institute’s mission of integrating a process perspective into the natural sciences. We want to sponsor dialogues, conduct interviews, organize seminars like this one, and generally build and maintain community of scientists and philosophers influenced by Whitehead and process thought.

This first session included Dr. Eastman’s introduction to his book and summary of chapter one. We invited two respondents—Mikhail Epstein and Jude Jones—to share reflections. Finally, we had an hour or so of discussion among all participants. We followed a similar structure, with different respondents, in subsequent sessions.

Before Dr. Eastman began, we were welcomed by the late John Cobb Jr. (d. 2024). Dr. Cobb, who died this past December, was a leading philosopher, theologian, and environmentalist. He studied with Charles Hartshorne at the University of Chicago, co-founded the Center for Process Studies, and wrote or edited over fifty books. I noted that John would offer some historical context on process thought’s engagement with the sciences and say a few words about Tim’s new book.

John Cobb Jr. Offers Historical Context

John Cobb began by expressing his appreciation for this seminar series. He noted that many process thinkers wish more scientists would adopt Whitehead’s shift from substance to process. The Center for Process Studies (CPS) was formed in 1973 partly to encourage such a transition in scientific thinking.

He then recounted how CPS’s first conference took place in 1974 at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Center, focusing on “Mind in Nature.” Charles Birch organized that event, which included major biologists of the time—Theodosius Dobzhansky, C. H. Waddington, Sewall Wright, and W. H. Thorpe—indicating that senior scientists back then were often more open to Whitehead. Yet by the next generation, universities had become compartmentalized, causing fewer scientists to continue in that tradition. I’d add that it was also around then that the generally reductionistic methods of microbiology and genetics began to dominate academic research.

Still, John said, there were exceptions. Waddington introduced CPS to the quantum physicist David Bohm, leading to years of collaboration. The late David Ray Griffin, the Center’s conference organizer for two decades, convened numerous events bringing together open-minded scientists and philosophers. John suggested that Griffin’s contribution to Whiteheadian dialogue in the sciences might someday be more widely recognized.

Turning to Einstein and Whitehead’s theory of relativity, John recalled a moment in the 1970s when some physicists at Caltech declared Whitehead’s theory “refuted.” Whitehead, John said, never claimed his formula had replaced Einstein’s, only that Einstein’s predictive success did not logically require the reification of space. Meanwhile, Whitehead’s emphasis on the difference between metrical time or spacetime and creative process has been neglected for too long.

John then spoke of Tim Eastman’s careful study of so-called “empty space” from a plasma physics perspective, an area largely ignored by many scientists. Whitehead, John suggested, would have been intrigued by Tim’s work showing that so-called “empty” space is actually full of plasma. Tim has also spent decades investigating quantum physics and its philosophical implications, arriving at a new synthesis that John believed resonates deeply with Whitehead’s cosmology. He concluded by affirming that Tim’s Untying the Gordian Knot could become a major catalyst for a “profound breakthrough” of process thought if widely read.

Introducing Tim Eastman

I thanked John for that historical background and for situating Tim Eastman’s work in a broader trajectory of process-science engagement. I then introduced Tim Eastman, who was a space plasma physicist for over twenty-five years, working for NASA and the National Science Foundation. Tim has a longstanding interest in Whitehead, was guest editor for Process Studies in the late 1990s, and co-edited the volume Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience (2003). His newest book, Untying the Gordian Knot, aims to integrate quantum theory, complexity science, and process philosophy to rethink the ultimate nature of reality.

Tim Eastman’s Presentation

Tim began by thanking John Cobb for his decades of leadership in the process movement, citing John’s prophetic 1972 book, Is It Too Late?, which anticipated many of the planetary ecological crises we face today. He also expressed gratitude for David Ray Griffin’s conferences, for the support of the Library of Congress, and for his colleagues and family—especially his wife Carolyn Brown, a noted scholar in her own right. Tim then provided an overview of how his new book evolved out of his plasma physics background, combined with four decades of exploring Whitehead, category theory, quantum measurement theory, and other domains.

Central Observations
Tim said that modern science tends to focus on “context independence,” isolating variables to discover laws that remain the same anywhere in the universe. This approach is powerful, but it can neglect the vital role of “context dependence” that we see foregrounded in the humanities and arts. Thus, Tim identified “three ways of knowing”:

The way of numbers (emphasizing context independence, symmetry, and quantifiable law).
The way of signs (emphasizing context dependence, semiotics, and meaning).
The way of ultimate context (pointing toward the spiritual).

He proposed that to even begin to understand reality adequately, we must integrate all three. Tim then posited four fundamental concepts prior to standard notions of space-time: process, logic, relations, and extensiveness. Process involves input, output, and context. Logic splits into Boolean (two-valued, actual) and non-Boolean (multivalued, potential). Relations span local-global, part-whole, and semiotic levels; extensiveness is more basic than any metrical sense of space and time.

The Gordian Knot Problems
Tim explained that his book’s title, Untying the Gordian Knot, references thirteen philosophical-scientific puzzles, such as measurement, potentiality, continuity, temporality, causation, emergence, and mind-body. These are longstanding conundrums, and Tim argues that “landscapes of potentiality” must be recognized alongside “actualized outcomes.” Quantum physics, especially the transitions from pure states of possibility to mixed states of probability to actual measurements, reveals the ontological reality of potential.

He ended by explaining that Chapter 1 introduces these overarching aims and the context of his quest, while the subsequent chapters methodically address the Gordian knot problems through what he calls a “Logoi framework.” Tim closed by noting how this approach could overcome reductionism and open space for the recovery of spiritual meaning and deep values as part of a scientifically grounded cosmology.

Response from Mikhail Epstein

I then introduced Mikhail Epstein, Professor of Russian and Cultural Theory at Durham University (UK) and Emory University in Atlanta. Mikhail has authored over forty books and promotes an interdisciplinary humanities approach.

Mikhail began by praising Tim’s integrative aspiration: “a theory of everything,” but dynamic rather than abstract. He focused on Tim’s theme of “potentiae” in quantum processes, describing how physics moves from possibilities to actualities. Mikhail proposed that the humanities perform a complementary but reversed operation—potentializing the actual. That is, a concrete pen or event becomes a seed for imagining new cultural, historical, or psychological contexts, multiplying the world’s possibilities.

He cited Aristotle’s notion that not all potencies must become actual—meaning that possibilities have ontological weight even if not realized. Emotional life, Mikhail added, hinges on these unrealized potentials—fear, hope, regret. Similarly, history must include “alternatives that might have been.” Philosophers of history highlight that unactualized possibilities give meaning to historical events.

Mikhail concluded that Tim’s framework could unify physics, neuroscience, and the humanities in a single dynamic: quantum actuality grows from possibility, while cultural imagination transforms actuality back into possibility. This reciprocal interplay, he argued, is crucial for the successful co-evolution of nature and culture.

Response from Judith Jones

Next, I introduced Jude Jones, Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, known for her work on Whitehead, American philosophy, and ethics. Jude is author of Intensity: An Essay in Whiteheadian Ontology (1998). Jude began by lauding Tim’s “rich metaphors” that help us see the deeper resonance of his project, singling out his Gordian knot motif. In the Greek myth, Alexander the Great either cleverly unraveled the knot or simply cut it with his sword—either way, supposedly securing dominion. Jude worried about a too-violent or “cleaving” approach, suggesting that the quest for mastery might “murder the mystery” of nature.

She contrasted that kind of decisiveness with Whitehead’s admonition that dissecting natural objects often kills our sense of wonder. Citing poets like Wordsworth and Zbigniew Herbert, Jude said we ought to meet nature more humbly, receiving its “knotted” intricacy without presuming to solve or conquer it. She proposed that Tim’s “Logoi framework” might better be thought of as weaving more knots—like Celtic knot art—rather than cutting them.

Jude also reflected on the unholy trinity of “logical, psychological, and ontological necessity,” which Tim challenges. She finds Tim’s “coherence, consistency, and applicability” a promising alternative. Yet she remains cautious about how overarching frameworks can unconsciously reinscribe control and conquest. She asked Tim how we might preserve nature’s creative mystery and potential as we deepen understanding. Perhaps the real goal is to collaborate with the knot, not forcibly unravel it.

Eastman’s Response to Epstein and Jones

I gave Tim the floor to respond. He thanked Mikhail for highlighting how the humanities generate unrealized possibilities, complementing quantum physics’ production of concrete outcomes. Tim then addressed Jude’s “murder the mystery” concern. He noted that scientific method often zeroes in on discrete input-output correlations, ignoring the broader context that fosters potential. The “knots,” he said, symbolize problems that must be addressed for clarity, but we should never lose sight of the larger web of relations. In that sense, the Gordian knots remain woven into a wider tapestry of actuality and potential.

Tim also revisited his childhood experience standing on a lakeshore, gazing at the Dakota hills, feeling finite yet sensing a boundless horizon of possibility. He connected that actual occasion of experience to his current argument: in quantum physics, we see potential states evolving toward actual measurement outcomes, which suggests ontological possibility is real—not just an epistemic tool. “Landscapes of potentiae” complement the “binary logic of the actual” and yield a unity reminiscent of Spinoza’s cosmic vision, while also allowing for Bergson’s and Whitehead’s emphasis on creative evolution.

Open Conversation and Audience Q&A

With about forty-five minutes remaining, we opened the floor to questions from participants.

George Lucas and Farzad Mahootian on Probability and Potentiality
- George asked whether probability, rather than possibility, should stand as the direct counterpart to actuality. Tim replied that possibility (potentiae) is more fundamental, with probability serving as a constrained, intermediate step on the way to actualization.
- Farzad followed up, asking if probability and possibility might exist in a single hierarchy, or whether one precedes the other. Tim reiterated that “landscapes of potential” are primary, while probabilities are secondary constraints leading to discrete outcomes.
John Mayer on Probability Theory
John Mayer wondered if probability is simply a practical tool in science and mathematics, lacking the metaphysical status Tim gives potentiae. Tim and others agreed that probability is vital in modeling events but does not fully capture the ontological richness of possibility.
Randy Auxier on Whitehead’s Logic
Randy connected Tim’s argument to Whitehead’s distinction between “general potentiality” and “real potentiality.” He highlighted how Whitehead’s coordinate analysis in Process and Reality can be read as an extension of Kantian logic, emphasizing that Whitehead’s “logical, psychological, and ontological” structures are more nuanced than typical formal logic. Randy felt Tim’s approach integrates well with Whitehead if we see process and potential as equally essential.
Rick Doherty on Time Reborn
Rick asked about Lee Smolin’s Time Reborn and how time might be fundamental rather than illusory. Tim cited the 1922 debate between Bergson and Einstein, noting Einstein’s early stance that Bergson’s sense of “philosophical time” is dispensable. Tim proposed that once we accept the reality of possibility, we can reconcile Bergson’s emphasis on creativity with Einstein’s successful equations—seeing metric spacetime as derivative of deeper processes.
Wolfgang Leihhold on Experience
Wolfgang, coming from an Eric Voegelin background, asked whether Tim equates experience with sensory perception or also includes imagination and spiritual perception. Tim stressed that he rejects “sensationalism,” believing experience extends beyond mere sensa to encompass anticipatory dimensions, meaning, and spirituality. He mentioned that quantum transitions from possibility to actuality might illuminate these imaginative and spiritual facets.
Alexei Sharov on Agency and Biosemiotics
Alexei, a biologist, urged the importance of “semiotic agency.” Rather than seeing input-output as mechanical, he argued, living systems interpret signs, construct meaning, and create new possibilities—key themes in biosemiotics. Tim agreed that standard physics, when it ignores the experimenter’s role, excludes agency. He referenced Hans Primas, whose work on quantum theory highlights the inseparability of observer and system. By acknowledging both actual outcomes and the potency of relational contexts, we restore a place for agency even in basic physical processes.

Throughout the Q&A, participants kept returning to two overarching points: first, that modern science’s focus on discrete actualities misses the generative role of possibility and agency; second, that Whitehead’s legacy, along with new developments in quantum theory, offers conceptual tools for an expanded view of nature as a relational process that includes meaning and creativity at every scale.

Session 2

I once again introduced Dr. Timothy Eastman, a plasma physicist turned philosopher, who spoke for about twenty minutes about Chapter 2 of Untying the Gordian Knot. We then heard from three distinguished respondents:

Randall Auxier, Professor of Philosophy and Communication Studies at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Michael Epperson, Research Professor and Founding Director of the Consortium for Philosophy and the Natural Sciences at California State University, Sacramento.
Elías Zafiris, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Athens.

After their individual responses, we moved into an open discussion among the panelists, followed by Q&A with the audience.

Tim Eastman’s Remarks on Chapter 2

Tim began by explaining that, in Chapter 2, he presents foundational concepts and notions needed to build the “Logoi framework” that the rest of his book relies upon. Initially, he planned to treat each of his “thirteen Gordian knots” one by one in corresponding chapters but ultimately restructured the book around “cross-cutting notions,” especially those involving process, logic, and relations.

He recapped his central argument:

Process implies succession—an ongoing sequence of events.
Logic must incorporate both a binary or “Boolean” mode (for yes/no actualities) and a non-Boolean or “multi-valued” mode (for possibilities).
Relations are necessarily triadic, embracing not just input and output but also a contextual factor.

Tim mentioned a critical lesson from contemporary physics: the “real” can no longer be limited to actualities alone; rather, potential (or “landscapes of potentiae”) must be recognized as coextensive with actuality. He employed the concept “Logoi” to denote relational structures, drawing on ancient Greek references to “ratio” or “relation.”

Tim then contrasted fundamental and derivative notions:

Fundamental: process, logic (both Boolean and non-Boolean), and relation.
Derivative: physical laws, causal statements, and space-time metrics.

He noted that clock-time often appears fundamental in relativity theory, but according to his scheme, measurable time derives from a deeper process of unfolding and from the constraints that shape actual outcomes. Quantum field theory, in Tim’s view, is at bottom a relational, event-oriented theory.

Tim emphasized that science, in seeking context-independent descriptions, often presupposes “actualism”—the idea that only actual outcomes are fundamentally real—while relegating possibility to a merely epistemic status. New interpretations of quantum theory, however, show that potentiality itself must be accorded ontological weight.

Finally, Tim said that modern developments—like category theory or topoi theory, championed by Michael Epperson, Elías Zafiris, and others—enable the rigorous integration of actualities and potentialities, local and global scales, and Boolean and non-Boolean logics.

Response from Randall Auxier

I introduced Randy Auxier, who began by noting that he had written a longer paper with detailed remarks on Untying the Gordian Knot (available here), which he had shared with Tim, myself, and others beforehand. He was quick to emphasize his deep admiration for the book, describing it as a major synthesis and cautioning listeners not to interpret his remarks as hostile.

He believes Tim’s emphasis on avoiding actualism is crucial, because a purely actualist approach cannot account for quantum mechanics’ openness and indeterminacy. Yet, Randy argued Tim might inadvertently still be moving in an “actualist” direction, albeit a gentler, pluralistic version.

For Randy, Whitehead’s notion of “eternal objects” is key to preserving the independence of possibility from actuality. He saw Tim’s treatment of possibility as conflating “the actual plus the possible,” rather than granting pure possibility an independent metaphysical status. Whitehead’s own distinction between “general potentiality” and “real potentiality,” Randy said, is precisely what allows for an order of possibilities existing beyond any reference to actual outcomes.

Randy stressed that “eternal objects” is perhaps Whitehead’s poorest terminological choice, frequently misunderstood. Yet Whitehead always insisted that there is some determinate order to possibilities, even if it is not located in any particular actual event. Randy believes Tim’s account remains somewhat within actualism by not fully giving possibility that same independence.

He closed by noting that he and Gary Herstein have tried in their work (The Quantum of Explanation, 2017) to remain closer to Whitehead’s distinction between pure potentiality and real potentiality. While acknowledging the importance of Tim’s project, Randy wished to underscore the existence of alternative logics—rooted in Whitehead’s own “extensive connection” and generalized beyond sets—to handle what he calls a “determinate order” of pure possibility.

Response from Michael Epperson

I introduced Michael Epperson, who appreciated Randy’s comments about possibility. He agreed that Whitehead’s distinction between pure potentiality and real potentiality is crucial. Michael explained that, in Whitehead’s terms, “pure potentiality” refers to the broadest realm of uncontextualized possibilities, while “real potentiality” becomes relevant only once we introduce an actual context. He questioned, however, whether possibility is “determinately” ordered, preferring to think of it as indeterminately ordered.

Michael drew on quantum mechanics to illustrate this. A quantum state ψ may describe a system in a superposition—an unmeasured state. Once we specify a measurement setup, the system’s potential outcomes reduce to a smaller set of mutually exclusive, probable states—this is “real potentiality,” grounded in an actual measurement context. He likened it to a stepwise “triadic” process:

Initial actuality evolves toward…
Conditioned potentiality (related to the measurement context), leading to…
An actual outcome consistent with the principle of non-contradiction.

Michael invoked von Neumann’s distinction between deterministic “unitary” and open, irreversible “non-unitary” interpretations of quantum physics. In the latter, measurement contexts are seen to narrow indeterminate potentials into a single outcome. For Michael, “non-unitary reduction” is essential to accounting for the genuine novelty in quantum measurements—something not captured by classical, deterministic formalisms.

Turning to Whitehead, Michael endorsed the notion that local contexts must satisfy Boolean logic (non-contradiction, excluded middle), while globally there can be non-Boolean structures—illustrated by entanglement and topological relations. He concluded by praising Tim’s second chapter for articulating how contemporary physics supports a process-relational ontology, even as the further distinction between pure and real potentiality might still be sharpened.

Response from Elías Zafiris

Finally, I introduced Elías Zafiris, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Athens, whose collaboration with Michael Epperson on category and topoi theory has been influential for Tim’s approach.

Elías focused on the concept of “relation” in a quantum context. In classical logic and set theory, a relation is typically defined on a set whose elements are well-differentiated. However, in quantum physics, as Elías explained, one cannot start with sharply defined, individual elements for entities like electrons or photons; these particles do not possess individuality in the classical sense. Consequently, the traditional set-theoretic framework, which relies on clearly distinguishable elements, falls short in describing quantum states.

To address this, category theory and sheaf theory offer a “non-element-based” framework. In this approach, the fundamental entities in quantum theory are viewed as embodying pure potentiality—they do not have a predetermined identity until an observation is made. Despite this indeterminacy, one can still associate classical (Boolean) contexts to these entities. Each Boolean frame represents a local, classical “slice” of the quantum world, serving as the context in which measurements occur.

The key insight, as Elías noted, is that no single Boolean context can capture the entirety of the quantum state. Instead, one must consider a collection of overlapping Boolean frames—analogous to an open cover in topology. By “gluing” these local contexts together, one can reconstruct global information about quantum phenomena, such as interference, entanglement, and geometric phases. These phenomena are intrinsically global in nature and cannot be fully explained by any single classical perspective.

Elías further clarified that the term “local” in this setting should not be confused with spatial locality. While quantum measurements are reproducible regardless of where they are performed, the relevant notion of locality here is abstract—it refers to the local Boolean frame rather than a specific position in space-time. Thus, quantum mechanics suggests that classical, set-based notions of relations need to be supplanted by relational structures that are attuned to the potentiality inherent in quantum systems.

Tim’s Response to the Panel

Tim thanked the respondents for clarifying certain points, praising in particular Michael and Elías’ explanations of how category-theoretic approaches can incorporate both actual outcomes (Boolean logic) and relational potentials (non-Boolean). He also addressed Randy’s critique of “actualism,” stating he views his own approach as a firm rejection of actualist assumptions. While he doesn’t aim to replicate Whitehead’s entire theory of eternal objects, Tim remains open to ongoing work by Randy, Gary Herstein, and others that might take the ontology of pure possibility even further.

Tim noted that while he may not fully develop every nuance of “pure” versus “real” possibility, he does believe that mainstream physics (especially quantum field theory) supports a reality in which possibility and actuality are mutually irreducible. He looked forward to further dialogues exploring how Whitehead’s notion of pure potentiality might mesh with the “Logoi framework.”

Open Discussion Among Panelists

Relating Local and Global

Michael reiterated that quantum mechanics posits locally Boolean measurement contexts that must be stitched together globally in a non-Boolean manner. Elías said his topological approach gives a rigorous way to “paste together” Boolean frames, revealing global features like entanglement and interference.

Randy mentioned that, in Whitehead, one can interpret “cosmic epochs” as the domains within which local measurement strategies apply. He suggested his and Gary Herstein’s approach tries to incorporate potentialities that never actualize—a “pure possibility”—which might or might not yield further insights into quantum theory.

Discussion of Set Theory vs. Category Theory

Elías emphasized that standard set theory presupposes the ability to distinguish elements, which quantum states do not allow. Category or topoi theory avoids that by localizing contexts. Randy, while acknowledging these arguments, wondered if certain alternative logics could handle global possibility without discarding sets altogether.

Possibility vs. God in Whitehead

In response to a question about Whitehead’s “primordial nature of God” functioning as a locus of order, Michael said he largely focuses on how local consistency (non-contradiction) must be stipulated in physics. Whether one calls that “God” or something else is a philosophical question. Tim reiterated that the spiritual or “ultimate context” dimension (Chapter 8 in his book) transcends his immediate scientific analyses.

Audience Q&A Highlights

Benjamin Rowe asked about the independence of eternal objects and subjective form. Randy noted Whitehead’s texts imply possibilities possess “subjective order” outside particular actualities—though not necessarily “experience.”
Anderson Weeks asked how Tim infers a distinct logic of possibility from empirical, localizable results. Tim said quantum logic itself, along with measurement outcomes, points to a non-Boolean realm essential to the real.
John Meyer wondered if God or a “primordial” source might ground the laws of non-contradiction. Michael sees physics as requiring local principles to get off the ground, which can be theologically interpreted but are not mandated by science alone.
Farzad Mahootian asked about the condensation of pure possibility into real potentiality. Elías elaborated on his perspective on how Boolean local frames, glued together via topology, transform undifferentiated potential into measurable probability distributions.

In concluding remarks, everyone agreed that these metaphysical and mathematical discussions were ongoing. As Whitehead advised, a speculative scheme evolves by successive refinements—a process they hoped to continue over the next months.

Session 3

I began by welcoming everyone and explaining that we would focus on Chapter 3 of Tim’s book. In that chapter, he lays out what he calls his “Baker’s Dozen” of Gordian knot problems—thirteen deep and often tangled issues in the foundations of physics and philosophy—and then offers potential solutions through his broader relational framework. This time, we were especially fortunate to have two respondents: Dr. Ruth Kastner, a philosopher of physics known for her work on the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and once again, Dr. Michael Epperson.

Tim Eastman’s Presentation

Tim began by thanking everyone for attending. He noted that the many books behind him in his video backdrop symbolized the extensive scholarship—spanning more than a century—that he synthesized in his own work. He described himself as someone especially good at synthesis. While he never felt particularly adept at traditional number-crunching or theoretical derivations, his talent lay in weaving together ideas from diverse sources.

He described how he has been influenced by major figures in process philosophy—people like John Cobb—and recalled intense dialogues with philosophers and scientists such as Henry Stapp, Stuart Kauffman, David Finkelstein, and Michael Epperson. All these conversations fed into his ideas about quantum physics, measurement, and the relationship between the actual and the possible.

Tim explained that, although his professional background is in plasma physics, he has kept a long-standing interest in the philosophical dimensions of quantum theory. Drawing from the tradition of non-Boolean logic in quantum theory, he emphasized that the classical, Boolean logic of definite outcomes must be accompanied by a non-Boolean, or “possibility,” logic to account for quantum phenomena. Tim connected this to the sense we all have—when driving, for instance—that myriad possibilities are constantly being evaluated even though only one outcome ultimately actualizes.

He identified John Cramer’s original transactional interpretation as an important step toward understanding quantum measurement. Ruth Kastner’s further development of that interpretation introduced a strong emphasis on possibility itself, or what Tim called “a logic of potentiae.” He noted that Cramer himself, who comes from an experimental physics background, might not have fully appreciated the deep philosophical implications of Ruth’s “possibilist” approach precisely because he presupposed an actualist framework. Tim commended Ruth for advancing the transactional picture by foregrounding potentiality, which aligns with his own distinction between the order of the actual (Boolean) and the order of the possible (non-Boolean).

Tim then turned to Chapter 3, explaining how he lists thirteen Gordian knot problems in physics and philosophy—measurement, potentiality, continuity, temporality, causal relations, law, emergence, information and knowledge, induction, access to abstract realms, the matter-symbol problem, mind-body, and the problem of meaning. Initially, he considered devoting the entire book to an in-depth treatment of each of these problems one by one. However, as the project evolved, he realized he needed to address “cross-cutting” issues—like causation, emergence, and semiotics—that unify all the Gordian knots.

He concluded by commending both Ruth and Michael for their complementary ways of conceptualizing quantum measurement and the interplay of local and global relations. He thanked them for their influential ideas and expressed excitement about how these frameworks help us move beyond the limitations of twentieth-century analytic philosophy of science.

Ruth Kastner’s Reflections

Next, I had the privilege of introducing Dr. Ruth Kastner. She is a research associate in the philosophy department at the University of Maryland and the author of important works on the transactional interpretation, including The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (2022).

Ruth began by voicing her appreciation for Tim’s project, saying that he captured crucial insights about possibility as an ontologically real category. She recounted how she started with a more traditional “stodgy physicist” mindset—committed to realism and wary of “woo.” She believed in the capacity of physics to reveal truths about reality. Yet when she encountered the strange correlations of entangled quantum states, she realized classical actualism no longer sufficed.

She noticed that in quantum theory, if one is committed to a realist picture, it’s impossible to confine these correlated systems to ordinary space-time. Entangled states live in a higher-dimensional configuration space, which she now interprets as a realm of possibility. John Cramer’s original formulation of the transactional interpretation still leaned on certain actualist assumptions, whereas her version explicitly embraces the idea that quantum states are real possibilities that do not simply reside within space-time.

Ruth also highlighted the importance of distinguishing between unitary evolution and non-unitary processes in quantum theory. In standard treatments, everything is described by a deterministic wave function evolving unitarily—yet there is no clear place for measurement or actualization. The transactional interpretation, by contrast, introduces real physical processes involving “offer” and “confirmation” waves that enable genuine actualization events. This process breaks symmetry and selects among many possibilities, which is why measurement yields a single outcome even though multiple outcomes are initially possible.

She used the analogy of Yin and Yang to describe the direct-action theory on which the transactional interpretation rests, seeing it as a mutual interaction rather than a one-way emission. Sources and absorbers “know” about each other in a nonlocal manner, and each is as crucial as the other. Ruth stressed that while the standard approach only acknowledges the outward Yang dimension of emission, transactional theory includes the inward Yin dimension of response—these two must come together in a mutual process of actualization.

Michael Epperson’s Reflections

Michael reflected on speculative philosophy, noting that Whitehead used the term “speculative” to remind us that extending insights from physics to broader contexts is a creative act. We must be explicit about when we are generalizing beyond the specific mathematical formalisms of quantum theory. This caution is especially important in an era when popular accounts can mislead lay audiences about what physics does and does not imply.

He then focused on the significance of non-unitary evolution in quantum mechanics. In a strictly deterministic, unitary block-universe approach, there is no room for true novelty; every future state is already contained in the initial state. But measurement in quantum mechanics forces genuine novelty because the act of measurement changes the state in unpredictable, fundamentally new ways.

In Whiteheadian terms, Michael drew an analogy: the initial state of a system (the “subject”) yields a range of potential outcomes. These potentialities undergo a non-unitary shift toward a set of definite probabilities, and from there, a single outcome is realized. That realization becomes a novel, completed actual event (analogous to Whitehead’s “superject”), which then influences the next set of potential events. He sees a neat parallel between quantum measurement processes and the Whiteheadian notion of subjective form leading to objective outcome.

Michael also emphasized the interplay of local and global contexts. In standard entanglement experiments—where two detectors are spatially separated—each detector’s local perspective sees only part of the story; yet a global, “coincidence counter” perspective can confirm correlations that appear instantaneous or nonlocal. Although quantum theory formally captures this for entangled particles, Michael mused about whether deeper or broader forms of nonlocal relationality might characterize nature. He cautioned that we should not overreach in proclaiming such universal entanglement. Still, the question remains whether all local contexts might be globally interwoven in ways that remain undiscovered.

Tim’s Response

Before opening the floor, Tim briefly responded. He remarked on how Ruth’s emphasis on the deeper possibilist dimension in the transactional interpretation complements Michael’s category-theoretic perspective on local and global relations. He praised their joint paper with Stuart Kauffman in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations, which proposes novel ways of seeing quantum measurement. Tim sees Ruth’s approach as focusing largely on the “order of potentiae,” while Michael’s approach addresses how the “order of actuality” emerges. Together, they clarify and enrich one another.

Highlights from the Audience Q&A

Lynn’s Question on Simultaneous Measurements
Lynn asked how quantum theory handles simultaneous measurements made by different observers in far-separated locations. Could multiple observers measure a particle “at the same time,” and would that disrupt the state in contradictory ways?
- Ruth answered that in the transactional picture, measurement processes form self-contained, causal, space-time intervals. Entangled systems obey global constraints, so what looks simultaneous locally still ties into a broader, nonlocal process. She noted that once a system undergoes a measurement “handshake,” opportunities for certain other measurements may be constrained or eliminated.
Jude’s Question on Quality vs. Quantity
Jude wondered about bridging the apparent gap between “qualitative” and “quantitative” aspects of reality.
- Ruth noted that physics already incorporates fundamental qualitative notions—like mass and energy—even as it strives for quantifiable predictions. Tim proposed his triadic framework of “input–output–context,” claiming context inevitably includes qualitative factors. The challenge is to recognize that science alone, with only the “way of numbers,” cannot fully capture qualities such as feeling or aesthetic experience.
Mikhail Epstein on Metaphors and Nonlocality
Mikhail observed that poetry has long used forms of “nonlocal entanglement” in metaphor, where qualities of one entity are ascribed to another in unexpected ways. He suggested that the bridging of quantum nonlocality and literary metaphors might unify science and the humanities around a shared principle of relationality.
- Michael Epperson agreed that analogical thinking is powerful. As long as we do not collapse the differences between physics and poetry, we can find intriguing parallels in how each domain deals with open-ended, relational structures.
Thandeka on Neuroscience and Emotion
Thandeka urged the group to bring in affective neuroscience research to deepen understanding of emergent possibilities in decision-making and emotional life. She mentioned the work of Jaak Panksepp, suggesting that quantum-based interpretations could illuminate how the brain navigates a landscape of potential actions.
- Tim welcomed this suggestion, noting some neuroscientists remain purely reductionist, but others are more open to complex systems approaches that acknowledge “the logic of the possible.”
Anderson Weekes’ Question on Whether Quantum Insights Generalize
Anderson sought to clarify Ruth’s stance on whether quantum insights extend to everyday choice or remain unique to particle physics.
- Ruth distinguished between her formal Transactional Interpretation, which confines itself to quantum phenomena, and her more personal “speculative hat,” where she finds it plausible that quantum nonlocality suggests broader relational truths. She cautioned that TI itself, as a strict physical theory, does not automatically generalize to all domains, though it may inspire philosophical reflection.

Session 4

We focused today on Chapter 4, which I noted was one of the densest and most crucial parts of his project—where Tim critiques “actualism” more fully and integrates quantum theory and Whitehead’s thought in new ways.

I briefly introduced our panel of three guests:

George Lucas, Professor Emeritus of Ethics and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School, known for his works on Whitehead, including The Rehabilitation of Whitehead (1993).
Anderson Weeks, a Whitehead-influenced thinker who has edited a volume on consciousness and has written about causation and logic in Whitehead’s philosophy.
Alex Gómez-Marin, Principal Investigator at the Behavior of Organisms Laboratory at the Institute of Neurosciences in Alicante, Spain.

I reminded everyone to RSVP for future sessions and turned the floor over to Tim Eastman.

Tim Eastman’s Overview of Chapter 4

Tim began by highlighting that Chapter 4 is indeed quite large: it offers “applications” of the conceptual groundwork laid in Chapters 1–3. He recalled the key ideas so far:

Three ways of knowing:
1. Context independence (science).
2. Context emphasis (arts, humanities, semiotics).
3. Ultimate context (spiritual/religious).
Three fundamental notions: Process, Logic, and Relations.
Reality as embracing both the actual (Boolean logic) and the possible (non-Boolean logic).

He stressed that standard, “actualist” thinking is insufficient for understanding quantum physics or emergent phenomena. Instead, Tim proposed that causation and emergence are complementary aspects of one process, with causation highlighting diachronic (temporal) features, and emergence highlighting synchronic (hierarchical or systemic) features.

Causation vs. Causality

Tim cited Meno Hulswit’s distinction: “causality” concerns the language and propositions by which we describe cause-effect relations, whereas “causation” is the ontological production of effects by causes. Tim laments a persistent reduction of causation to an epistemic notion of causality, ignoring deeper processual realities.

Internal Relations, Semiotics, and Emergence

Tim drew on Whitehead’s concept of “prehension” to show how final states of a quantum system can be internally related to its initial states and broader environment. Tim underscored that triadic relations—input, output, context—are crucial. He invoked the theories of Paul Bains and Jay B. Labov, as well as emergent and self-organizing dynamics (e.g., complex systems approaches, Robert Rosen’s anticipatory systems).

Physical Law as “Constraints on Potentia”

One of Tim’s central points is that the so-called “laws” of physics may be better understood as constraints on possibility, often formulated via minimization or variational principles like the principle of least action. Rather than God-given necessity, law emerges from how systems optimize among potential trajectories. He concluded by noting that these insights resonate with “biophilosophy,” referencing thinkers like Spyridon Koutroufinis who see cooperation and anticipatory dynamics as vital to living systems.

Alex Gómez-Marin’s Remarks

Alex was uncertain if he could attend live, so he provided a short video. He began by expressing gratitude for the series and specifically credited Tim’s critique of “actualism” for its usefulness in his own work as a neuroscientist. He raised three main points:

Empirical Program
Alex asked: given the rich philosophical framework Tim proposes, what new empirically testable hypotheses can we generate? How might Whiteheadian or Eastman-inspired concepts guide experimental design, especially in neuroscience or biology, rather than just reinterpreting existing data?
Sociopolitical-Media Context
He asked how these ideas might impact the institutional setting of academia—such as faculty hiring committees. Could the Whitehead-inspired or Eastman-inspired “process approach” flourish in current systems shaped by rigid metrics, or do we need new structures?
Biological Dimensions
Referring to the importance Tim places on quantum theory, Alex wondered whether focusing on physics might risk “smallism”—the idea that reality is explained primarily from subatomic building blocks. Instead, might we see biology as more fundamental, with fruit flies (and other living organisms) revealing aspects of emergent processes that quarks and stones cannot?

He closed with a mention of Bergson, husserlian phenomenology, and the importance of integrating these lines of thought into Tim’s interpretive approach.

George Lucas’s Reflections

I introduced George Lucas. He first mentions The Rehabilitation of Whitehead (1992)—and singled out James Bradley as a key influence on Tim’s synthesis.

George emphasized that Tim’s critique of causal closure of the physical underpins typical physicalist assumptions in science, denying real emergence or novelty. Whitehead already questioned that approach by shifting from physics toward a more biological or organic model of reality. George also praised Tim’s background in plasma physics, seeing plasmas as a physical metaphor for nonlocal, cooperative dynamics that challenge mechanistic causality.

George singled out Tim’s discussion of the principle of least action as a powerful example of how law might be a constraint on possibility. Instead of a law forcing the system to follow a path, the system’s internal relational context leads it to follow an optimal trajectory. George recalled his own excitement learning the calculus of variations as an undergraduate, noting how it applies equally to classical systems and quantum fields, bridging local and global perspectives.

He ended by calling Tim’s overall approach a “theory of nearly everything,” disclaiming the popular “theory of everything” in physics but acknowledging the comprehensiveness Tim attempts to achieve.

Anderson Weekes’ Reflections

I then introduced Anderson Weekes, co-editor of a great volume on process thought and consciousness studies titled Process Approaches to Consciousness (2009). Tim cites this text, and so Anderson decided to structure his remarks as a summary of the arguments he made in that book.

Anderson recalled Whitehead’s explicit claim to derive ideas from the history of philosophy, reconfiguring Kantian, Aristotelian, and Platonic concepts to craft a robust account of causation and consciousness.

He recounted how skeptical critiques of causation—like Hume’s—arise repeatedly in philosophy, usually insisting that events are either externally or internally related (ie, either clearly distinguished or vaguely confused). Anderson suggested Whitehead’s “non-Boolean fuzziness” might be the solution: rather than clarity or distinctness, real causation involves a transitional, incomplete fusion of cause and effect. Whitehead thus refuses the binary choice between external and internal relations and instead offers an account of process wherein actual occasions are both internally related to historical actualities and externally related to eternal possibilities.

Anderson hypothesized that Whitehead sees the future—conceived as a real potency—actually pulling the past toward actualization. This resonates with Plato’s “receptacle” and Aristotle’s “prime matter,” both embodying a readiness to be actualized. Anderson stressed that while the present is continuous with the past, it’s also forced by the inevitability of the future “looming” as pure potential.

Tim’s Initial Response

Alex’s Empirical Program
Tim acknowledged that in quantum theory, the distinction of Boolean vs. non-Boolean is indeed testable in experiments. He suggested that standard quantum findings already imply that a purely Boolean model is incomplete. As for a broader “empirical program” bridging physics and biology, Tim sees potential for exploring synergy with complex systems, category theory, and biosemiotics.
George’s Concern about Causal Closure
Tim fully agreed that positing “closure” privileges a purely actualist viewpoint. The fundamental diacronic-synchronic interplay he advocates undermines that assumption.
Anderson’s Discussion of the Looming Future
Tim appreciated Anderson’s historical argument linking Whitehead’s “pure potentiality” to Plato, Aristotle, and Lucretius. Tim sees it as consistent with the logic of actual and possible in quantum processes, though some aspects are subtle.

Open Discussion Among Panelists and Participants

A wide-ranging discussion ensued, covering issues like:

Reinterpreting the Past vs. Changing It

Thandeka posed the idea that re-interpreting the past might effectively “activate” previously unactualized possibilities. Anderson and Jude Jones both elaborated on how, within Whitehead’s scheme, each new event inherits the entire actual world and can incorporate latent potential. Actual data aren’t revised, but novel appropriation changes future outcomes.

Bergson, Creativity, and Process Philosophy

Jude suggested that we risk “spatializing” the temporal continuum. She echoed Whitehead’s alignment with Bergson, imagining the future as an active lure. The panel agreed that the future is not a static dimension “out there,” but real possibility that exerts an influence via indefinite potential.

Fruit Flies, Biological Organisms, and Teleology

Alex’s earlier question about fruit flies re-emerged: does Tim’s approach reduce life’s complexity to quantum mechanics? Tim said no—he rejects “smallism.” He sees the quantum realm as pervasive at every level, but emergent phenomena are genuinely multi-scale. Fruit flies do select among possibilities in ways that purely physical systems do not, though the distinction between mechanistic response and conscious choice is a complex matter.

Gödel’s Incompleteness

Thandeka, Anderson, and Tim briefly considered whether “incompleteness” theorems imply that the past always contains unactualized propositions that might transform the present. Tim cited Gödel to suggest that no finite logical system can be completely self-closed—mirroring how actualism must yield to a bigger realm of potential.

The Problem of Symbolic “Cosmic Maps”

I asked Tim to elaborate on what he had at one point referred to as the exophysical vs. endophysical perspectives. Quoting Christopher Klinger, Tim said many cosmic maps mistakenly assume a “view from nowhere” and conflate the dimension of time with an outside spatial vantage. Tim and the rest of the panel concluded that a purely exophysical vantage is incomplete; we need to situate ourselves within the world, acknowledging the constraints and possibilities that inhere in each spatiotemporal standpoint.

Session 5

This session focused on Chapter 5, which addresses the role of information and semiotics in Tim’s broader “Logoi framework.” George Strawn and Mikhail Epstein responded to Tim’s remarks.

Tim Eastman’s Remarks on Chapter 5

Tim began by recalling that Chapter 5 easily could have been merged with either Chapter 4 or Chapter 6, because these concepts—triadic relations, semiotics, information—are crucial cross-cutting themes throughout his book. He ultimately decided to devote a full chapter to them, seeing their relevance to both the “Logoi framework” and the critique of purely dyadic (input–output) models of meaning and information.

He noted that the work of James Bradley was a significant influence on his own approach. Tim emphasized Bradley’s call for “triadic” or “relational” thinking that moves beyond the simpler “dyadic” frameworks typical of modern philosophy. Bradley took inspiration from both Whitehead and Charles Sanders Peirce. Tim recommended the new posthumous collection of James Bradley’s essays, edited by Sean McGrath.

From Dyads to Triads in Semiosis

Tim recounted a “monad–dyad–triad sequence” in Western thought. Ancient Greek philosophy, he said, focused on monads (e.g., Aristotle’s substance/subject). The classic modern period, especially Descartes, emphasized dyadic structures (subject–object, input–output). Contemporary developments in semiotics and process thought push us toward a full recognition of triadic relations.

Tim observed that many standard theories of signs use a dyadic model (“signifier” vs. “signified”). Yet, in Peirce and advanced semiotic approaches, a third element—the interpretant or broader context—always participates. He linked this triadic model of semiosis to his “input–output–context” scheme.

Information Theory and Its Limits

Tim next referred to Shannon’s information theory and Kolmogorov complexity, which are powerful but focus on syntactic or statistical aspects of information, rather than deeper semantic or pragmatic content. In quantum physics, standard measures of information likewise remain incomplete if one omits the role of context, especially the emergent or dynamic aspects that Tim calls “landscapes of potentiae.” He noted we need an extended or “biotic” notion of information that captures the emergent, triadic, and interpretive dimensions of real processes.

Four Thresholds of Innovation

Building on Marcelo Barbieri’s work, Tim set out four thresholds in the evolution of increasing complexity:

Information Threshold – fundamental in quantum processes and classical input–output contexts.
Semiotic Threshold – origin of organic semiosis, found in living systems that use signs (e.g., genetic codes).
Epistemic Threshold – interpretive semiosis, possibly found in higher animals that exhibit meaningful or knowledge-oriented behaviors.
Cultural Threshold – linguistic semiosis, as in humans, enabling advanced symbolic reference and cultural transmission.

Tim sees these thresholds as successive “layerings” of semiosis, each more complex than the last, but all consistent with the triadic “input–output–context” model from quantum to biological to social realms.

He concluded by suggesting that the synergy of semiotics and Whiteheadian process thinking might bring about a new philosophical synthesis. He hopes these ideas push beyond the “linguistic-turn” in analytic philosophy as well as purely dyadic frameworks to incorporate the best of quantum physics, biology, and cultural studies.

Mikhail Epstein’s Response

Mikhail, Professor of Russian and Cultural Theory, first commended Tim for showing how semiotic processes are inherently dynamic rather than static. He said traditional definitions see a sign as “something that stands for something else.” That dyadic emphasis misses the constant flux and contextual nature—what Yuri Lotman called the semiosphere. Mikhail said the semiosphere is the sphere of sign processes, a sphere of possible translations and transformations. This space precedes and envelops the discrete sign.

Mikhail linked Tim’s emphasis on landscapes of potentiae to the idea that sign-based processes expand a system’s possibilities. Sign use can “potentialize” reality by allowing new contexts, new interpretations, and new developments—mirroring Tim’s bridging of actual and possible. Mikhail noted that life itself could be seen as “auto-communication,” referencing Robert Rosen’s idea of self-organizing systems and how living organisms interpret their own internal states in a triadic manner.

He underscored that “unpredictability,” or Shannon-like measures of information, can capture only a fraction of real meaning in sign systems. Culture thrives on interpretive “soft” languages that produce novelty—pointing out this domain is where “semiotics as potentiation” becomes fully evident. He concluded by linking Tim’s information–semiotics framework to a deeper synergy with “cosmo-semiotics” and “theo-semiotics,” which might place cosmic and divine processes in a broader triadic perspective.

George Strawn’s Response

George, Director Emeritus of the National Academies’ Board on Research Data, approached Chapter 5 from the standpoint of information technology. He lauded Tim’s bold attempts to unify input–output correlations with triadic context. He recalled the distinction between context-sensitive and context-free languages in computer science, emphasizing that truly semantic languages must incorporate context, not just syntax.

He briefly reflected on how Shannon’s theory and Kolmogorov complexity pertain to the purely syntactic or algorithmic level of information. Semantics or meaning is not part of these classical theories, so non-Boolean or triadic approaches are required to accommodate real meaning and sign use. George also raised the importance of procedural knowledge in computing, adding that machine-oriented approaches often handle processes well (e.g., algorithms), but remain limited in capturing contextual or semantic information crucial to the deep interpretive dimension Tim highlights.

George previewed how Tim’s concept of thresholds—information, semiotic, epistemic, and cultural—offer a layered perspective on sense-making. He questioned how exactly the “epistemic threshold” differs from “semiotic threshold,” but welcomed Tim’s classification. George ended by remarking that computer science is on the verge of an “information science,” possibly boosted by quantum computing, but so far, we mainly have an “information technology,” not a full science of information. He agreed with Tim that bridging the Boolean and non-Boolean aspects is key to this next evolutionary step.

Open Discussion

Synergy of Quantum Theory and Semiosis

I asked Tim about the broader goal of forging an ontology for quantum theory that surpasses “shut up and calculate.” Tim indicated that “relational realism,” informed by Peirce, Whitehead, and category theory, aims to show how quantum processes are triadic, not merely diadic correlations of measured outputs. The logic of possibility (“landscapes of potentiae”) is inherently non-Boolean, and quantum events unfold with irreducible asymmetry.

Mikhail added that quantum computing might be a prime example of semiotic approaches intersecting with quantum mechanics, though practical results remain uncertain. Tim echoed that quantum computing as currently conceived might still operate with Boolean outputs, so it may not fully capture non-Boolean potential.

Capitalism and Information

Farzad introduced a provocative turn, asking whether capitalism’s manipulation of instability and information is inevitable. The group explored whether capitalism, especially in the global marketplace, fosters unsustainable growth and manipulates contexts for private benefit. Tim invoked context denialism as the root cause—when only dyadic cost–benefit is measured, ignoring broader ecological and communal contexts, destructive externalities accumulate. A truly triadic or communal approach would internalize real costs, limit negative externalities, and encourage ethical constraints.

John Cobb contributed, likening capitalism’s single-minded pursuit of growth to a “sorcerer’s apprentice,” lacking a controlling principle. He advocated building local communities as essential contexts to offset irresponsible market expansions. True synergy arises if we start from the bottom up, forging strong communal ties that can unify cooperatively rather than yield to unbridled competition.

Thermodynamics, Symmetry, and Top-Down Causation

In response to a question from Spyridon, Tim addressed how “anticipatory systems” can locally reduce entropy by harnessing potential and channeling emergent constraints. Tim suggested that while many physical laws highlight symmetrical transformations, fundamental processes embed deeper asymmetry. Some participants noted that cosmic or top-down dynamics might eventually unify local symmetrical approaches.

Tim’s Closing Thoughts

Tim concluded that Chapter 5 tries to show how triadic sign processes undergird real information flows and meaning-creation across physical, biological, and cultural domains. A truly robust “information science” must embrace both Shannon’s quantification and Peirce’s interpretive triads. He sees synergy between Whitehead’s process metaphysics, Peirce’s semiotics, and emergent paradigms in quantum field theory as opening new paths—though he admitted it is not a final solution, but a stepping stone to more integrated thinking.

Session 6

The topic for this session was Chapter 6, titled “Complex Whole.” Three panelists contributes comments: Randall Auxier, Gary Herstein, and Brian Thomas Swimme.

Tim Eastman’s Summary of Chapter 6

Tim began by noting his broad dissatisfaction with two main narratives in contemporary physics:

The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, which relies on “actualism” and claims every possible quantum outcome is actualized in some realm.
The standard Big Bang cosmology, which, Tim argued, increasingly relies on untestable theoretical contrivances rather than solid observational data.

He explained that Chapter 6 continues his endeavor to find alternatives to these mainstream views—alternatives grounded in quantum indeterminacy, possibility, and multi-level process, rather than “substance thinking” or an exclusively dyadic framework.

Critique of Standard Cosmology

Tim cited cosmologist Eric Lerner for evidence that many Big Bang predictions diverge from observational data. While he admitted some large-scale astrophysics is well tested, Tim stressed that at extreme scales—very large or very small—much of the standard narrative is no longer robustly observational. He suggests “we probably need an entirely new approach.”

Potential, Actualization, and Multi-Level Process

Tim then reaffirmed his core thesis that the real is not solely the “actual” but includes “the possible” as well. This idea, he said, stems partly from the relational-ontological approach developed by Michael Epperson and Elías Zafiris using category theory, and partly from Ruth Kastner’s “possibilist” interpretation of quantum mechanics. These developments point to each quantum event as a transition from a “pure state” of many possibilities to a single actualized outcome. Tim extended that idea to each scale of reality.

He emphasized how Whitehead had foreseen this emphasis on relational process almost a century ago. Whitehead’s “societies of actual occasions” are multi-level, bridging micro to macro scales. The “order of possibility” and the “order of actualization” perpetually interact in a succession of events. The diachronic focus highlights causation, and the synchronic focus reveals emergence across levels.

Chapter Outline

In Chapter 6, Tim covers:

Fundamental logic that distinguishes Boolean (actual) from non-Boolean (possible) aspects.
Multi-level perspective explaining how local measurement correlates with a broader global framework, using category theory and topological arguments.
Implications for cosmology, biology, and consciousness: acknowledging that standard reductive or “dyadic” approaches fail to account for novel emergent features and the “whole” of a complex system.

He concluded by urging more open-ended exploration, especially in physical cosmology, where new data and theoretical insights should replace older “substance-like” and “mechanistic” assumptions.

Response from Randall Auxier

Randy thanked Tim for “getting our ideas right.” He noted that he and co-author Gary Herstein in their book The Quantum of Explanation interpret Whitehead’s “actual entity” as a “quantum of explanation,” believing they remain faithful to Whitehead’s texts while adding clarity to the notion of “possibility.” He praised Tim for his deft synthesis of many thinkers, including Whitehead, Epperson, Kastner, Peirce, and others, but he posed the question: “How do we handle the differences among all these approaches?”

Randy stressed the significance of eternal objects and God in Whitehead’s system, which many Whiteheadians often “dump or reduce.” He sees Tim’s “Logoi framework” as complementary but wonders if Tim’s thoroughness synthesizes so many viewpoints that it may sidestep core incompatibilities. He also highlighted that Whitehead and Peirce are each so difficult that “any attempt to synthesize them fully is monumental.” Yet he appreciated Tim’s triadic approach that can incorporate Whitehead’s and Peirce’s radical innovations.

He closed by quoting Whitehead: “human life is driven forward by dim apprehensions of notions too general for existing language,” suggesting that Tim’s “Logoi framework” might help formalize some of these crucial but elusive ideas.

Response from Gary Herstein

Gary approached Chapter 6 from a vantage that focuses on set-theoretic assumptions vs. Whitehead’s mereological approach. He made several concise points:

Beware equating Whitehead’s mereotopology with standard set theory. Most category theory texts are entangled with set-theoretic presuppositions. Whitehead, by contrast, rejects “point-based” or “element-based” frameworks.
Symmetry vs. Non-symmetry in Tim’s text: Gary expressed caution linking topological or category-theoretic insights directly to Einstein’s “smooth, continuum spacetime.” Whitehead’s approach sees real space-time as emergent from processes, not assumed as a continuum of infinitesimal points.
Psychic phenomena: He briefly noted that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, citing magician James Randi’s million-dollar challenge as a caution about illusions in science.
Complexity: Gary spent most of his time emphasizing a deep question: Is complexity an inherent feature of reality or simply a reflection of the theoretical difficulty of modeling reality? Non-linear systems such as weather or multi-body gravitation are “intractable” to our methods, though nature “just does them.” He invoked computability theory, contrasting “tractable” vs. “intractable” problems and how science demands testable, computable solutions. Indeed, uncomputable or overly complex theories cannot be meaningfully compared to observation.
Chess: Gary compared a brute-force algorithm (computer) vs. a grandmaster’s holistic perception. The latter is analog brain dynamics, while the former is purely digital. He suggests real cognition might be more like weather or fluid flow than a Turing machine, reinforcing Tim’s idea that fundamental process is not strictly digital or Boolean.

Gary ended by advocating that “complexity is typically a theoretical phenomenon,” though we might argue about how much it also belongs to nature itself.

Response from Brian Thomas Swimme

Brian, professor emeritus in Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness at California Institute of Integral Studies, introduced himself as a cosmological storyteller concerned shaping narratives about humanity’s place in the universe. He expressed appreciation for Tim’s robust criticisms of mainstream cosmic narratives, from mechanistic “substance thinking” to the “Big Bang default model.” Brian sees Tim’s call for a meta-narrative built on possibility, multiple perspectives, and triadic logic as crucial for preventing “nihilistic or self-destructive” stories that saturate modern culture.

Brian singled out two areas in Tim’s text:

Multi-perspective framework: He praised Tim’s triple schema of “way of numbers,” “way of context,” and “way of ultimate context,” adding that each must be integrated to form a holistic cosmic narrative.
Need for Dramatic or Poetic Expression: Brian perceives Tim’s arguments as essential for forging a new cosmic drama that counters simplistic or fatalistic narratives. He then shared a video titled “Mind-Like from the Beginning,” an example of weaving Tim’s triadic approach into a short, accessible story for a curious lay audience. The video dramatized how Paul Dirac leveraged mathematical physics to reveal surprising ratios holding across space and time, supporting the possibility that the universe maintains certain ratios in order to become aware of itself.

Brian concluded with a direct quote from Tim, referencing Tim’s admission that the “Logoi framework is very much undeveloped as a comprehensive narrative.” Brian exclaimed it as “low-hanging fruit” for future scholars and invited participants to develop Tim’s approach in widely accessible ways.

Tim’s Brief Responses

Synthesis vs. Differences: Tim acknowledged Randy’s query about friction among different authors. He hoped that, by focusing on “overlaps and cross-cutting insights,” he wasn’t overlooking major incompatibilities. The “Logoi framework,” he said, is a starting point for synergy, not a final, fully consistent system.
Complexity: Tim appreciated Gary’s reflections on complexity, especially the distinction between nature’s direct “execution” of non-linear processes and our struggles with intractable or uncomputable problems.
Cosmic Narratives: Tim thanked Brian for highlighting the urgent need for a multi-perspectival meta-narrative. He is convinced that Whitehead’s process perspective, plus quantum non-Boolean logic, could open new imaginative vistas.

Q&A with Participants

Kevin Clark: Kevin referenced Tim’s repeated mention of category theory in chapters 4 and 6 but noted that Tim only devotes about a page to it. He sees Tim’s approach as “replacing Lucretius’ void-and-atoms picture with a topos-based arrow structure.” Tim reaffirmed that category theory or “arrow-based frameworks” might unify quantum phenomena and large-scale structures. Michael Heather added that category theory at a purely “objective” level can surpass set-theoretic limitations, but serious texts that treat it outside set theory are scarce.
Jude Jones: Jude asked about applying Tim’s critique to genetic engineering narratives. She noted that future “human enhancement” or CRISPR-based interventions assume a reductive view of evolution and chance. Tim replied that “context denial” often shapes short-term commercial or profit-driven gene-editing projects. His “Logoi framework” calls for multi-level ethical, contextual reflections.
Wolfgang Leihhold: Wolfgang revisited Tim’s stress on “process,” referencing how classical metaphysics from Greek thought onward privileged “being” over “becoming.” Tim echoed that, historically, time was relegated to a lesser status, but Whitehead, plus quantum developments, show “process and possibility” at the heart of reality.

Session 7

The focus of this session was Chapter 7, “Peirce’s Triads and Whitehead’s Process: Fundamental Triads and Schemas,” including consciousness, triads, and parapsychological or “psi” phenomena. Respondents include Ed Kelly and Farzad Mahootian.

Summary of Chapter 7 by Tim Eastman

Tim highlighted the pervasive triadic structures in Peirce’s logic and Whitehead’s process metaphysics, which he believes are crucial for understanding broader phenomena including human consciousness and possibly paranormal experiences. Tim alluded to certain new directions that a triadic, non-Boolean view of reality might open up, contrasting it with simpler dyadic or “actualist” approaches.

He emphasized:

Triadic Logic: Whereas standard rationalisms or “dyadic” approaches rely on input-output or subject-object pairs, Tim insists on the importance of input-output-context frameworks. This “context” is always part of any real process, and ignoring it leads to reductionistic or deterministically “closed” models of mind.
Peirce and Whitehead: Tim sees a striking parallel between Peirce’s concept of “thirdness” and Whitehead’s more subtle references to a third factor (e.g. symbolic reference).
Self-Actualization: Tim drew on the late philosopher James Bradley, whose work stressed triadic logic for self-actualization. Bradley sees “self-actualization” as a deeper bridging concept that might explain persistent puzzles such as why there is something rather than nothing.

Tim concluded by urging synergy between the process and semiotics communities, whose separate scholarly literatures might combine to yield a more robust logic of triadic relations.

First Response from Ed Kelly

I introduced Dr. Ed Kelly, Research Professor at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, and a leading figure in the study of psychical research. Ed has co-edited major books, notably Irreducible Mind (2007), Beyond Physicalism (2015), and Consciousness Unbound (2021).

Ed senses a “deep convergence” between Tim’s “Logoi framework” and the worldview developed by the Esalen Center for Theory and Research group, with which Ed has been collaborating. In 1998, Michael Murphy of Esalen assembled a group to evaluate evidence for postmortem survival. They quickly concluded that, to handle such evidence, they had to tackle “physicalism” itself. They compiled evidence against physicalism in Irreducible Mind, covering out-of-body and near-death experiences, “genius” phenomena (like the astounding creativity of Indian mathematician Ramanujan), extreme psychophysiological influence (e.g., stigmata, hypnotic blistering), and many other experiences not explainable by normal materialist assumptions. Then in Beyond Physicalism (2015) and Consciousness Unbound (2021), they moved toward new theories—some version of panentheism or evolutionary cosmology reminiscent of Whitehead, Hartshorne, and Griffin.

Triads and Paranormal Phenomena:

Ed commended Tim’s openness to paranormal data. He noted that mainstream dogma “there’s no such thing” leads many to ignore the robust evidence.

He highlighted three especially challenging types of psychic phenomena:

Macro-PK or large-scale psychokinesis (e.g., documented cases of levitation such as Saint Joseph of Copertino in 17th-century Italy).
Precognition, widely evidenced but dismissed as impossible because events don’t yet exist. Even David Ray Griffin resists precognition strongly. But Ed pointed to numerous experimental protocols in which the future target is chosen randomly only after the subject’s response.
Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) under extremely adverse physiological conditions—like general anesthesia plus cardiac arrest—where the normal neurological substrates for consciousness are not operative, and yet people report robust consciousness and sometimes verifiable perceptions. Ed believes these cases undermine the typical “brain-creates-consciousness” model and support a Whitehead/James-like “filter theory.”

Ed ended by voicing hope that Tim’s or other triadic frameworks can yield a more coherent theoretical explanation for these phenomena, which in his view would prompt serious reconsideration of physicalist orthodoxies.

Second Response from Farzad Mahootian

I introduced Dr. Farzad Mahootian, Clinical Associate Professor at New York University, with interdisciplinary background spanning philosophy, chemistry, Whiteheadian thought, Islamic philosophy, and more. Farzad was invited to comment particularly on the final sections of Chapter 7, focusing on “Symbol/Matter” problems.

Farzad first noted that talk of “levels” or “planes” of reality often causes visceral backlash from many scientists and philosophers. They regard it as reifying or literalizing multi-level language. He suggested emphasizing non-literal uses of “level” or “plane,” so as not to provoke confusion.

He then turned to Whitehead’s own statement that “life dwells in the interstices” of biological cells—i.e., in spaces not fully governed by the rigid order of cellular societies. Whitehead says similarly that “consciousness dwells in the interstices of the brain.” Farzad took these interstices as “wild and empty only from a certain viewpoint.” Whitehead’s key point is that some openness or partial indeterminacy is needed for new forms like life and consciousness to appear.

The Symbol-Matter Problem

Farzad drew on Howard Pattee (whom Tim cites) to highlight how matter and symbol function at distinct levels or scales that often get confused:

“Its”: Physical things or “actualizations” that remain stable enough for scientific inspection.
“Bits”: The realm of signs or symbols, which can incorporate meaning but aren’t fully physical entities.

In biology, each organism “lives in a map” of salient stimuli, ignoring vast “unnecessary” detail in the environment. Hence, each creature navigates the world via sign processes (semiotics). Farzad then invoked Augustine: “Things can be read as signs,” but if we treat a sign literally as a thing, we risk “miserable servitude to signs,” or misplaced concreteness. Symbolic interpretation is a triadic interpretative process, not just dyadic stimulus-response.

He concluded that Whitehead’s “symbolic reference” unites causal efficacy and presentational immediacy. If you add that to Tim’s binary of actual and possible, you get a robust triadic model. He recommended Tim expand the “symbolic reference” dimension in the next revision.

Finally, Farzad gave a short epigrammatic summary:

We shift from “being understood” to “being interpreted,” going from fact to form.
We shift from “being interpreted” to “being lived,” going from form back to fact.
By repeating that cycle—sign to thing to sign—we sustain meaningful life as “friends of the forms,” reminiscent of Plato’s upper levels of dialectic.

Tim’s Response to Panelists

To Ed’s references on near-death experiences, telepathy, large-scale PK, Tim sees such phenomena as consistent with his “dual-order” approach of actual/potential. He suspects standard physicalism is incomplete, and these anomalies might be better accommodated within a triadic semiotic plus quantum non-Boolean realm.
To Farzad’s call for “symbolic reference,” Tim agreed he should incorporate Whitehead’s concept more explicitly when bridging the “matter-symbol” gulf. Tim said “I needed you in my ear while I was writing that paragraph.”

Open Dialogue

John Cobb voiced perplexity about Whitehead’s references to “interstices.” Whitehead’s principle that “no two actual occasions share the same region” suggests no wholly empty spaces, so how do we reconcile “life inhabits the interstices” with “space is always full”? He said he remains unclear on Whitehead’s “regional inclusion” vs. actual occasions. Tim answered that from his vantage, “empty space” is not physically real: the quantum vacuum is never truly empty. But Whitehead’s usage, Tim suggests, might be more about “pre-space” or context, not literal emptiness.

Anderson Weekes also asked about Whitehead’s mention of “empty space” and how Tim’s approach clarifies or revises that. Tim said he assembled the “Logoi framework” mostly independently, but it does resonate with Whitehead’s “coordinate” vs. “genetic” analyses—one for spatiotemporal measurement (Boolean) and one for creative process (non-Boolean). He sees Whitehead’s effort as partially incomplete, needing the new quantum non-Boolean dimension.

Kevin Clark asked Tim to clarify how brain, mind, consciousness, and self-consciousness differ in Tim’s chapter. Tim responded with an analogy to electromagnetic fields: The brain is “like the wire,” mind might be akin to “the near field,” and broader context or symbolic dimension is analogous to “the far field.” Consciousness emerges out of these interacting levels, not fully determined by local states but not decoupled from them either.

Session 8

This session addressed Chapter 8 and included responses from Rev. Dr. Thandeka (unitarian universalist minister and founder of contemporary affect theology), Dr. Dan Dombrowski (professor of philosophy at Seattle University and editor of Process Studies), and Dr. Ed Kelly.

Tim Eastman’s Summary of Chapter 8

Tim began by recalling that his “Logoi framework” or relational framework synthesizes insights from physics, philosophy, semiotics, and systems theory to approach foundational questions about the nature of reality. Chapter 8, he explained, pivots toward human consciousness, experience, and meaning—the dimension in which science’s typical actualist approach has proven incomplete.

Dual Orders
Tim reiterated his dual-order approach, in which the real is constituted by both actualizations (Boolean, discrete, spatiotemporal outcomes) and potentiae (non-Boolean, pre-space possibilities). He emphasized that standard neuroscience and conventional physicalism focus almost exclusively on the order of actualizations, ignoring how consciousness involves linkages with the order of potentiae.
Consciousness and Mind
In Tim’s view, consciousness emerges from the interactions between these two orders. Standard causal or brain-based accounts neglect the fundamental quantum process bridging potential to actual, while mystical experiences, psi phenomena, or creative genius (like Ramanujan) suggest exceptional access to pre-space possibility. This points, Tim said, to a transmission or filter model (in the sense of William James) rather than a reductive brain-only model.
Exceptional Experiences
Tim cited Ramanujan (the Indian mathematician) as a prime example of novel mathematical results emerging seemingly from a direct tap into the “order of potential.” Similarly, telepathy, mystical episodes, and other non-ordinary experiences might reflect varying degrees of enhanced openness to this realm—one that is neglected in the materialist worldview.
Meaning and Ultimacy
The chapter highlights the need for a narrative that accommodates both scientific and spiritual or humanistic aspects of existence—one that counters the nihilism and denialism pervasive in our time. If reality includes both actualities and possibilities at every level, genuine freedom and meaning can find metaphysical grounding. Tim named various philosophers and theologians (e.g. John Cobb, William Desmond, Roland Faber) whose work converges on the need for a spiritual dimension consistent with scientific knowledge. He ended by suggesting that real “ultimacy” or “spiritual reality” fits naturally with the “non-Boolean,” “pre-space” side of reality.

First Response from Thandeka

Thandeka said she has frequently found herself writing “Tim” in the margins of other texts, signifying where Eastman’s relational Logoi framework might clarify or correct them. She welcomed Tim’s masterpiece of a new general field theory that complements both science and theology. She then addressed Tim’s challenge to theological scholars: to describe a moment of subjective feeling in Tim’s terms. She proposed a three-part strategy:

Case Studies of Separation Distress
She offered two vignettes: First, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1805) experienced devastating grief when a beloved friend renounced contact with him. Seeking relief, Schleiermacher attended a flute concert by Ludwig Dulong, which sparked a spiritual/affective renewal, inspiring his work Christmas Eve. Second, she gave the example of an experiment with baby chicks. When separated from their mother, they displayed intense distress until music was piped in. The music entrained the chicks in a rhythmic side-to-side head movement that relieved their distress.

She combined insights from affective neuroscience (esp. Jaak Panksepp) and Schleiermacher’s notion of “religious feeling.” In both baby chicks and human beings like Schleiermacher, music channels non-cognitive neural processes that mitigate distress and generate states of creativity or spiritual feeling. In Schleiermacher’s case, music opened him to new “raised affections” that subsequently found expression in theological images (the birth of Christ).

Schleiermacher posited three consciousness levels: (i) affective consciousness or the immediate result of stimulated nerves, (ii) pure awareness (the “null point” between thoughts), and (iii) reflective consciousness, which orders the ideas or images that structure meaning. Tim’s two orders (actual and potential) help clarify how non-cognitive states (akin to pre-space or potentiae) resonate with emergent structures in reflective mind. Ultimately, religious tradition mediates further expression of this generative affect; baby chicks have no religious context, so their relief remains purely non-cognitive.

Thandeka emphasized that Tim’s framework clarifies key theological ideas about “affective attunement to the infinite.” She concluded that Tim’s bridging of science and theology allows a broad sense of emergent spirituality.

Second Response from Dan Dombrowski

Dan reiterated how Chapter 8 addresses an “integrated framework” connecting philosophy, science, and the meaning of the world. Dan posed one major question: How does Tim’s approach compare or align with Plato? Specifically, Dan tackled three topics:

Modes of Expressing the Logos
Dan invoked the difference between orality (pre-literate, mythic expression) and literacy (fixed texts, analysis). Plato’s dialogues are a literate attempt to preserve the spontaneity of oral conversation. Dan wondered how Tim’s references to Black Elk (and Indigenous wisdom more broadly) might mesh with advanced theoretical frameworks. Does Indigenous oral wisdom precisely match Tim’s or does literacy yield deeper “analysis” not possible in orality?
Necessity vs. Contingency
Tim holds that it is impossible to reduce everything to chance or everything to necessity. This is very Platonic, Dan said, and resonates with standard quantum notions of partial openness. Tim’s denial of “absolute contingency” or “absolute determinism” places him in a moderate space reminiscent of Plato’s integration of being and becoming in Timaeus.
Complex Whole, Cosmic Scale
Dan asked whether Tim’s “complex whole” and “unified cosmic organism” might parallel Plato’s world-soul or Hartshorne’s concept of God. Tim rejects “monological grand narratives” but sees an “intimate universal” bridging science and spirituality. Dan pondered if Tim’s non-Boolean, pre-spatial realm is akin to the domain of Platonic forms, or Whiteheadian “eternal objects,” or if both are dropped in favor of a landscape of “potentiae.”

Third Response from Ed Kelly

Ed focused on one main question about Tim’s approach: How does it align work on post-physicalist metaphysics? Ed summarized Irreducible Mind (2007), Beyond Physicalism (2015), and now Consciousness Unbound (2021). These books argue that physicalism fails to explain many empirically robust experiences: psi phenomena, genius (Ramanujan), near-death experiences, mystical states. A better worldview, possibly a form of panentheism, must replace it.

Ed drew on William James’s notion that “ordinary waking consciousness” is part of a larger “subliminal self.” Mystical experiences, telepathy, etc. occur when that broader mind intrudes. James concluded that absolute idealism is not acceptable, but an evolutionary or pluralistic panentheism might be. Ed sees Tim forging a similar path but from physics and logic rather than psychology and religion. Tim’s two orders of reality (actual and possible) might elegantly explain some of these phenomena.

Ed specifically wonders if Tim’s “pre-space potentiae” are already conscious or minded, like the “subliminal self”? Or does Tim propose a “non-mental realm” of possibility that then can become “mental” in certain contexts? Could Tim’s domain of possibility incorporate Jung’s archetypes, Myers’s subliminal self, or James’s global mind?

Tim Eastman’s Response

Tim appreciated all three commentaries, emphasizing that in Chapter 8 he brings forward how meaning and consciousness might arise from constant interplay between the “actual” and “possible” in each event.

Two Orders, Universal Process
Tim believes every quantum process (and by extension, every experience) draws from possibilities and actual givens repeatedly. Far from being abstract, this is quite immediate, though normally suppressed by classical approximations.
Consciousness as Filter
Tim agreed with the “transmission/filter” idea from Myers-James, suggesting that mind is not reducible to brain states but emerges from interactions with the non-Boolean realm.
Empty Space
Tim noted “no truly empty space” physically. Even a so-called “vacuum” seethes with quantum fields. This ties to philosophical arguments against absolute nothingness.
Platonic vs. Whiteheadian
Tim said he avoids literal “eternal objects” in Whitehead’s sense; he prefers a more flexible notion of “universal possibilities” that can actualize. He sees synergy with Plato, especially the Neoplatonic tradition, but he tries not to reify forms.
Ground vs. Context
Tim agreed “context” might be a gentler term than “ground,” which can hint at substance. Tim only meant “ground” as a basis for unity, not a static substrate, and he sees how “dipolar” language in Whitehead or Hartshorne might be more apt than “dialectic.”

Open Discussion

Nothingness and Mystical Experience

Multiple participants, including Thandeka and Jude Jones, spoke about mystical descriptions of emptiness. Tim and Dan insisted “absolute nothingness” is logically incoherent, while Thandeka countered that in Buddhist or Schleiermacher’s usage, “emptiness” may designate an experiential null point between thoughts. Whitehead’s notion of “no two actualities occupy the same region” likewise complicates “empty space.” The group explored the tension between logical vs. mystical approaches to “nothingness,” concluding the two must not be conflated.

Orality vs. Literacy

Anderson raised Dan’s earlier distinction, stressing that preliterate cultures still analyze mythic content. Dan responded that orality implies different memory/analysis strategies, not lesser intelligence; Plato’s dialogues strove to retain oral spontaneity in a literate form. All agreed that mediums of communication deeply shape expression, and Tim’s reference to Black Elk calls for more nuance in bridging indigenous wisdom and highly abstract math and physics.

Session 9

This final session served as a wrap up and review. Tim offered opening remarks again, followed by comments from myself and Michael Epperson.

Tim Eastman’s Reflections

Tim began by recalling the genesis of Untying the Gordian Knot:

Personal Experience: He pointed to how, at age 13 on Dakota land near Big Stone Lake (western Minnesota), he had a profound spiritual experience that left him pondering the deeper meaning of reality.
Logoi Framework: Years later, inspired by both physics and philosophy, Tim crafted his “Logoi framework” to connect insights from quantum physics, logic, semiotics, and complex systems—all aimed at acknowledging the ontological reality of potentiality and novelty.
Two Fundamental Orders: In the book he argues for two orders in reality: the Boolean order of actualized facts (measured states, discrete outcomes) and the non-Boolean order of potential relations (landscapes of possibility). Quantum transitions tie these two orders together.
Contributions and Future Work:
- Meta-philosophy: He sees the Logoi framework as a “proto world view,” encouraging others to build on it and refine it, especially in the philosophy of quantum physics.
- Evidence: Tim suggested that certain exceptional states (for instance, via carefully administered psychedelics) might help test, in broad qualitative ways, the hypothesis of tapping into a larger consciousness or “cosmic mind,” consistent with non-Boolean potentiae.

Tim closed by thanking all participants for their dialogue. He hoped his framework would support integrative scholarship bridging science, humanities, and spirituality.

Michael Epperson’s Summary Reflections

Michael’s work—especially Foundations of Relational Realism, co-authored with Elias Zafiris—was a major inspiration for the “Logoi framework.” He began by explaining how the historical meaning of “science” essentially began as “natural philosophy.” Modern science is a specialized natural philosophy that emerged with the empirical method in the 17th century. A strict divide between science and philosophy is misleading, historically and practically. Going forward, quantum physics indicates the need for a renewal of natural philosophy uniting physical theory with conceptual (logical, philosophical) frameworks.

Micheal discussed how, from the Pre-Socratic Greeks (Anaximander’s boundless apeiron, Pythagorean math objects) onward, science has always involved conceptual as well as physical objects. Contemporary quantum physics features entities (wave functions, density matrices, fields) that are in an important sense abstract conceptual structures—yet with real physical significance. Michael argued that recognizing relations as primary—not just “relations between previously existing physical bits” but relations as such—undermines simplistic materialist or mechanistic views and clarifies how quantum formalism works.

In quantum theory, a measurement context is objectively significant rather than a subjective add-on. This resonates with Tim’s insistence that context cannot be reduced to illusory subjectivity.

Non-unitary Evolution: Epperson mentioned Ruth Kastner’s recent work highlighting the importance of non-unitary phases in quantum measurement—key to understanding how possibility narrows into probabilities.

Technological Catalyst: He predicted that future technological applications of topological phases in quantum computing and beyond might force a conceptual shift: from mechanical frameworks to truly relational or non-Boolean perspectives.

Michael concluded by praising Tim’s book for laying solid groundwork toward this shift, providing a resource for physicists and philosophers alike to explore deeper reality beyond mechanistic assumptions.

Matt Segall’s Summary Reflections

I noted that anyone who has read Science and the Modern World—Whitehead’s 1925 volume, his first major work after arriving at Harvard—will recall his warning that the quantum and relativistic revolutions in physics had pushed scientific progress to a turning point: the old underpinnings of scientific thought were becoming “unintelligible.” Whitehead wondered, “What is the sense of talking about a mechanical explanation when you do not know what you mean by mechanics?” He insisted that if science was not to collapse into “a medley of ad hoc hypotheses” it had to become thoroughly philosophical by means of critically examining its own foundations.

Unfortunately, immediately following Whitehead’s warning, positivist prohibitions on speculative metaphysics set in, ultimately hampering the progress of post-classical physics. The result was precisely the fragmented medley Whitehead had predicted. However, in more recent times, a growing group of interdisciplinary scientists has stepped in to address the philosophical work left unfinished by the early twentieth-century founders of quantum theory—people who were comparatively more willing to explore metaphysical questions. I observed that Tim, in Untying the Gordian Knot, not only demonstrates substantial skill as a physicist but also engages in complex philosophical discussions, bringing his voice into this larger ensemble of integrative science and philosophy.

Eastman’s Logoi framework aims not only to make ontological sense of quantum physics but also to integrate quantum theory with other twenty-first-century frameworks—for instance, complex systems science, biosemiotics, and category theory. I pointed out that this alone would make Tim’s book worthy of careful study, yet he goes further, sketching a plan for bridging modern science—what he calls “the way of numbers”—with the human ethical and spiritual realms—what he refers to as “the way of context.” One might label it “relative context” for issues of ethics and culture and “ultimate context” for spiritual matters. Despite the far-reaching scope of his inquiry, Tim remains humble and accommodating, emphasizing that the Logoi framework is neither “post” nor absolute but rather proto, seeking to balance “theory and story” as well as systematic rigor and open-ended adventure.

I described Eastman’s book as masterful in the way it synthesizes ideas from dozens of cutting-edge researchers across multiple disciplines. His book signals the birth of a process-relational science. I recounted Tim’s statement that his decision to study physics and philosophy grew from an early intuition that the “wondrous whole” around us contains layers of meaning beyond anything purely measurable. Modern science has allowed humanity to transcend the limits of species-specific senses and tackle phenomena spanning vast space and time scales—whether by the James Webb Space Telescope or microscopes delving into cellular and atomic structures. Yet these very methods risk model-centric literalism when we attempt to claim an external, God-like vantage on a complete universe. Tim’s objective is to re-embed the scientific viewpoint in the evolving cosmos that generated it, aligning with a core Whiteheadian principle that fundamental notions of natural science actually derive from normal human experience—a thesis consistent with Whitehead’s emphasis on concrete experience and with Gary Herstein and Randall Auxier’s The Quantum of Explanation.

I observed that Tim devotes substantial effort to questioning conceptual barriers that hinder the philosophical integration of post-classical science—barriers such as actualism, nominalism, and determinism. Eastman contends that potentiae play a creative role, unsettling the notion of efficient causal closure and reintroducing formal causation into science. While quantum mechanics forced the issue, Tim also explains that strict determinism was never the only possible interpretation, even of classical physics, given that the classical formalisms all hinge on boundary conditions and specific domains in which they are valid.

Giving potentiae a real role in the physical world means that science can handle the anticipatory and creative capacities of living systems (including the minds of scientists themselves) in a non-reductive, emergent framework. Tim’s analysis helps address longstanding quantum puzzles that arose from forcing a mechanistic ontology onto experimental results that actually require process-relational explanations. Building on Michael Epperson and Elias Zafiris’s relational reality model, Eastman describes quantum events that evolve through stages: from “pure potential” to probabilities and finally “actual outcomes” during measurement. He calls this evolution “logical conditioning” plus “causal reiteration.” Tim underscores that measurements do not merely passively record preexisting facts; they establish new facts. Consequently, the entire notion of absolute causal closure for finite systems—or for the universe as a whole—becomes untenable: the ontological unrest of newly emergent facts breaks any closure. I observed that Tim even posits a parallel between finite physical systems and the Gödel incompleteness theorems in logic. Reality, he shows, is a weaving of possibilities and actualities, from local causal interactions to global logical constraints—essentially a Whiteheadian tapestry of actual occasions harvesting potentiality to creative advance into novelty.

I explained Tim’s mention of two fundamental logics—Boolean (the logic of actualization) versus non-Boolean (the logic of potential). Tim states that dyadic relations do not truly exist in the real world but only as abstract modeling tools. In actual reality, context cannot be ignored, and the potential-actual relationship is inherently asymmetrical, accounting for the arrow of time. Tim’s Logoi framework thus generalizes Whitehead’s dichotomy between the “genetic” order (based in quantum becoming) and the “coordinate” order (the emergent metric). Understanding Tim’s approach can be helped by contrasting it with certain popular actualist accounts such as Sean Carroll’s The Big Picture (2016). There, Carroll posits a single “Core Theory,” but Tim calls it more of a mash-up than a coherent “theory of everything.” I remarked that Carroll is somewhat open-minded, conversing with philosophers on his Mindscape podcast, but metaphysical presuppositions still constrain Carroll’s approach in ways Tim challenges.

Regarding the status of natural laws, I linked Tim’s exploration to Whitehead, C.S. Peirce, and Lee Smolin, all suggesting that laws are not absolute. Tim notes that pure chance is also a poorly formed concept. Eastman’s own stance is that laws result from “trajectory-optimizing histories” much like Leibniz’s “striving possibles.” On the other hand, Tim worries that Peirce’s idea of laws as “habits” could be a category mistake unless one confines genuine habit-taking to biological realms. So Tim’s position is that law still has a kind of conditional necessity—not pure deductive necessity—arising from constraints on possibility.

I pointed out that, while Eastman extends Whitehead’s process metaphysics, he is careful not to remain bound solely to Whitehead’s scheme. Tim has concerns about “eternal objects,” for example. Yet he gives Whitehead credit for a perspectival treatment of universals and respects the notion of “prehension” as a powerful, unified concept bridging knower and known, causation and perception, subject-object, etc.

Tim’s final chapter attempts to unite the human and cosmic logoi, searching out the deeper meaning of our existence. While he is guarded against any rigid grand narratives, he draws upon spiritual ideas like George Ellis’s “kenotic morality” and Robert Neville’s concerns about the loss of “value reference.” Tim’s humility in reconciling science with ethics and spirituality is noteworthy. I closed by praising Tim’s attempt to contribute to a world in which we humans can live and flourish through an integral embrace of science, philosophy, and spirituality. I believe he has made a major contribution to such an integral view.

Open Dialogue Highlights

Mikhail Epstein spoke warmly of Tim’s emphasis on possibility and potentiation, connecting it to his own Philosophy of the Possible (2019). He saw Eastman’s “Logoi framework” as a metaphysical unifier bridging many disciplines and focusing on the creative interplay between actual and potential. Epstein stressed the importance of potentiation in human consciousness enabling new modalities and synergy across fields.

Jude Jones discussed how educational practices often treat science as context-independent. She described student perplexities, especially regarding consciousness. She sees an opportunity now, amid crises, for reintroducing meaning into science.

Panpsychism: Matt noted the rise of analytic panpsychism in David Chalmers’s circle but bemoaned its “actualist or substance-property” framing that excludes the deeper process-relational alternative. Anderson Weekes added that such “Russell-inspired” forms of panpsychism seal off mind as an inert category, failing to see mind’s creative efficacy.

Virtual Reality: Discussion touched on David Chalmers’s new book Reality Plus, VR technology, and simulation arguments. Michael Epperson argued quantum mechanics rules out perfect global “simulation” because there is no universal Boolean algebra to embed the global state.

Islamic Philosophy: Farzad Mahootian linked Tim’s approach to Middle Eastern mystical traditions, referencing an “in-between realm” (the ‘ālam al-mithāl). He saw parallels to Eastman’s notion of “landscapes of potentiae.” The ancient occult sciences might be reinterpreted in a more rigorous, contextual way.

John Cobb, Jr.’s Closing Remarks

John began by offering a suggestion for how people might better understand the limits of science and the importance of history. He noted that science can only deal with repetitive phenomena—things that occur repeatedly and can be studied systematically. But if an event is truly unique, occurring only once without repetition, how can science address it? The only way, he suggested, would be to identify repeatable features within the event, but the event itself remains singular and outside the typical scope of scientific analysis.

He then pointed out that history once played a much larger role in higher education, but its influence has faded as scientism has become dominant. Even when people discuss the past, there is often a tendency to focus on patterns and recurring themes rather than recognizing the uniqueness of historical moments. Yet, John argued, people intuitively understand that their own personal life stories contain dramatic, unique events—moments that in principle cannot be fully analyzed by science. But just because these events don’t fit into scientific categories, that does not make them any less important.

Shifting to a different topic, Cobb expressed that he was very glad that the Cobb Institute had established a Science Advisory Committee to advise the process movement on scientific matters. He believed this was the first time an organization of this kind had been formed, and he saw it as an important development.

Rate this:

Posted

February 14, 2025

Albert Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Ancient Philosophy, Aristotle, autopoiesis, Brian Swimme, Carl Jung, Darwin, David Chalmers, Descartes, Henri Bergson, Heraclitus, Hume, imagination, Kant, Modern Philosophy, Plato, reason, Religion, William James

Matthew David Segall

Tags:

cosmology, ecology, evolution, materialism, Process philosophy, quantum physics, science, Tim Eastman

Comments

One response to “Process, Reality, and Context: Timothy E. Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot – Summaries of the Seminar Series”

Notes from the Edge of the Ordinary – Footnotes2Plato

August 22, 2025

[…] was an adventure in transdisciplinarity: participating were physicists like Bernard Carr, Tim Eastman, Ruth Kastner, Federico Faggin, and Michael Epperson, all pushing beyond […]

Reply

Process, Reality, and Context: Timothy E. Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot – Summaries of the Seminar Series

Session 1

John Cobb Jr. Offers Historical Context

Introducing Tim Eastman

Tim Eastman’s Presentation

Response from Mikhail Epstein

Response from Judith Jones

Eastman’s Response to Epstein and Jones

Open Conversation and Audience Q&A

Session 2

Tim Eastman’s Remarks on Chapter 2

Response from Randall Auxier

Response from Michael Epperson

Response from Elías Zafiris

Tim’s Response to the Panel

Open Discussion Among Panelists

Audience Q&A Highlights

Session 3

Tim Eastman’s Presentation

Ruth Kastner’s Reflections

Michael Epperson’s Reflections

Tim’s Response

Highlights from the Audience Q&A

Session 4

Tim Eastman’s Overview of Chapter 4

Alex Gómez-Marin’s Remarks

George Lucas’s Reflections

Anderson Weekes’ Reflections

Tim’s Initial Response

Open Discussion Among Panelists and Participants

Session 5

Tim Eastman’s Remarks on Chapter 5

Mikhail Epstein’s Response

George Strawn’s Response

Open Discussion

Tim’s Closing Thoughts

Session 6

Tim Eastman’s Summary of Chapter 6

Response from Randall Auxier

Response from Gary Herstein

Response from Brian Thomas Swimme

Tim’s Brief Responses

Q&A with Participants

Session 7

Summary of Chapter 7 by Tim Eastman

First Response from Ed Kelly

Second Response from Farzad Mahootian

Tim’s Response to Panelists

Open Dialogue

Session 8

Tim Eastman’s Summary of Chapter 8

First Response from Thandeka

Second Response from Dan Dombrowski

Third Response from Ed Kelly

Tim Eastman’s Response

Open Discussion

Session 9

Tim Eastman’s Reflections

Michael Epperson’s Summary Reflections

Matt Segall’s Summary Reflections

Open Dialogue Highlights

John Cobb, Jr.’s Closing Remarks

Rate this:

Share this:

Comments

One response to “Process, Reality, and Context: Timothy E. Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot – Summaries of the Seminar Series”

What do you think? Cancel reply