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

By Matthew David Segall

…John Cobb 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, 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.