Ontology and Embodied Process Realism (3)

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

ESSAY THREE

Ontology and Embodied Process Realism

Toward a Relational Ontology of Coherence

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

What is real is not substance,

but coherence that endures.

- R.E. Slater

The many become one,

and are increased by one.

-  Alfred North Whitehead

The universe is not a collection of things,

but a communion of subjects.

- Thomas Berry

Series Objective

To articulate a relational ontology grounded in contemporary

physics, in which reality is understood as coherence, information,

and process rather than as substance, isolation, and atomistic

models of reality.

Series Architecture

What Is Reality? series → foundational ontology

Cosmic Becoming Cycle → poetic and metaphysical expansion

Embodied Process Realism → formal philosophical framework

Processual Divine Coherence → theological bridge

Essay Three Structure

Preface

Section I - The Limits of Substantialist Ontology

Section II - From Relation to Coherence

Section III - Embodiment of Stabilized Coherence

Section IV - Reality as Persistence Across Scale

Section V - Restructuring Realism

Section VI - Implications

Section VII - Transition

Bibliography

Appendix - Glossary of Key Terms

---

Preface

What is real is not substance, but coherence that endures across the unfolding of becoming. - R.E. Slater

If the first essay challenged the assumption that gravity is best understood as a particle-mediated force, and the second essay traced the movement within contemporary physics toward relational, informational, and emergent frameworks, the present essay undertakes a further task:

to articulate an ontology adequate to these scientific developments.

Essay II has established a clear trajectory:

• Section I → relational description
• Section II → relational construction (theoretical frameworks)
• Section III → relational conceptual core (information, entropy, coherence)

Taken together, these developments suggest a shift already underway within physics itself. If reality is:

• structured through relations,
• constrained through information and entropy,
• unified through entanglement, and
• stabilized through coherence

... then these are not merely descriptive tools but are increasingly functioning as constitutive features of physical reality.

Further, what we call gravity may be understood not as a fundamental force among others forces and structures, but as:

the large-scale persistence of relational coherence across the unfolding of cosmic structure.

This proposal does not stand apart from physics, but emerges from its internal contemporary developments as shown in essay 2. Concepts once treated as secondary - information, correlation, constraint - have moved toward the center of explanation.

What is increasingly described is not a world composed of independent entities, but one structured through relations that stabilize, persist, and evolve.

Yet the prevailing metaphysical language - whether through yesteryear's materialism or more broadly  in current terms of physicalism - continues to remain oriented toward:

• objects
• substances
• independently existing things

In these ontological views a conceptual tension is created and continued...

... between what physics now describes (processually), and

how reality is often interpreted (materialism or physicalism)

The present essay responds to that tension. It proposes a framework we will call:

Embodied Process Realism (processualism)

... an ontology in which reality is understood not as a collection of things, but as the persistence of relational coherence across scale, through which structure, stability, and embodiment arise.

By doing this, we are asking in essay 3, "What is Real?" "How does the Real Persist?" and, "How is the Real Embodied?" Hence the term, "embodied processual realism."

---

I. The Limits of Substantialist Ontology

There are no things which are not also processes. - Alfred North Whitehead

Materialism and physicalism have each provided powerful and indispensable frameworks for scientific inquiry. Through them, modern science has achieved extraordinary success: predictive precision, technological innovation, and increasingly unified descriptions of physical phenomena. Even as materialism has given way to the broader and more flexible framework of physicalism - a relatively newer framework capable of accommodating fields, energy, and spacetime - the underlying orientation between the two approaches has remained largely consistent.

Reality, within these frameworks, is typically approached as composed of discrete entities - whether particles, fields, or systems - whose identities are specified independently of their interactions. Relations are then treated methodologically as secondary, describing how such entities interact; only at a further level do relational patterns become objects of study in their own right, rather than the primary basis through which entities arise.

 Standard physicalism:    entities → interactions → relations

Processual realism:         relations → coherence → entities

This type of quantum mechanical orientation has proven enormously fruitful. Yet it carries with it a tacit assumption: that the fundamental structure of reality is best understood in terms of identifiable units whose existence is logically prior to their interaction.

It is precisely this assumption that contemporary physics has begun to complicate as it moves - often implicitly - towards processual realism without calling it out as such:

• In quantum theory, entangled systems resist decomposition into independently existing parts. The formalism itself requires that such systems be treated as unified wholes, whose properties cannot be reduced to those of their components. What is physically real, in these cases, is not the isolated entity, but the structure of correlation that binds the system together.

• Similarly, in quantum field theory, what are commonly described as “particles” are more accurately understood as localized excitations of underlying fields. The apparent discreteness of objects arises from patterns within a continuous substrate, blurring the distinction between entity and medium.

• More radically still, several approaches to quantum gravity suggest that spacetime itself may not be fundamental, but emergent - arising from deeper, non-geometric structures. If this is so, then even the arena within which entities are said to exist is no longer primary.

Taken together, these developments do not overturn physicalism. But they do suggest that its implicit ordering - entities first, relations second - may require both a scientific and philosophic reconsideration.

Classical View                               Processual View

Entities are primary                        Relations are primary

Relations describe interaction        Relations constitute existence

Persistence is assumed                   Persistence is achieved

What begins to emerge instead is a different possibility:

that relations are not features of things,

but the conditions under which things come to exist at all.

On this view, what appears as a stable object is not an independently existing unit that later enters into relation, but a relatively enduring configuration within a broader relational field. Identity is not prior to relation, but formed through relation; persistence is not given, but achieved from relation.

The ontologic shift is subtle but profound. It does not deny the reality of objects, nor the success of physicalist explanation. Rather, it reframes them:

that entities are not foundational substances,

but stabilized expressions of underlying relational structures.

It is this shift - from substance to relation - that opens the way for a further step. For if relations are primary, then the question is no longer simply what exists, but what allows anything to persist as something at all.

It is to this question that we now turn.

---

II. From Relation to Coherence

It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom… an immaterial source and explanation. - John Archibald Wheeler

If relations are taken to be primary, a further and more demanding question immediately arises: not merely how relations form, but how they endure.

For not all relations persist. Many arise only momentarily - fluctuating, dissolving, or failing to stabilize into anything recognizable as structure. If reality were nothing more than an undifferentiated flux of relations, it would not exhibit the continuity, pattern, or persistence that characterize the world we observe.

What requires explanation, therefore, is not simply relation, but the persistence of relation.

This is the point at which the concept of coherence becomes indispensable.

Coherence names the condition under which relational configurations do not merely occur, but hold together. It refers to the alignment and mutual reinforcement of relational patterns such that they maintain structure across time, resisting dissipation and fragmentation.

Where relations are coherent, they exhibit continuity;
where coherence fails, relational patterns lose their capacity for persistence

and dissolve into disorder and indeterminacy.

In contemporary physics, coherence appears in multiple, interconnected ways:

• In quantum systems, coherence refers to the maintenance of phase relations that allow for interference and superposition.

• In thermodynamic contexts, it is closely tied to the maintenance of low-entropy structure against the tendency toward dispersion.

• In complex systems, coherence manifests as the sustained organization of interacting components into stable, identifiable patterns.

Across these domains, coherence functions not as an additional property layered onto otherwise complete systems, but as a condition of their persistence as systems at all.

It is here that the conceptual shift begun in the previous section deepens -

if relations are primary, and coherence is what allows relations to persist,

then coherence occupies a foundational role:

not as a feature of reality,
but as a condition of its intelligibility.

What we recognize as structure - whether physical, biological, or cosmological - may rather be understood as the outcome of relational coherence sustained across time and scale. Patterns endure not because they are fixed, but because the relations that constitute them remain sufficiently aligned to resist dissolution.

This reframing also clarifies the distinction between mere interaction and stabilized existence. Interaction alone does not produce persistence...

... Systems interact constantly without forming enduring structures. What distinguishes those configurations that persist is not the fact of relation, but the degree and stability of coherence within those relations.

In this sense, coherence introduces a principle of selection within relational reality. Of the innumerable possible configurations, only some achieve the alignment necessary to endure. Reality, as experienced, is therefore not the totality of all relations, but the subset that successfully stabilizes through coherence.

This insight begins to bridge the conceptual developments traced in contemporary physics with a broader ontological claim. If information, entropy, and entanglement describe the conditions under which relations form and transform, coherence describes the condition under which those relations persist as structured reality.

Thus, coherence may be understood as operating across scale:

• at local levels, as intensity, constraint, and the maintenance of form
• at global levels, as structure, continuity, and the organization of systems

In both cases, it is coherence that allows becoming not to dissolve into flux, but to hold together as an evolving order.

We may therefore state the emerging insight with greater precision:

reality is not merely relational,

but coherently relational -

structured through relations that persist across the unfolding of becoming.

This does not yet complete the ontology. It establishes its central condition.

For if coherence explains how relations endure, a further question remains:

how does coherence take on form?

how does it become embodied?

It is to this question that we now turn.

---

"The Transition of Becoming: From Concrescence to Field Manifestations,"

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

III. Embodiment as Stabilized Coherence

An organism is not a thing, but a process. - Henri Bergson

I

If coherence explains how relations persist, a further question follows naturally:

how does coherence take on form?

For persistence alone does not yet yield the world as we encounter it. What we experience are not abstract relations, but structured realities - objects, organisms, systems - each exhibiting a degree of stability, identity, and presence.

The concept of embodiment names the transition through which coherence becomes manifest.

Embodiment is not the addition of substance to relation. It is the stabilization of relational coherence into forms that can be located, interacted with, and recognized across time. What appears as an object is not something that exists independently and then enters into relation, but something that arises where relations have achieved sufficient coherence to sustain a structured presence.

In this sense, embodiment marks a threshold...

*This description parallels Alfred North Whitehead’s concept of concrescence, wherein a multiplicity of relational data (prehensions) are integrated into a unified actual occasion. What is here described as embodied processual realism is the stabilization of relational coherence into processual forms which correspond broadly to the prehensive movement of the past towards the integration of momentary actualized unities.

This present ontological formulation reframes and extends Whitehead’s terminology in several ways:

First, where Whitehead speaks of prehension as a fundamental mode of “feeling,” this account emphasizes relational coherence as the primary ontological condition - less as discrete acts of feeling, and more as the structured intelligibility through which relations persist and organize.

Second, Whitehead’s concrescence describes the becoming of an actual occasion as a self-integrating process culminating in satisfaction. Here, that same movement is interpreted through the lens of embodiment: not merely the unification of data, but the emergence of locally stabilized form within a continuous relational field - forms which can be recognized, interacted with, and sustained across temporal intervals.

Third, while Whitehead’s framework privileges the momentary nature of actual occasions, the present account places greater emphasis on continuity across scales, wherein embodiment is not only episodic but also iterative and sustained, giving rise to enduring patterns (objects, organisms, systems) as stabilizing trajectories of coherence.

In this way, Embodied Process Realism remains deeply aligned with Whitehead’s process metaphysics while rearticulating its key insights in terms of relational coherence, embodiment, and persistence, thereby extending the framework toward a more explicitly field-oriented and structurally continuous ontology.

Embodied Process Realism: coherence → embodiment → form

II

... Below the embodied threshold, relations remain fluid, transient, and indeterminate. Above it, coherence condenses into patterns that exhibit continuity and constraint - patterns that can be identified as entities without ceasing to be relational in their constitution.

This reframing allows us to reinterpret what is commonly called a “thing.”

An object is not a self-contained unit. It is a localized stabilization of coherence - a region within the broader relational field where patterns have become sufficiently aligned to persist. Its boundaries are not absolute, but functional; they mark the limits within which coherence is maintained.

Seen in this way, embodiment is not restricted to any single scale. It operates across the full range of physical reality.

At the smallest quantum scales, what we call particles may be understood as stable excitations - patterns within fields that maintain coherence long enough to be observed and measured. At biological scales, organisms are not static structures, but ongoing processes - metabolic, informational, and relational - continually sustaining themselves through dynamic equilibrium. At cosmological scales, galaxies and large-scale structures arise through gravitational stabilization, where coherence is maintained across vast distances and times.

In each case, what appears as a discrete entity is better understood as:
coherent processes which hold together collectively.

This does not diminish the reality of objects. It deepens it. For what is real, on this account, is not the illusion of stability, but the achievement of processual stability - the sustained alignment of relations that allows something to endure as something.

Embodiment, therefore, is neither accidental nor superficial. It is the mode through which coherence becomes perceptible.

Without embodiment, coherence would remain abstract;

Without coherence, embodiment would not be possible.

This mutual dependence clarifies an important point:

Stability is not the opposite of change. It is a pattern within change - a continuity achieved through ongoing relational activity. What endures does so not by resisting becoming, but by maintaining coherence within becoming.

III

In this light, identity itself must be reconsidered. What we take to be the identity of an object is not a fixed essence, but the persistence of a pattern. To remain the same is not to remain unchanged, but to maintain coherence across transformation.

Thus, embodiment can be understood as the manner in which coherence:

• becomes spatially and temporally structured
• acquires boundary and form
• persists as identifiable pattern across change

Through embodiment, relational coherence becomes the world.

This brings us to a further clarification. If embodiment names the local stabilization of coherence, then what appears at larger scales - structure, continuity, and order - may be understood as the extension of that same principle across scale.

In this way, embodiment is not separate from the broader dynamics of reality. It is their localized expression.

We are now in a position to restate the central insight more concretely:

what we call “things” are not the building blocks of reality -

but the visible forms taken by coherence when it stabilizes

within the unfolding of becoming.

From this vantage point, the distinction between object and process begins to dissolve. There are no static entities underlying change; there are only patterns that maintain themselves through it.

The question that now arises is not how things exist, but how such patterns can persist across different scales of reality - how coherence extends, organizes, and stabilizes beyond the local into the global.

It is to this question that we now turn.

---

"Embodied Process Realism: The Bridge Between Philosophy and Physics,"

 Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

IV. Reality as Persistence Across Scale

The universe is not made of things, but of processes that extend across scales.

- in the spirit of Alfred North Whitehead

I

If embodiment names the local stabilization of relational coherence, a further question emerges:

how does such coherence extend beyond local sclaes to global scales?

For the world we encounter is not composed merely of isolated, stabilized patterns, but of structures that persist across vastly different scales - linking the microscopic with the macroscopic, the transient with the enduring, the micro with the macro. What appears as continuity in the universe is not given in advance; it must itself be accounted for.

The concept of scale, in this context, does not refer simply to size, but to levels of organization. 

A pattern that persists at one level must be capable of integrating with patterns at other levels, maintaining coherence not only internally, but across relational domains.

What requires explanation, therefore, is not only the stability of local structures, but the coordination of coherence across scale.

It is here that the central claim of this project can be stated in its most comprehensive form:

Reality is the persistence of relational coherence across scale, through which becoming holds together across its unfolding.

Further, this persistence is not uniform. It operates differently at different levels of organization.

At local scales, coherence appears as:

• intensity
• constraint
• embodiment

Here, coherence is experienced as the capacity of a system to maintain its form against disruption - to hold together as a structured pattern within a dynamic environment.

At larger scales, coherence appears as:

• structure
• continuity
• systemic organization

Here, coherence is expressed in the coordination of many localized patterns into larger, enduring configurations - networks, systems, and cosmological structures that persist across time.

These are not separate processes. They are different expressions of the same underlying principle: the capacity of relational configurations to stabilize and extend across levels of organization.

In this light, the distinction between local and global begins to dissolve. What occurs at one scale is not isolated from what occurs at another. Rather, coherence propagates - linking levels of organization into a unified, though dynamic, whole.

II

It is within this framework that gravity can be reconsidered.

Traditionally understood as a force acting between masses or as the curvature of spacetime, gravity appears as a large-scale organizing principle. It governs the formation of stars, galaxies, and cosmic structure, coordinating matter across immense distances.

But if reality is fundamentally relational, and if coherence is what allows relational structures to persist, then gravity may be understood differently:

not as a force imposed upon matter,

but as the expression of coherence extended across scale.

In this view, what is described as curvature reflects the manner in which relational constraints are organized globally. What appears as attraction is not merely a force drawing objects together, but the stabilization of relational configurations into coherent structures. Mass itself may be interpreted as a concentration of coherence—regions in which relational patterns achieve a degree of persistence sufficient to influence surrounding structures.

This reframing does not replace the mathematical descriptions of physics. It interprets them. The equations of general relativity remain valid, but their meaning is deepened: curvature is not merely geometry, but the manifestation of relational coherence at scale.

Thus, gravity becomes intelligible not as an isolated phenomenon, but as a specific expression of a more general ontological principle.

Across scales, coherence:

• stabilizes local patterns into embodied forms
• coordinates those forms into larger structures
• sustains continuity across the unfolding of the universe

What we call reality is the result of this ongoing process.

This perspective also clarifies why the universe exhibits both stability and change. Stability is not the absence of change, but the persistence of coherence within it. Structures endure not because they are fixed, but because the relations that constitute them remain sufficiently aligned to maintain continuity.

In this sense, becoming is not opposed to being. It is its condition. What exists does so as the sustained achievement of coherence across the flux of relational activity.

We may therefore restate the central insight in its final form:

The real is not that which simply exists, but that which coheres—

enduring across the unfolding of becoming, and extending across scale as structured reality.

From this vantage point, the universe is not a collection of things situated within a pre-given space. It is a dynamic, relational field in which coherence stabilizes into form, propagates across scale, and gives rise to the structures we observe.

Gravity, in this context, is not an anomaly to be explained separately. It is one of the most visible expressions of this deeper principle: the manner in which relational coherence holds the universe together.

---

V. Reconstructing Realism

The aim of philosophy is to challenge the self-evidence of the present. - Gilles Deleuze

If reality is understood as the persistence of relational coherence across scale, then the concept of realism must itself be reconsidered.

Classical realism, in its various forms, has generally affirmed that the world consists of objects existing independently of perception or interpretation. Whether conceived in terms of substance, matter, or physical entities, realism has been committed to the idea that what is real is that which exists “out there,” prior to and apart from relational engagement.

This commitment has been both philosophically influential and scientifically productive. It has grounded inquiry in the assumption that the world is not reducible to subjective experience, and that its structure can be discovered through investigation.

Yet, as the preceding analysis has shown, the language through which contemporary physics describes reality increasingly complicates this picture.

If systems cannot be fully understood as independently existing units, if their identity is inseparable from the relations in which they participate, and if even spacetime may be emergent rather than fundamental, then realism cannot simply be the affirmation of isolated entities.

It must instead account for a world in which:

• relations are constitutive
• structure is emergent
• persistence is achieved rather than given

The task, therefore, is not to abandon realism, but to reconstruct it.

What is required is a shift in emphasis:

from the reality of things

to the reality of relations that endure

This does not entail a move toward anti-realism. On the contrary, it affirms that there is a reality independent of any single observer or perspective. But what is affirmed as real is not a collection of self-subsisting objects, but the structured patterns of coherence through which those objects arise and persist.

Realism, in this reframed sense, becomes:

the affirmation of enduring relational structures that maintain coherence across interaction and scale.

Objects remain real—but their reality is reinterpreted. They are not foundational units from which relations are derived, but stabilized configurations within a broader relational field. Their persistence does not depend on isolation, but on the continued coherence of the relations that constitute them.

This shift also clarifies the status of objectivity. Objectivity is not the view from nowhere, nor the apprehension of things as they exist apart from all relation. Rather, it is the capacity to recognize patterns of coherence that remain stable across multiple perspectives, measurements, and interactions.

What is objective, therefore, is not what is independent of relation, but what is robust across relations.

In this way, realism is neither reduced nor rejected. It is deepened.

It becomes a realism of structure, persistence, and coherence—one in which reality is understood not as a static inventory of things, but as an ongoing achievement of relational stability within the unfolding of becoming.

This reconstructed realism may be named more precisely:

Embodied Process Realism

- an ontology in which the real is identified not with substance, but with coherence that endures; not with isolated entities, but with patterns that hold together across time, interaction, and scale.

- such a processual framework does not replace scientific realism. It extends it - providing a conceptual language capable of accommodating the relational, informational, and emergent features increasingly central to contemporary physics.

In doing so, it offers not a departure from realism, but its transformation:

from a realism of things

to a realism of coherent becoming

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT depicting layered realities, scale transitions, emergence, relational structure, and human situatedness with the whole.

VI. Implications

The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects. - Thomas Berry

If reality is understood as the persistence of relational coherence across scale, then this reframing carries implications that extend beyond any single discipline. It does not replace existing scientific frameworks, but reinterprets their trajectory - offering a unifying lens through which diverse developments may be understood in continuity.

In physics, this perspective shifts emphasis from entities to structures, from particles to relations, and from interaction to constraint and coherence. Theories that treat spacetime as emergent, systems as informationally structured, and interactions as relationally defined can be seen not as isolated innovations, but as expressions of a broader movement toward relational understanding. What is being described, increasingly, is not a world built from independent units, but one in which structure arises from the persistence of patterned relations.

In philosophy, the implications are equally significant. The longstanding tension between being and becoming is reframed: stability is no longer opposed to change, but understood as its achievement. Substance is no longer the ground of reality, but an abstraction from more fundamental processes. Ontology, in this light, becomes the study not of what exists in isolation, but of how coherence is established, maintained, and transformed across relational fields.

In cosmology, this framework presents the universe not as a static container populated by objects, but as a dynamic, self-organizing field in which structure emerges through the sustained alignment of relations. Large-scale order is no longer something imposed upon matter, but something that arises through the extension of coherence across scale. Gravity, within this context, is understood as one of the principal expressions of that extension—the manner in which relational stability organizes the cosmos.

Across these domains, a common thread becomes visible. The shift is not away from realism, nor away from scientific explanation, but toward a deeper account of what those explanations presuppose:

that persistence, structure, and intelligibility are grounded in coherence.

This does not resolve all questions. But it reframes them in a way that allows previously disconnected developments to be seen as convergent.

---

VII. Transition

We are not things that endure, but patterns that persist.

- in the spirit of Alfred North Whitehead

The framework developed here - Embodied Process Realism - does not claim to replace physics, nor to provide a final account of reality. Its aim is more modest, and more fundamental:

to articulate a way of understanding reality consistent with the direction in which contemporary inquiry is already moving.

If the universe is not fundamentally composed, but continuously composed - if what appears as stable is the achievement of coherence within ongoing relational activity - then the task of thought is no longer simply to describe what exists, but to understand how such persistence is possible at all.

This shift marks a transition.

From objects to relations.

From relations to coherence.

From coherence to embodiment.

From embodiment to persistence across scale.

What has been outlined is not a conclusion, but an orientation.

It suggests that reality is not a finished structure to be cataloged, but an unfolding field in which coherence stabilizes into form, extends across scale, and gives rise to the world we inhabit.

The question that now follows is not merely ontological, but interpretive:

what might it mean to think, to live, and to understand within such a universe?

It is toward this broader horizon - where coherence, value, meaning, and participation begin to intersect - that the next stage of this project turns.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Process, Coherence, and Relational Ontology

---

This bibliography integrates physics, philosophy, and process thought to support

a relational ontology grounded in coherence, emergence, and becoming.

Process Philosophy & Metaphysics

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1997.
Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. New York: Dover, 1998.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996.

---

Philosophy of Physics & Structural Realism

Ladyman, James, and Don Ross. Every Thing Must Go. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
French, Steven. The Structure of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Maudlin, Tim. Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

---

Quantum Theory, Information, and Coherence

Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum.” In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, 1990.
Zurek, Wojciech H. “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.” Physics Today (1991).
Preskill, John. “Quantum Information and Physics.” Journal of Modern Optics (2000).

---

Complexity, Emergence, and Systems

Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos. New York: Bantam, 1984.
Anderson, Philip. “More Is Different.” Science (1972).

---

Cosmology, Structure, and Relational Thought

Rovelli, Carlo. Reality Is Not What It Seems. New York: Riverhead, 2017.
Berry, Thomas. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1988.

---

APPENDIX

Glossary of Key Terms

---

Relation - A structured interaction or correlation through which entities are defined; not secondary, but constitutive.

Coherence - The persistence and alignment of relational patterns across time; the condition under which structure endures.

Embodiment - The localization of coherence into identifiable, structured form.

Process - Ongoing relational activity through which patterns arise, stabilize, and transform.

Structure - A stabilized configuration of relations exhibiting persistence across scale.

Intensity - The local expression of coherence as constraint, curvature, or concentration.

Emergence - The arising of higher-order patterns from relational interactions not reducible to their parts.

Relational Ontology - The view that relations are primary and entities arise from them.

Embodied Process Realism - Reality as the persistence of relational coherence across scale.

Cosmology - The Rise of Relational Physics (2)

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

ESSAY TWO

The Rise of Relational Physics

From Particles to Information, Entanglement, and Emergence

Toward a Relational Ontology of Reality

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

What is real is not substance, but coherence that endures.

- R.E. Slater

The many become one, and are increased by one.

-  Alfred North Whitehead

The universe is not a collection of things, but a communion of subjects.

- Thomas Berry

Series Objective

To articulate a relational ontology grounded in contemporary

physics, in which reality is understood as coherence, information,

and process rather than substance and isolation.

Series Architecture

What Is Reality? series → foundational ontology

Cosmic Becoming Cycle → poetic and metaphysical expansion

Embodied Process Realism → formal philosophical framework

Processual Divine Coherence → theological bridge

Essay Two Structure

Preface

Section I - From Particles to Fields to Information

Section II - Entanglement and the Fabric of Spacetime

Section III - Emergence and the Structure of Reality

Section IV - Coherence and the Real

Bibliography

Appendix A - Materialism, Physicalism, & Processualism

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

Preface

Toward a Relational Cosmology of Becoming

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
- Werner Heisenberg

---

I. From Critique to Development

If the first essay sought to destabilize the graviton paradigm and introduce coherence as a candidate ontology, the present essay asks a further question:

whether physics itself is already moving in this direction.

In the previous essay, we proposed that gravity may be more accurately understood not as a force mediated by particles, but as the persistence of relational coherence across the unfolding of cosmic becoming. This proposal, while philosophical in form, was grounded in tensions internal to contemporary physics - particularly the difficulty of reconciling general relativity with quantum theory.

Today's essay will turn from critique to development...

For if gravity is not fundamental in the way traditionally assumed, then the question shifts:

what underlying structures give rise to the phenomena we describe as gravitational?

---

II. A Transformation Within Physics

Increasingly, developments across contemporary physics suggest that reality is not fundamentally composed of particles, but of relations - expressed through information, entanglement, and emergent structure.

Over the past several decades, a quiet transformation has been underway. Concepts once considered secondary - entropy, information, correlation - have moved toward the center of physical explanation. In fields ranging from black hole thermodynamics to quantum information theory, these concepts are no longer merely descriptive, but constitutive.

    Spacetime itself may be emergent.

            Structure may precede object.

                    Interaction may define identity.

This essay explores that transformation.

It argues that contemporary physics is pointing towards a more relational understanding of reality - one in which structure, coherence, and constraint precede, and give rise to, what we call objects. In this light, gravity itself may be understood not as a fundamental interaction, but as a large-scale expression of relational coherence stabilizing across scale.

---

III. Project Trajectory: From Reality to Meaning

This work unfolds within a broader trajectory, structured across four interrelated phases:

Phase I – Reality (Foundational Ontology)

An inquiry into the nature of the real as relational, coherent, and processual rather than substantial or isolated.

Phase II – Cosmology (Structure and Emergence)

An examination of the universe as dynamically structured, in which spacetime, matter, and interaction arise through relational processes across scale.

Phase III – Ontological Deepening (Meaning and Persistence)

A reflection on how value, persistence, and directionality emerge within a relational cosmos.

Phase IV – Theological Horizon (Relational Divinity)

A movement toward a naturalized theological interpretation, in which the structures of reality themselves open toward questions of participation, coherence, and the nature of the divine.

These phases do not represent separate domains, but a continuous unfolding -

from description to meaning, from structure to significance. 

---

IV. Direction of Inquiry: From Physics to Ontology

The present essay then proceeds from a growing recognition within contemporary physics: that reality is increasingly described not in terms of isolated particles, but through relations, information, and emergent structure.

In light of these developments, this project follows a conceptual trajectory:

from materialism to physicalism to processual interpretation (refer Appdx A)

Materialism, once grounded in substance and matter, has given way to physicalism, which incorporates fields, energy, and spacetime as fundamental. Yet physicalism, in its descriptive strength, does not by itself determine the ontology of what these structures are.

This project therefore advances a further step:

toward a process-relational ontology in which reality is understood as the persistence of relational coherence across scale.

Within this framework, what physics describes is not rejected, but reframed - situated within a broader account of reality as structured, dynamic, and continuously unfolding.

It is this interpretive movement that the present work seeks to develop under the name:

Embodied Process Realism

---

V. Tables

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

I. Relational Structures in Contemporary Physics

“What we take to be fundamental may be less about what things are, and more about how they are related.”

---

1. From Description to Structure

Contemporary physics continues to employ the language of particles, fields, and interactions. Yet, in practice, many of its most successful theories no longer rely on strictly separable entities as their primary units of description.

Instead, physicalist systems are increasingly represented in expanded terms of structured relationships - utilizing mathematical and physical configurations in which what can be specified most precisely are not isolated properties, but the constraints, correlations, and interactions that bind systems together.

This shift does not eliminate objects. Rather, it situates them within a broader framework in which their behavior and identity are defined through their participation in relational structures.

---

2. Non-Separability in Quantum Systems

One of the clearest expressions of this shift appears in quantum theory.

In entangled systems, the formal description does not permit a decomposition into independent parts. The system must be described as a single, unified state, even when its components are spatially separated. What is physically meaningful is not the independent state of each part, but the correlation structure that relates them.

This is not a philosophical interpretation imposed upon the theory. It is a feature of the theory’s formalism itself: the mathematics requires a relational description.

---

3. Fields, Excitations, and the Status of Particles

A similar development appears within quantum field theory.

Particles, often treated as fundamental units, are more accurately described as localized excitations of underlying fields. These fields extend across spacetime, and what we identify as a particle corresponds to a structured event within that field.

In this framework, what appears as a discrete object is already dependent upon a continuous, relational substrate. The “thing” is inseparable from the field within which it arises.

---

4. Information and Constraint in Physical Systems

In other domains, particularly in black hole thermodynamics and quantum information theory, physical description increasingly centers on information, entropy, and constraint.

The entropy of a black hole scales with its surface area, suggesting that physical information is encoded in boundary relations rather than in volumetric substance. More broadly, the behavior of physical systems can often be understood in terms of how information is distributed, constrained, and transformed.

Here again, what is primary is not an isolated object, but a structured pattern of relations - a configuration that governs how systems can evolve.

---

5. Emergence and the Status of Spacetime

These developments converge in ongoing research into the nature of spacetime itself.

Across several approaches to quantum gravity, spacetime is no longer assumed to be fundamental. Instead, it is increasingly treated as something that may emerge from deeper, non-geometric structures - often described in terms of networks, correlations, or informational relationships.

In such approaches, spacetime geometry is not the starting point, but the result of more basic relational configurations. What appears as curvature at large scales may reflect the collective organization of underlying interactions.

---

6. Interpretive Trajectory: From Substance to Coherence

The developments outlined above do not, by themselves, establish a new ontology. Physics, as a discipline, remains primarily descriptive - concerned with modeling behavior rather than prescribing metaphysical interpretation.

Yet these descriptions exert pressure on earlier frameworks.

Materialism, grounded in the primacy of substance and discrete matter, proves increasingly limited in a context where fields, non-local correlations, and emergent structures play a central role. Physicalism represents a significant expansion, incorporating fields, energy, and spacetime into the ontology of the physical.

And yet, even physicalism leaves open a further question: whether these structures are best understood as things, or as patterns of relation through which things arise.

In light of contemporary physics, a further interpretive step becomes available:

that reality is not composed of independent entities which subsequently relate, but of relational structures which stabilize into what we recognize as entities.

It is this shift that this project develops under the name:

Embodied Process Realism -

an approach in which reality is understood as the processual persistence of relational coherence across scale, through which structure, stability, and embodiment emerge.

... refer to Appendix A re comparison of materialist v physicalist v processual ontologies ...

From the process perspective, the movement from materialism to physicalism and toward processual ontology can be best understood not as a rejection of prior frameworks, but as an expansion in which the emphasis shifts from substance, to structure, to relational persistence and coherence.

---

7. Transition

If physics increasingly describes a world structured by relations, information, and emergence, then the question deepens:

what kind of underlying reality gives rise to such descriptions?

It is to this question - and to the theoretical frameworks that attempt to answer it - that we now turn.

---

II. Theoretical Pathways Beyond Particle Ontology

“If gravity is not best understood as a particle-mediated force, then the question shifts: what kinds of structures give rise to gravitational phenomena?”

---

1. From Description to Construction

If the preceding section demonstrated that contemporary physics increasingly describes reality in relational terms, the present section turns to a more constructive question:

What kinds of theoretical frameworks attempt to build reality from such relations?

In contrast to approaches that begin with particles and forces defined within a pre-existing spacetime, a growing number of research programs begin from a different premise:

• that spacetime itself may not be fundamental
• that geometry may emerge from deeper structures
• that relations, rather than entities, may be primary

These approaches do not yet form a unified theory. But taken together, they mark a directional shift in how gravity and spacetime are being conceptualized.

---

2. Loop Quantum Gravity: Geometry Without Background

Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) represents one of the most direct attempts to formulate a quantum theory of gravity without relying on a background spacetime.

Rather than treating space as a continuous arena in which events occur, LQG proposes that:

• space itself is quantized
• its structure is composed of discrete elements
• these elements form networks (spin networks) describing relational geometry

In this framework:

• geometry is not given in advance
• it is constructed from the relations between nodes
• gravitational behavior arises from changes in this relational structure

Gravity, here, is not mediated by particles - it is the dynamical evolution of geometric relations themselves.

*Note: In classical general relativity, “geometry” refers to the curvature of spacetime itself. In many contemporary approaches to quantum gravity, however, geometry is no longer taken as fundamental, but as something that emerges from deeper relational structures. In this context, “geometry” names not a pre-given arena, but the stabilized form of underlying relations.

Within a processual framework we get these several alignments:

• geometry = coherence made visible
• curvature = constraint of relation
• gravity = persistence of that constraint across scale

---

3. Causal Dynamical Triangulations: Spacetime as Emergent Assembly

Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) approaches the problem differently.

Instead of quantizing geometry directly, it:

• builds spacetime from discrete building blocks (simplexes)
• sums over possible configurations (path integrals)
• enforces causal structure as a constraint

Remarkably, when these configurations are aggregated, they produce:

• large-scale spacetime behavior
• structures resembling our observed universe

In CDT:

• spacetime is not assumed
• it is assembled from relational configurations
• macroscopic geometry emerges from microscopic combinatorics

---

Causal Set Theory (CST)

4. Causal Set Theory: Order Without Geometry

Causal Set Theory takes relational thinking even further. It proposes that spacetime is fundamentally:

• a discrete set of events
• ordered by causal relations

There is:

• no continuous geometry at the base level
• no background spacetime
• only relations of “before” and “after”

From this minimal structure:

• spacetime geometry is expected to emerge
• distance and curvature become derived properties

Here, reality is not built from particles or fields, but from ordered relations themselves.

---

5. Asymptotic Safety: Structure Without Breakdown

Asymptotic Safety takes a different route. Asymptotic Safety, or "Structure Without Breakdown," refers to a quantum field theory approach to gravity where coupling constants do not diverge at high energies, but rather approach a non-Gaussian fixed point (NGFP). This creates a "safe" UV (high energy ultraviolet) completion of gravity without needing new, exotic ingredients.

Rather than abandoning field theory, it asks:

Can gravity remain a quantum field theory if treated non-perturbatively?

It proposes that:

• gravitational interactions approach a stable fixed point at high energies
• infinities can be controlled
• spacetime retains its dynamical character

While this approach still uses field-theoretic language, it shifts emphasis toward:

• global structural consistency
• scale-dependent behavior
• the stability of relational dynamics across energy regimes

It suggests that what matters most is not particle exchange, but the coherence of structure across scales.

---

Recommended YouTube Videos

The Asymptotic Safety Paradigm for Gravity and Matter by Astrid Eichhorn: A comprehensive talk on how this paradigm goes beyond effective field theory.

Asymptotically Safe Gravity! | with Aaron Held: Discusses why we need to quantize gravity and how asymptotic safety provides a potential solution.

A fractal universe? Asymptotically safe quantum gravity: Explores the intriguing possibility that spacetime might have a fractal structure at tiny scales.

The five most promising ways to quantize gravity by Sabine Hossenfelder: A broader overview that places Asymptotically Safe Gravity alongside String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity.

Is Quantum Gravity safe? | with Alessia Platania: An interview-style video discussing the safety of quantum gravity and its intersections with other theories

---

6. Convergence: Toward Relational Foundations

These approaches differ significantly in method and mathematics. They are not reducible to a single framework. Yet, they share several striking features:

• Background independence (spacetime not assumed)
• Relational construction (structure from relations)
• Emergence (geometry arises, rather than precedes)
• De-emphasis of particle ontology

Taken together, they suggest that:

gravity may not originate in particles at all,
but in the organization of relational structures across scale.

---

7. Interpretive Trajectory

At this point, a philosophical observation becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.

If:

• spacetime can emerge
• geometry can be constructed
• relations can precede objects

then the question is no longer simply how gravity works,
but:

what kind of ontology best accommodates such a universe?

Without forcing a conclusion, the direction is suggestive:

• not substance → interaction
• but relation → stabilization → structure

In this light, gravity may be understood not as something added to the universe, but as something arising from:

the persistence and organization of relational coherence across scale

---

8. Transition

These theoretical pathways do not yet resolve quantum gravity. But they collectively indicate a shift:

• from particles to relations
• from background to emergence
• from force to structure

The next step is to examine the conceptual language through which this shift is being expressed:

• information
• entropy
• entanglement
• coherence

It is to these concepts - and their growing centrality in physics - that we now turn.

---

IV. Coda - Coherence and the Real

“What appears as spacetime curvature may be the macroscopic expression of deeper relational structures—patterns of coherence unfolding across the ontological fabric of the cosmos.”

---

Across contemporary physics, no single theory has yet resolved the problem of "quantum" gravity. The frameworks surveyed remain incomplete, provisional, and in many cases incompatible.

And yet, taken together, they exhibit a striking convergence. They suggest that:

• spacetime may not be fundamental
• geometry may be emergent
• systems may be defined by information and constraint
• relations may precede objects

These developments do not compel a single interpretation. But they do exert a directional pressure. They shift attention:

• from particles to relations
• from background structures to emergent organization
• from interaction to constraint and coherence

---

In this light, the problem of gravity can be reconsidered. If gravity is not best understood as a particle-mediated force, then the question becomes:

what kind of underlying reality gives rise to gravitational behavior at all?

The answer suggested - though not yet formalized within a single theory - is that:

gravitational phenomena may arise from the large-scale organization and persistence of relational structures

That is:

• not from exchange
• but from coherence

---

This does not eliminate existing frameworks. Even if a graviton were eventually discovered, the deeper implication would remain:

that such a particle would itself participate in a broader relational structure whose persistence cannot be reduced to exchange alone

The question, therefore, is not simply whether gravity has a carrier particle, but whether:

what is most fundamental is not the carrier, but the coherence within which any carrier could exist

---

From this perspective, a broader philosophical implication emerges. If contemporary physics increasingly describes reality in terms of:

• information
• entropy
• entanglement
• coherence

then realism itself must be reconsidered. Not abandoned - but reformulated.

---

We may state the emerging insight simply:

Reality is not fundamentally composed of independent entities, but of relational structures that persist through coherence across scale.

Within this framework:

• structure replaces substance as primary
• persistence replaces static existence
• relation replaces isolation

Thus, the movement traced in this essay marks not the conclusion of a theory, but the emergence of a possibility: of a realism grounded not in things, but in the enduring coherence of relations

---

Transition to Essay 3

If this is so, then the next task is not merely scientific, but ontological.

We must ask:

What would a realism look like if coherence - rather than substance - were taken as fundamental? 

It is to this question that the next essay turns..

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Relational Structures, Emergence, and Coherence

---

Quantum Gravity & Foundational Frameworks

Rovelli, Carlo. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Rovelli, Carlo. Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. New York: Riverhead Books, 2017.

Ambjørn, Jan, Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and Renate Loll. “The Universe from Scratch.” Contemporary Physics 47, no. 2 (2006): 103–117.

Loll, Renate. “Quantum Gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, no. 1 (2020): 013002.

Bombelli, Luca, Joohan Lee, David Meyer, and Rafael Sorkin. “Space-Time as a Causal Set.” Physical Review Letters 59, no. 5 (1987): 521–524.

Sorkin, Rafael D. “Causal Sets: Discrete Gravity.” In Lectures on Quantum Gravity, edited by Andrés Gomberoff and Don Marolf, 305–327. New York: Springer, 2005.

Weinberg, Steven. “Ultraviolet Divergences in Quantum Theories of Gravitation.” In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, 790–831. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Reuter, Martin, and Frank Saueressig. Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renormalization Group: The Road Towards Asymptotic Safety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

---

Quantum Information, Entropy, and Holography

Bekenstein, Jacob D. “Black Holes and Entropy.” Physical Review D 7, no. 8 (1973): 2333–2346.

Hawking, Stephen W. “Particle Creation by Black Holes.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 43 (1975): 199–220.

’t Hooft, Gerard. “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity.” arXiv:gr-qc/9310026.

Susskind, Leonard. “The World as a Hologram.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 36, no. 11 (1995): 6377–6396.

Preskill, John. “Quantum Information and Physics: Some Future Directions.” Journal of Modern Optics 47, no. 2–3 (2000): 127–137.

---

Entanglement, Emergence, and Spacetime

Van Raamsdonk, Mark. “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement.” General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (2010): 2323–2329.

Maldacena, Juan. “The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38 (1999): 1113–1133.

Swingle, Brian. “Entanglement Renormalization and Holography.” Physical Review D 86 (2012): 065007.

---

Philosophy of Physics & Ontology

Ladyman, James, and Don Ross. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

French, Steven. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Kuhlmann, Meinard. “Quantum Field Theory.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Maudlin, Tim. Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

---

Process Philosophy & Relational Thought

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, 1978.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1997.

Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. New York: Dover, 1998.

Rescher, Nicholas. Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996.

Seibt, Johanna. “Process Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta.

---

Complexity, Systems, and Emergence

Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.

Anderson, Philip W. “More Is Different.” Science 177, no. 4047 (1972): 393–396.

---

Supplementary / Conceptual Bridges

Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, edited by W. Zurek. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Zurek, Wojciech H. “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.” Physics Today 44, no. 10 (1991): 36–44.

---

APPENDIX A

Materialist v Physicalist v Process Ontologies

---

Materialist, physicalist, and processual ontologies differ primarily in what they take to be fundamental in reality - whether inert matter v. physical structures and fields v. dynamic relational processes.

Each ontology offers not only a description of the world, but a framework for interpreting how stability, change, and persistence arise within it.

• Materialism generally posits that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, and all things, including mind, arise from material interactions.
• Physicalism extends materialism to include forms of physicality beyond just "matter," such as energy, spacetime, physical laws, and forces, as described by physics.
• Processual Philosophy challenges both, arguing that reality is not made of "things" (substances) at all, but rather of processes, events, and continuous change (becoming).

Materialist Ontology (Materialism)

• Fundamental Unit: Inert matter or substance.
• Core Belief: Everything that exists is either matter or dependent on matter for its existence.
• View of Mind: Consciousness is secondary, emerging from material interactions (often reducing mind to brain activity).
• Limitation: Historically, classical materialism struggled to explain non-solid phenomena like gravity or thoughts.

Physicalist Ontology (Physicalism)

• Fundamental Unit: Entities and properties studied by physics (energy, forces, spacetime, fields).
• Core Belief: Everything "supervenes" on the physical—meaning no two possible worlds can be identical in their physical properties but differ in their mental or social properties.
• View of Mind: Mental states are identified with, or realized by, physical states.
• Difference from Materialism: While often used interchangeably, physicalism is considered more modern, embracing quantum mechanics and energy, whereas traditional materialism is tied to "solid" matter.

Processual Ontology (Process Philosophy)

• Fundamental Unit: Processes, events, and relations rather than static substances.
• Core Belief: "Things" are artificial, static boundaries we impose on a dynamic, constantly changing world. Reality is a continuous unfolding ("becoming").
• Key Proponents: Alfred North Whitehead, Henri Bergson.
• Contrast with Others: Processual philosophy reinterprets the substantival assumptions of both materialism and physicalism by suggesting that what appears as stable “things” may be better understood as relatively enduring patterns within ongoing processes. As example, in process-relational ontology, entities (like a tree or forest) emerge from their relations.

Summary of Differences

Feature	Materialism	Physicalism	Processual
Basic "Stuff"	Matter (Inert)	Physicality (Energy/Forces)	Processes/Events
Core Question	What is this made of?	How does this behave?	What is happening?
Ontology Type	Substantialist/Monist	Substantialist/Monist	Relationist/Dynamic
Change	Secondary to Substance	Secondary to Structure	Fundamental
Mind	Emergent material	Supervenient physical	Event-based/Relational

While materialism and physicalism are often treated as synonymous in contemporary debates, they differ in scope, with physicalism being broader. Both, however, are often contrasted with process philosophy, which argues that focusing on being (substance) instead of becoming (process) is a fundamental error.

---

APPLICATIONS IN THE SCIENCES TODAY

In contemporary science, these three philosophies serve as different "operating systems" for how researchers interpret data and build theories. While physicalism is the most widely accepted "default" in modern labs, processual philosophy is gaining significant ground in the life sciences and quantum physics.

1. Physicalism: The Modern Scientific Default

Physicalism is currently the dominant worldview in science because it is broad enough to include things that aren't just "matter" in the traditional "Materialist" sense.

• Neuroscience: The majority of neuroscientists operate under physicalist assumptions, treating the mind as a product of physical brain activity (neurons, chemical signals, and electrical impulses).
• Fundamental Physics: It easily accommodates quantum fields, dark matter, and spacetime curvature, which classical materialism struggled to explain.
• Key Concept: Supervenience. Scientists often assume that "higher-level" facts (like biological or psychological ones) "supervene" on physical facts - meaning you can't change the mind without changing the physical state of the brain.

2. Processual Philosophy: The Rising Alternative in Biology

Many scientists argue that treating living things as "static objects" (substances) hinders progress. A "processual research agenda" is currently being applied to several fields:

• Theoretical Biology: In works like Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology, researchers argue that an organism is not a "thing" but a stable metabolic flow. This shift is helping scientists better understand cancer genetics, development, and evolution as dynamic systems rather than fixed blueprints.
• Quantum Theory: Some interpretations of physics (like Loop Quantum Gravity) suggest that the universe is made of events rather than "particles," making process philosophy a natural fit for describing the subatomic world.
• Environmental Ecosystems and Ecology: It provides a framework for viewing ecosystems as interconnected sequences of occurrences rather than a collection of separate species.

3. Materialism: The Historical Anchor

Strict, "old-school" materialism, is increasingly rare in high-level physics but remains a powerful tool for practical application.

• Classical Engineering: When building bridges or engines, scientists still use a materialist framework because "matter in motion" remains an effective abstraction for 99.9% of macroscopic science.
• Methodological Materialism: Many scientists adopt materialism not as a final truth, but as a method. They look for material causes because they are empirically testable, even if they suspect the underlying reality might be more complex.