Relationship or field as the sole quanta of reality?

I believe there is now post-post modernism (!) but I am not sure of its trend. But it is certainly the case that "independent objects" have taken a severe knock from the quantum physics findings on "non-locality". Also, in recent cognitive science inter-level relationships (physiological-psychological-social) form a substrate to investigate those of observer and observed, and a "systems approach" involving multi-valued state transitions,(as opposed to binary dichotomous flip-flops) appears to be yielding results where assumptions of fixed set membership (observer independent identity) have failed.

What I was getting by "system without component", was more along the lines of could "relationship" serve as the sole quanta in building up a reality.

Insofar as the concept of "field" is a form of "relationship", you may certainly have a point.

I guess I have a hard time reconciling relationship/fields as meaningful apart from time.
I feel as though pure relationship only leads to a static reality.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around being able to let go of a need for "change" in a reality.

Thanks, I better understand your thinking about all of this now. However, I am a bit perplexed by your avoidance of formal philioophical methods and your expressed (in another post) preference for "just using logic" to examine the sequence of (presumably physical) events before one takes an action, perhaps in order to verify that a 'free will' (something you referred to as a contradiction in terms) exists or does not exist.

The domain of physical science, based on observation and verification, ends with the Big Bang. Science, based on observation and verifiable propositions, can reach no farther.

My argument about determinism and chaos was directed at the fact that there are many physical processes, well understood by science and fully deterministic in its terms , whose future states are not knowable. That is to say there can be no observational proof of that determinism in such cases. Assuming for the moment that the ever-plastic neural networks in the human brain are also subject to chaos (as seems likely), that means that observational science (logic) cannot determine whether free will exists or doesn't exist based on experiment and observation - the question is moot.

The limits of science noted above also mean that "magical" thinking or uncaused events are themselves beyond the domain of science. Nowhere has it been established that such science includes all that can possibly exist or occur. That said, some (including some scientists) do postulate that nothing outside the domain of observational science can possibly exist. The fact that all extant scierntific models for the origin of the universe culminate in a singularity, or a postulated (and inherantly unverifiable) infinite sequence of creation & destruction or equivalently infinite set of quantum multiverses - all of which are themselves unverifiable, and therefore by definition outside the domain of science, often does not get a recognition of the supreme irony involved here. It turns out that materialist science does indeed involve some "magical thinking" on the part of its practitioners.

If, for the moment, one excludes uncaused events or magical thinking as you wish, then it is surely true that man has no free will. However, Despite that, the available facts strongly suggest that, even if it is entirely deterministic, human behavior can never be reliably predicted in individual cases. We will be left only with the statistical inferences about central tendencies that we do quite well now. The only thing uniting chaos and freedom is unpredictability. The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise one way or the other, just as it can't offer a verifiable theory obout the origin of the universe.

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

Quote:

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

...which perhaps relates to the extrapolation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which suggests that in any system there is always at least one axiom whose "truth" cannot be verified.

what freedom is the present so not what is there objectively, which prove then that determinism is what gives life to freedom

Thanks.
I looked.
To match my perhaps only intuitive requirements for a reality:

1. I feel as though a field(physics) needs to be able to propagate. Implying time.
2. I feel as though a semantic field must be allowed to drift. Implying iteration.

Are there degrees of subjectivity? Can one move closer and closer to objectivity, though maybe never completely non-subjective?

What does phenomena's lack of duration have to say about 'time'?