Selfhood, God, and Possibility in a World in Process (dialogue with Flavio Lanfranconi)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- In a continuation of their previous discussion, Matt Segall and Dr. Flavio Lanfranconi engage in a deep exploration of the intersections between quantum physics, ontology, and Whitehead's process philosophy. Their conversation weaves together complex ideas from both science and philosophy, probing into the fundamental nature of reality and the relationships between continuity and discreteness, selfhood and the divine.
Dr. Lanfranconi begins by revisiting a concept from their earlier discussion: the nature of quantum fields and electrons. He reflects on the idea that electrons, as excitations within these fields, might be analogous to potentials-possibilities that exist throughout the universe, waiting to be actualized in specific places and times. This contemplation leads to a broader inquiry into how fields and potentials could be linked to the fundamental fabric of reality, an idea that both fascinates and challenges traditional scientific thought.
Segall then turns to a more personal inquiry from Lanfranconi, who asks him to articulate his current understanding of ontology, especially in relation to Whitehead's ideas. Segall dives into the tension between continuity and discreteness, a dichotomy that has long puzzled philosophers and scientists alike. He argues that both concepts are real, yet the challenge lies in integrating them coherently. To illustrate, he draws on the example of space and motion, explaining how paradoxes arise when either is viewed solely as continuous.
As the discussion unfolds, Segall elaborates on Whitehead's process philosophy, where reality is not composed of static substances but rather of dynamic events or "occasions." These occasions, though discrete, emerge from a continuous field of possibilities. In Whitehead's view, these possibilities are represented by "eternal objects," abstract forms that exist in a realm of potentiality until they are actualized in specific occasions.
The conversation shifts as Lanfranconi presses Segall on the nature of personal identity within this process-oriented framework. Segall explains that, in a process ontology, the self is not a fixed entity but a continuous process of becoming. This process involves a constant interplay between subjectivity and objectivity, challenging the traditional Cartesian notion of the self as a stable, unchanging essence.
Their dialogue takes a theological turn when they address Whitehead's concept of God. Segall explains that, in Whitehead’s system, God is not a traditional creator but rather a participant in the ongoing process of reality. God has both a primordial nature, associated with infinite possibilities, and a consequent nature, associated with the actualized universe. Segall acknowledges the historical baggage that comes with the term "God" but defends its use in Whitehead’s metaphysical framework as a necessary concept rather than a purely religious one.
The conversation then touches on the question of free will, a topic that Lanfranconi is eager to explore. He asks how much freedom each actual occasion has in shaping its future within the constraints of process philosophy. Segall responds by suggesting that the degree of freedom varies depending on the complexity of the occasion. For instance, human beings, with their advanced cognitive capacities, have a greater ability to exercise creative decision-making compared to simpler entities.
Quantum mechanics makes another appearance in their dialogue as they discuss the decoherence interpretation, which describes how quantum systems interact with their environments, leading to a loss of coherence and the emergence of classical behavior. Lanfranconi expresses skepticism about this interpretation, particularly concerning the idea of distinguishing between a quantum system and its environment. He questions whether such a distinction is even meaningful if everything in the universe is, in essence, a quantum system.
As the conversation draws to a close, Segall and Lanfranconi reflect on the limitations of human understanding. They emphasize the importance of integrating scientific models with lived experience, recognizing that while scientific theories provide valuable insights, they must be understood in the context of human consciousness and imagination. Despite the complexities and unresolved questions, both participants express a shared enthusiasm for continuing their exploration of these profound topics in future discussions.
Being a subscriber to footnotes2plato this past week has been me drinking from the firehose
Absolutely. 🙂 Matt is on fire, publishing so much contend it's hard to have to choose which videos to watch.
I appreciate, you're taking the time to watch this particular one. 🙂
🙏
Great talk, guys. Been following this account for a few months now and thoroughly enjoy it. Cheers.
I kept thinking of Steiner's phrase 'the universe's beginningless intentions' when you talk about up the primordial nature - also when I listened to your talk with Oliver where you used the word beginningless - the less considered side of infinity that supports our endless realisation of values
Wonderful talk! I resonate strongly with the ideas discussed later on that there's some sort of gravitational pull into most creative or generative possibilities. I think this capability (spoken of at the electron / atomic level in the proceeding videos) is quite visible at the human scale so I got a bit lost with the convo about if all reality is quantum or if there's some sort of 'normal' that's not quantum...maybe I misunderstood. For one, it seems to me that in addition to judgement (mentioned by I think Matt), there's discernment, and maybe especially intuition. For another, I think there's each of us is essentially systems influencing each other's possibilities for better or worse. I posted something related on Flavio's other channel - loving actions as those that open up possibility for each other / "self"; And (since its sort of my current drum beat to understand its role in the cosmos) how big T Trauma is sort of the opposite - the massive / overwhelming destruction of possibility(s) that a "self" or system or actual occasion must basically "de-cohere" in order to overcome; almost a backtracking or restructuring since time the past is fixed / immortal / eternal.
I love what you two are doing. Can't wait for more. And really need to learn Whitehead apparently! I hope I have not butchered his lingo too badly here. Thank you!
at 20 min Flavio with subject/object, we never escape from the human Blob except by entering into the all mammal object, with the collective embracing herd and pack by entering halfway and pulling the human out as dogs, cows etc, but individually empathically embracing other mammals as yourself, to which they respond as extended facet of self.
If responsibility never breaks since that would remove God, what actually breaks? At 25 min or so, the difference in our memories is statistically insignificant, and our person systems are compromised as statistically significant in the world system, a good starting point to see why scapegoats and permissions come about.
Thank you, Matt. I discovered your videos about 2 years ago and decided to read most o Whitehead after that. I find almost all of his philosophy very convincing and inspiring, but the specifics of his God concept still confuse me a bit. At times it sounds like you are describing God as a definite entity (let’s call it a divine Nous or mind), the way Whitehead does in PR. Other times you seem to describe Whitehead’s God more as part of the relations between the temporal occasions (more like a divine Logos or cosmic order). I personally feel that the divine Logos is more parsimonious and compatible with a modern scientific worldview than the divine Nous, but is there an argument I am unaware of for this view of God?
I've been holding this thought. Does Whitehead believe that there is an end to Becoming? Becoming requires polarizing forces. When we look at the lowest energy form in baryon it consists of three quarks. Theoretically it shows that it can coexist as One when all positively charged. Is this the Being aspect free from polarization but there will always be a world of Becoming? It seems we have the capacity to constantly superposition ourselves in and out of these two states? Is Being and Becoming the overarching polarizing force of the cosmos that we need to learn to harmonize within ourselves? The many become One and than increase by One alludes to Becoming never ending. The Being is than the totality of all Becoming in its current temporal state? Or is Becoming and it's purpose the return to a state of perfection that started as singularity in the Being? If the whole world finally immersed into a higher form of Love, wouldn't all Becoming cease because there would be no more polarization for us to evolve any further?
The subject and object distinction for a person seems like the place where they break in their self, going by Zeno's directionality from always the same side breaking. Sometimes the person is an object in the world and sometimes the Blob as all the humans in the gradient is their object, and the individual as subject, so could they ever break free from the Blob, which apparently has emergent self? Or is materiality the bit of time space that accommodates switch bounce in electronics so filters aren't needed later in the design for fixing say third order harmonics that tend to build and distort.
The allowing of space time versus something needed to fix, an assertion. The allow assert choice as free will collectively from free choice personally? Because, the person's body is already a system while the collective is in the world system and that set (person, collective) responsibility already breaks there, another set is required as break point between person and world which might be the separation from intelligent Nature, in their intelligent system where any control from being able to allow or assert brings responsibility.
edit: does this make the responsibility the unbreakable?
at 36 min that which produces objects can't be pinned down as object, so if the first black hole came from quantum fluctuations building the first sun, which explodes to become temporal suns dancing out the splitting of black holes while still there as the One in symmetric time, where are the objects pinned down? In one perception of process?
One difference between a green plant and a green plastic plant is that the plant is alive within itself, to an observer no difference because they infer the plant anyway, the green is surplus to the plant, the shape amorphous, the whole thing moving so what if this little part moves or not, where's the relevance? If the material itself rests and provides a resting place, the plastic doesn't rest, it asserts control without intelligibility.
To be humbly integral with advancing ...ruling-in sensitivity, ruling-out specificity, and ruling-up superiority.... for an integrally greater ...sense, science, and salience.... coming forth and going forward.
Consider:
What integrally greater ...sense, reason and imagination.... may come beyond The Pathos of Entertainment Propaganda Spinsters (TM)?
🙏🏼
imagination is individual while sense and reason are shared. Humor is shared as common sense, amusing is cynical reason with a third attractor from without, funny aligns with grotesque and the comic is allowed imagination for the group participation as calming clapping. See how they reverse?
what I'm getting at is there seems to be some sort of danger in assembling two sets of couples or a triad of triangles so they become self bias on levels of self, like Church crossroads of 2 (assert and allow) ^2, and the spin removes the filth, so there's allow/assert and consonance/dissonance rather than allow/assert finite/infinite since the latter is not part of life but structure, properly an odd number with life as the third, where life is properly the even (allow and assert set) with structure over it, 3/2 not 2/3, that goes to 2^3 as an object.
this might follow then that the larger structure as dodecahedron 2^5 needs life, specifically human, tying together the facet drops, where the coupling is insufficient and the triangles hard to escape from. A path is allow/assert with care (individual) and allow/assert with knowledge sent out.
Uno