Metamodern Spirituality | Physics, Metaphysics, Meta-Metaphysics (w/ Matt Segall)

Matt Segall joins me to explore the notion of a learning universe. Matt has read my most recent book, A Universal Learning Process, but has some contributions and critiques based on his deep engagement with Whitehead and process philosophy. In this discussion, we begin to explore the metaphysical aspects of such a project and dig into the details of such a world picture.

0:00 Introduction
2:47 "Panmatheism": Being the Universe Learning
6:24 Matt Summarizes Brendan's Project
10:58 Brendan Summarizes Matt's Project
19:07 Complexification and Metaphysical Categories
35:06 A Minimal Metaphysics for Meaning and Value
1:03:23 Continuity and Discontinuity
1:10:48 Efficient (+ Formal + Final + etc.) Causal Closure
1:26:06 Cells Worship the Body
1:33:00 Explaining Sacrifice: "I Am Because You Are"
1:37:50 Conclusion and Next Steps

[polymathpark]

17:11 "metaphysics is a search for scale-free categories" that's very well articulated.

[Dreamaster]

I would love it if these conversations could be created in more teachable moments way, where say every 10 minutes the conversation can be condensed (or it's opposite actually) further into more accessible languaging.
One can feel the gorgeous intent of the ideas, even though obscure to less trained minds. I understand something is always lost intellectually, yet can be gained in a more somatic friendly environment. 😊

[Robotwesley]

So cool that Whitehead’s ontology is basically the same as causal set theory, but even more specifically Smolin and Cortes’ “energetic causal sets”, obviously whitehead way ahead of his time. “Actual occassions” = celestial spheres, maximizing difference based on partial views of their own past. Indra’s net much…

[KalebPeters]

If you could make it happen I would LOVE to hear you chat to Alicia Juarerro some time, Brendan!

[michaelgarfield]

Also Brendan you might be pleased (?) to know that I actually agree with you here and disagree with Matt ~ 1:12:45 that we can have causal closure and unpredictability and emergence…but it’s because of the computational bounds Gisin talks about as helping to restore time to the t-symmetrical equations in physics! So I’m with you on this for the same reason I’m basically agnostic with respect to emergence as an ontological phenomenon…and strangely, this seems like it catches Matt in a contradiction I hope I can explore with him soon (namely his earlier comments on pluralism).

[ReflectiveJourney]

I think there was a confusion on "continuous vs discontinuous". I took you to mean strong emergence happens at some level of complexity which would be discontinuious. Matt thought you simply meant continuity in physical models.

I am with matt on this. The issue turns on the concept under discussion, for something like i would say it goes all the way down simply because reasons can't "emerge" out of causes. There is also the historical presupposition of Western philosophy of identity of thought and being. Doesn't meant you need to accept the claim but there are a lot of skeptical binds you end up in if that claim is rejected.

[Xhris]

I’m just getting into this conversation, but I’m loving your work already.

4:57

It is fairly simple to implement an infinite dimension. Cognitive linguistic embodiment claim work.

The challenge is more so a roadmap and a motivation with which to navigate such an infinite space.

[Xhris]

Oh boy, I can help you guys out! The view from the top is quite awesome.

[PeterIntrovert]

This discussion is much more substantial than the new one. I like it. The one thing that always bother me is that even well read people like Matt have misconception of free will. That's why I opt for clear distinction between Free Will and Agency. Robert Sapolsky don't deny "agency" in natural order of things. He is just pragmatist, he don't want to waste time on some philosophical mumbo-jambo. That doesn't mean we don't have philosophical accounts of the same position as his. For example Spinoza have the same opinion. In this circle of YT-people Bernardo Kastrup clearly stated the same position. It's nothing wrong with Sapolsky's camp. A lot reasonable people with strong arguments are there. From my observation, most of the times people are too unreflective to grasp that perspective or have religious-like, dogmatic (unconscious) reasons to deny it.

[physicalalchemy]

is this the first instance in which 'physics, metaphysics, meta-metaphysics' has been coined by Mr Segall [?]

[ReflectiveJourney]

Matt is right about the casual closure part. It is about physical event having physical causes so it rules out formal and final causes.

[GreenManorite]

Abstracted self perception seems to be definitively different. You can get emergent complexity from very simple automata, but once your agents are applying game theory to their decisions the rule set itself complexifies.

[JamesGelok]

Loved this discussion! Very excited for the next discussion!

[turner]

Loved, LOVED! this conversation.

Particularly 23min-34min

Appreciate Brendan’s read on the metaphysical categories being a type of abstraction or a kind of hermeneutic lens.

It does seem to me it’s wise to hold this in mind to avoid a kind of proliferation of “real” entities.

Also loved Matt’s explanation of Whitehead in that exchange, as it helped clarify Whitehead’s languaging.

Not sure if you are familiar with Tomlinson’s work with deflationary ontology, I’d be curious to see if it addresses any of these questions for either of you.

I came to these questions through Indo-Tibetan Madyamika debates where they are trying to work through some of these tensions from an anti-realist position. There’s a lot of great stuff there.

So glad that there was a conversation where Brendan didn’t have to ask would we have seen Jesus actually coming out of a tomb. 😉

[eternaldelight]

this was good. I would argue that phenomenology is probably a good approximation of modern metaphysics. Or, rather, the phenomenological aspect is potentially an important contribution to the metaphysical discourse.

[Xhris]

In fact, there is a fundamental assumption which you must make in your model, consistent with Godell’s incompleteness theorem. Any mathematical model will suffer from the grounding of one form of Godell’s incompleteness, theorem or another.

[silberlinie]

The helpless stammering of the two brave professionals
says everything about their desperate attempt to
formulate a somewhat meaningful statement about
the overwhelming fullness of existence.

[davidmccoy]

Both guys go on and on hair spliting without saying anything.

[zerogrep]

Metaphysics is a coping mechanism for people that are too smart to believe in religion, but too scared to accept reality.