Selfhood, God, and Possibility in a World in Process (dialogue with Flavio Lanfranconi)

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.