From: jimruttshow8596
Today’s discussion features Forrest Landry, a thinker, writer, and philosopher, who explores his work on Immanent Philosophy [00:01:03]. This work, accessible via a website version, offers a serious attempt to build an understanding of the universe from basic fundamentals [00:01:58].
Why Immanent Metaphysics is a Worthwhile Undertaking
Landry believes that understanding the nature of choice is crucial given modern challenges like existential risk and civilization design, which relate to ethical concerns and values [00:02:49]. This understanding helps in making sensible and grounded choices at community levels [00:03:36]. Key questions include:
- What is the nature of choice? [00:03:04]
- How do we make choices? [00:03:06]
- Is choice even real? [00:03:08]
- How do we conceive of goodness or choice? [00:03:43]
- What is the basic methodology for knowing anything at all? [00:03:48]
The goal is to better understand the implications of our vast body of knowledge to improve design and choice-making, both individually and collectively [00:04:05].
Defining Metaphysics: Beyond Traditional Bounds
Traditionally, metaphysics asks two primary questions: “what is?” (ontology, study of existence/being) and “how do we know?” (epistemology, nature of knowledge/consciousness) [00:05:28]. Other branches, like axiology (what’s valuable) and aesthetics (what’s beautiful), extend from this core [00:06:20].
Landry’s work defines metaphysics more narrowly as “an inquiry into the nature of the relation between self and reality,” or the “interaction between the subjective and the objective” [00:04:59]. This contrasts with historical figures like Kant and Aristotle, whose metaphysics often delved into the nature of the ground of being and theology [00:04:33].
The Primacy of Relationship
Landry posits that the relationship between the subjective and the objective is real and fundamental [00:06:58]. This relationship, or the process of perceiving, is considered more fundamental than both the perceiver (subjective) and the perceived (objective) [01:11:17]. This means we can only know the objective and subjective through the “mediology” of their relationship [01:11:51].
- Perceiver, Perceived, and Perceiving: These form a fundamental triplicate. Perception can only perceive the perceived (the object of perception), not the perceiver or the act of perceiving itself [00:09:13].
- Distinction of Concepts: Landry distinguishes between to exist, to be real, and to be objective [00:09:55], asserting they are three distinct claims [00:10:06]. This careful distinction is crucial for deep foundational inquiry [00:10:30].
- Relationship as Ontological Class: The relationship between the perceiver and the perceived (e.g., content and context) is considered its own fundamental category, not merely an element of either [01:12:00]. This concept of relatedness is encoded in much of science, including general relativity [01:12:21].
Defining Self
In this work, self is defined as the product of “all the choices you have made and all the choices you could make” [01:13:10]. This encompasses both actuality (what has been) and potentiality (what could be) [01:15:32], effectively memory plus capabilities [01:15:36].
Metaphysics and Quantum Foundations
Landry’s perspective on quantum mechanics leans towards interpretations that focus on “measurement itself” [01:17:38]. He views quantum mechanics as understanding the relationship between the space of possibility/probability and the space of forces in time, contrasting it with general relativity which conceives of patterns in space relative to forces in time [01:18:24].
Landry is more interested in the “phenomenology of the theories themselves” – what concepts are put into what relationships to one another, viewing mathematics as encoded philosophy [02:00:02]. His approach aligns with “physics from Fisher information,” which treats measurement as an information-theoretic process [02:10:07].
He acknowledges that current quantum foundational theories lack experimental differentiation [02:17:54]. For Landry, the purpose of metaphysics is to provide “clear concepts that can then be used by things like science, physics in particular” [02:39:50]. It answers “what” questions (descriptive process), while physics answers “why” questions (modeling process), and technology answers “how to do something” [02:48:48]. Metaphysics aims to clarify questions so experiments can yield new knowledge [02:54:55].
Fundamental Distinctions: Relation vs. Interaction
Landry distinguishes:
- Relation: Atemporal; structures of relationships, as studied in mathematics [03:10:00]. If a mathematical truth is proven, it has always been true [03:13:58].
- Interaction: Inherently temporal; involves a flow of information (e.g., from objective to subjective), implying possibilities and change [03:22:20]. Interaction can construct information theory, communication theory, and causation ideas [03:31:11].
The concept of an observer is “implied in the notion of interaction” [03:46:27]. Landry asserts that the epistemic process (knowing) is more basic than the being of objective or subjective entities [03:19:18]. The notion of interaction is more fundamental than existence, and even more fundamental than creation [04:02:58]. The universe, in his view, is understood through the perfected knowledge of creation, existence, and interaction [04:10:50].
Soundness vs. Validity
Landry clarifies that mathematics focuses on validity (formal proof within an axiomatic system), while his metaphysics is more interested in soundness [04:55:54]. Soundness refers to the practical correspondence between a mathematical model and a real-world domain (e.g., psychology or engineering) [04:46:00].
Reifying Power
Reifying power means clarifying vague relationships and making concepts more useful and trustworthy [04:51:48]. It’s about taking something vague and making its structural relationships more definite [04:52:19]. This is akin to a powerful metaphor that connects previously disconnected concepts deeply and quickly [05:43:58]. The value of this metaphysics is in its ability to increase clarity [04:52:19], like testing if a revised conceptualization of literature increases understanding for its readers [04:57:00].
Mind, Brain, and Consciousness
Cartesian Dualism
Cartesian dualism concerns the relationship between mind and matter, or substance in the world versus beings in the world [00:58:38]. Historically, this involves two traditions:
- Substance is primary, and minds/bodies are composed of it (realism/classical physics) [00:59:00].
- Consciousness (e.g., deity) is primary, subdividing into individual beings who project the world (idealism/mystical traditions like Kabbalah) [00:59:13].
Landry’s work contrasts with both, stating that the relationship between realism and idealism (mind and body) is the primary subject of study [01:00:46]. He doesn’t posit the unconditional existence of either the objective or subjective but describes their relationship as unconditional [01:01:14].
The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Landry agrees that current neuroscience focuses on observed neural correlates, but even perfected knowledge of these correlations wouldn’t answer the hard problem of consciousness <a class=“yt=“01:09:04”>[01:09:04]. The hard problem asks “why is this moment this one?” [01:10:09]. Correlations don’t explain causation, temporality, or the distinction between past, present, and future [01:10:17].
For Landry, consciousness is a process, and its connection to time is intrinsic [01:21:01]. It’s also bound to the concept of “hard random” (potentiality or probability over possibility) [01:21:06]. The subjective being is directly connected to temporality, process, and the possibility of other outcomes [01:21:31]. The hard problem stems from physics, described in a purely physicalist sense, not providing tools to explain the symmetry breaking that localizes consciousness to a specific time, space, and possibility [01:22:24].
Ultimately, while science (through a third-person perspective) can build objective knowledge, there remains the challenge of understanding the process that moves from a third-person perspective to a first-person one [01:22:54]. This requires a different kind of toolset [01:23:09].