The universe is causually closed

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by sbu

The oneliner "The universe is causually closed" remains the strongest argument against Cartesian dualism/transmitter theory etc.

Not just the strongest, the only argument really.

Either the Universe isn't causally closed, or QM allows an escape.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by sbu

The oneliner "The universe is causually closed" remains the strongest argument against Cartesian dualism/transmitter theory etc.

Well the randomness of every QM transition already suggests this might not be true.

It implies that a non-physical mind can't influence the physical brain. Does anyone have a suggestion to how non-physical fields like transmitted souls/morphic resonance can work under this assumption? Does it require that second law of thermodynamics to be wrong? If so - how can this be proven. I know Sheldrake questions the validity of this law in his new book.

Sheldrake presents some interesting and provocative evidence that a number of physical laws are broken in living systems. If the universe does couple with something external, it obviously isn't closed, so the global application of the 2'nd law would not be valid.

Does this mean idealism is the only philosophy that can explain psi?

I have a feeling that ultimately this is probably true. However, I think this would not prevent dualism being approximately true, just as Newton's laws are approximately true. Dualism might be a useful way to think about reality, even if ultimately the explanation has to be a completely mental one.

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

what is a "physical" thing? what is a "non-physical" thing? what will you call the laws that govern the interaction between a "non-physical" and "physical" thing, is that a "physical" law or "non-physical" law? where is the demarcation between these things?

I think you need a "thing" which is not representable by equations (with or without a random component) - something that is essentially mind-like. Without such a "thing", you end up with an essentially clockwork mechanism. This is my main definition of a non-physical entity.

The laws of interaction might be based on quantum selection - i.e. wave the function collapse need not be always random.

Even so, as I said above, I'd put my money on an ultimate reality that is completely mental.

David

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think you need a "thing" which is not representable by equations (with or without a random component) - something that is essentially mind-like. Without such a "thing", you end up with an essentially clockwork mechanism. This is my main definition of a non-physical entity.

your definition appears vague. terms like essentially. what does "essentially" mind-like mean? how do you know it, or aspects of it, are not representable by equations (or inequalities, or other relations) if you don't understand mind?

that is main definition, you have others in mind?

The laws of interaction might be based on quantum selection - i.e. wave the function collapse need not be always random.

and whatever can occur would not be completely arbitrary in scope, there would be laws that govern what/when/how/etc stuff can happen. so what would make these laws "non-physical" is they govern observable events?

Even so, as I said above, I'd put my money on an ultimate reality that is completely mental.

that's fine. so if and when we figure out what the ultimate reality is like, how is that not simply an extension/evolution of our existing understanding (i.e., physics)? it's "non-physical" only insofar as we don't understand it. as gravity could have been called non-physical. and then newton wrote inverse square / action at a distance law for it. and then einstein did better. and we will probably do better still. i don't understand these tendencies to segregate stuff we don't understand into its own category that we invent and call it "non-physical", it seems to lack any intrinsic meaning.

re: closed universe.

Well the randomness of every QM transition already suggests this might not be true.

how so?

If the universe does couple with something external, it obviously isn't closed, so the global application of the 2'nd law would not be valid.

U = universe. E = external. redefine universe = U+E. now universe is closed. QED.

[phs1it]

Originally Posted by sbu

The oneliner "The universe is causually closed" remains the strongest argument against Cartesian dualism/transmitter theory etc.

How do you know it is closed?
Is there evidence, for or against this?
Assuming this without evidence is reckless, to say the least!!

[sbu]

Originally Posted by phs1it

How do you know it is closed?
Is there evidence, for or against this?
Assuming this without evidence is reckless, to say the least!!

We 'know' it because every known interaction with particles leaves traces we can detect. That's what it means that it's closed.

Anonoymous - your example with the photon is not a valid counterexample. Matter equals energy and a photon has energy.

So nothing reckless about this position I'm afraid. You might just as well say that's it's reckless to assume any others than you exists because you can't really know if everybody else just are creations of your imagination (idealism taken to the extreme).

[phs1it]

Originally Posted by sbu

We 'know' it because every known interaction with particles leaves traces we can detect. That's what it means that it's closed.

So nothing reckless about this position I'm afraid. You might just as well say that's it's reckless to assume any others than you exists because you can't really know if everybody else just are creations of your imagination (idealism taken to the extreme).

Are you saying that we know everything about minds, about NDE and psi causes, so that they are described by "every known interaction"??
I doubt that very much!!

So there are many hidden assumptions in your claim. That is what I mean by reckless. Your assumptions about "no mind" are exactly what you use to conclude against mind dualism. What you got out is only what you put in, so you haven't proved anything new.

[sbu]

Originally Posted by phs1it

Are you saying that we know everything about minds, about NDE and psi causes, so that they are described by "every known interaction"??
I doubt that very much!!

So there are many hidden assumptions in your claim. That is what I mean by reckless. Your assumptions about "no mind" are exactly what you use to conclude against mind dualism. What you got out is only what you put in, so you haven't proved anything new.

There are two assumptions which are the core of physicalism - everything can be reduced and the universe is causually closed. As we often have discussed in this forum - there are no evidence for strong emergence. This is the entire point of this thread. So no - there are no hidden assumptions except those that underpin physicalism.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Not just the strongest, the only argument really.

Either the Universe isn't causally closed, or QM allows an escape.

Sorry, got this wrong. It's not really an argument since causal closure is essentially a statement of physicalism.

Causal closure can't therefore be used as an argument any more than saying physicalism is true therefore this provides a powerful argument against dualism!

[ncg]

I don't know about speaking to "the" demarcation between physical and non-physical domains. I can say how, in my own understanding, a demarcation is defined.

Physical objects are manifest and actual in time and space. They are delineated by units of measure that address two categories of observational data. Units of measure associated with mass and material structure is one category and units of measure about force and energetic relations, a second.

Non-Physical "objects" are knowable; hence computable and logically probable to be influential in "infospace". They are delineated by units of measure that address two categories of observational data. Entropic units of measure from the MTC derived by C. Shannon and from Thermodynamics make one category of "law" applicable to abstractions about systems. The second category is logic, and the real world systemic relationships that can be affected by its computational application. What living things (and computational machines) figure out, can change real world probabilities.

A rock is physical….
and the meaningful idea of a stone mason, looking at a specific stone while building, is non-physical.