The universe is causually closed

[sbu]

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

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.

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

[FallingLeaf]

Originally Posted by sbu

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

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.

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

Henry Stapp believes the dynamics of QM in the brain give us a way out of the interaction problem and that in his theory, no violation of the 2nd Law occurs.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by sbu

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

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.

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

Well, that one-liner has also never been proven, which is what Sheldrake is talking about in his book. Take a look at something like dark pull. I never understood the assumption that the universe is casually closed. We'd have to first prove that the universe is casually closed to be able to move forward.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by sbu

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

When Daniel Dennett (CSIcop fellow) made this point, physicist Henry Stapp responded...

'.. This argument depends on identifying 'standard physics' with classical physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary [quantum] physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with alll the laws of physics. Any perception merely reduces the possibilities.' - Physicist Henry Stapp

[Open Mind]

'...the Universe is fundamentally unpredictable and open, not causally closed.' - Physicist Anton Zeilinger, one of the leading researchers into quantum entanglement.

[sbu]

Very interesting. Thank you for the fast responses - it gives something for me to look into next.

[anonymous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism...stance_dualism

Consider a computer simulation in which the bodies of the creatures are controlled by their minds and the minds remain strictly external to the simulation. The creatures can do all the science they want in the world, but they will never be able to figure out where their minds are, for they do not exist in their observable universe.

Here's the reference...

http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html

The Matrix as Metaphysics
David J. Chalmers
...
It is sometimes held that the idea of physical processes interacting with a nonphysical mind is not just implausible but incoherent. The Matrix Hypothesis suggests fairly straightforwardly that this is wrong. Under this hypothesis, our cognitive system involves processes quite distinct from the processes in the physical world, but there is a straightforward causal story about how they interact.

...

[anonymous]

This paradox is caused by a semantic disconnect. Physical means something different in the context of "non-physical consciousness" than it does in the context of "physical universe".

People say mind is non-physical because, for example, you can't explain qualia, ie. what red looks like, through a physical explanation. Here physical means "produced by matter".

People say the physical universe is causally closed because if something is going to interact with matter it must have physical properties. Here physical means "interacts with matter".

However the fact that you can't explain qualia with a physical explanation doesn't mean mind doesn't have physical properties. Something that cannot be produced by matter might still be able to interact with matter.

Here's an analogy: a photon doesn't have mass but it can exert kinetic a force because it has momentum. A photon is not made of matter but it can interact with matter electrically and kinetically. Just because mind cannot be explained by (known) physics, does not necessarily mean that it cannot interact with matter.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by sbu

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

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.

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

Those who argue from the assertion "The universe is causally closed" simply assume what they need to demonstrate. The second law of thermodynamics is not "wrong" in dualism; it is a law of physics, and as such, nonphysical things are not necessarily governed by it.

[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?