|
| |
Is the Physical Causally Closed?
Introductory Papers
-
Jean Burns,
Volition and
Physical Laws (cc,
list,
cc-list)
-
——,
Quantum
Fluctuations and the Action of the Mind (,
list,
cc-list)
-
Robin Collins,
Modern Physics and the Energy Conservation Objection to Mind-Body Dualism
[doc,
pdf], (cc,
list)
-
George Ellis,
On the Nature
of Causation in Complex Systems, Roy.Soc.S.Africa (2007) (cc,
list)
-
——,
On the Nature of Emergent
Reality, (cc,
list)
-
Sophie Gibb,
Closure Principles and the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Momentum (cc,
list)
-
Stewart Goetz,
The Causal Closure Argument (book,
discussion)
-
Kile Jones,
The Causal Closure of Physics: An Explanation and Critique
-
William Hasker,
How
Not To Be A Reductivist (cc),
explaining why it is necessary to give up the causal closure of the physical
domain.
-
Amir Horowitz,
The Law Of Conservation Of Mass And Energy Is Unwarranted
-
Jaegwon Kim,
Précis
of Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body problem and Mental
Causation, in the "Representation and Mind Series". Cambridge (Mass.): A
Bradford Book, The MIT Press, 1998 (cc);
with Discussion
by
Rüdiger Vaas
-
Joe Lau,
Readings on Dualism and Energy
-
E.J. Lowe,
Causal closure principles
and emergentism, Philosophy 75(4):571-585 (cc)
-
William G. Lycan,
Giving Dualism its Due (cc)
-
Eugene Mills,
Interactionism and Physicality, 1997 (cc);
for discussion concerning the common claim that "Anything that can move a physical
thing is itself a physical thing".
-
Ulrich Mohrhoff,
Interactionism, Energy
Conservation, and the Violation of Physical Laws (cc)
-
——,
The Physics of
Interactionism (pdf,
cc)
-
Barbara Montero,
Varieties
of Causal Closure (cc)
-
——,
What does
the Conservation of Energy have to do with Physicalism? (pub)
Response: Ole Koksvik,
Conservation of
Energy Is Relevant to Physicalism (pdf)
-
Harold Morowitz,
The Mind Body Problem and The Second Law of Thermodynamics (pdf,
cc)
-
Titus Rivas,
The doctrine of a closed
physical universe (cc)
-
Henry Stapp,
The Effect of Mind upon
Brain (cc: pdf,
html)
-
William F. Vallicella,
Discussion of C.J. Ducasse, "In Defense
of Dualism" in Sidney Hook, ed., Dimensions of Mind, Collier 1961, pp.
88-89
-
Daniel von Wachter,
Why the Argument from Causal Closure Against the Existence of Immaterial Things
is Bad (cc)
Discussion
Journals
Generative Dualism
It is generally taken as a strong indication against dualism that the physical
world appears to be causally closed. This is taken from the fact that the total
of energy and total momentum appear to be accurately conserved whenever they
have been measured in modern physics. These conservation laws do not seem to
allow any room for minds to make any difference to evolution of the physical
world. We should first note, with
Meixner (2005), that there is little or no experimental evidence just where
it is needed, namely within living bodies and especially within brains, so the
universal application of conservation laws is an assumption of the physical
scienceSs, not a result as it is commonly presented. Various general philosophical
arguments for causal closure have been presented, but they all depend on some
assumption that is almost identical to the result to be proved.
Suppose that physicists found that conservation laws in a object were not
conserved in some instances. How would they react? First, they would note that
the laws apply only to isolated systems, so they would examine whether the object
really was isolated or not, and whether they should look for something further
(like a hidden planet) that was producing the effects. Secondly, they could
generalise the conservation laws so the new law was satisfied but not the old
one. It used to be thought, for example, that total mass and total energy were
separately conserved, but, after many subatomic experiments showing the annihilation
and creation of massive particles, those separate laws were quietly dropped
in favour of a general law of conservation of mass-energy in combination. Note
that this example is directly related to having a virtual as well as a ‘actual’
degree in physics. A further ‘pregeometric’ degree would force a further generalisation
of the conservation laws. At present, energy and momentum conservation are typically
‘derived’ from the invariance of the underlying Lagrangian under small time
and spatial translations respectively. If spacetime were curved, or was being
dynamically generated in some way, this invariance would not hold, but physicists
would soon come up with a ‘generalised mass-energy’ measure that was still conserved.
If, therefore, the non-conservation of energy and/or momentum were found in
certain biological or psychological processes, science as we know it would not
collapse. Either the influence from other kinds of beings would be ascertained,
or a further generalisation of the conservation laws would be sought. The only
novelty in the proposals here, is that these ‘other kinds of beings’ would not
be ‘physical’ in the traditional way. I remark that the generalised conservation
laws (beyond the pregeometric degree) to take into account these new substances
will still be recognisably rational.
|
