0

I have seen a few papers/articles which apparently show that dualism is supported by modern quantum mechanics:

  1. A Quantum-Mechanical Argument for Mind–Body Dualism
  2. QUANTUM MECHANICS AND DUALISM
  3. Quantum Dualism? — The Making of a Thriller, Part IV

However, there are some objections to dualism based on modern physics. Some of them, in no particular order, could be:

  1. Conservation of energy - Does dualism contradict thermodynamic conservation of energy?
  2. Emergent space - Adds a new dimension to the problem of interaction. If space is not fundamental, how can the mind interact with the "non-real" brain?
  3. Emergent time - If time is a purely physical phenomenon, how can a non-physical mind outside of the physical interact/have causal impact on a brain in a "separate" time system?

In general, does physics lend support to or help reject dualism?

user40443
  • 131
  • 4
  • Anything that can be studied in physics is part of the physical realm. If a soul can be measured, it is not a soul anymore. Therefore look into physics to support any kind of dualism seems moot. All you can get is a "dualism of the gap" type of argument: "we can't explain that, so it must be dualism". Until the day it gets explained... – armand Jul 30 '19 at 00:37
  • @armand "Therefore look into physics to support any kind of dualism seems moot." What about looking into physics *against* any sort of dualism? – user40443 Jul 30 '19 at 01:28
  • I would say it is the same. As a physicist, one can reduce the number of unexplained phenomenon, reducing the need for a spiritual explanation. But one can definitively rule out spirits/dualism only after having explained EVERYTHING through physics, which is not gonna happen any time soon, if ever. – armand Jul 30 '19 at 01:44
  • For exemple in QM, AFAIK the consensus is that random the phenomenons observed are truly random (no hidden variables). If it is the case, we will never explain why such electron took the slit on the left and not on the right. But pretending this is an argument for some spiritual action is a fallacy, because their could be other reasons we don't know about, or no reason at all. To make a case for spirits, one has to show me an actual spirit acting on quantum phenomenons. But as soon as the so-called spirit acts on the physical world, it becomes part of physics and is not a spirit anymore... – armand Jul 30 '19 at 01:52
  • @armand I see, thank you. If one were to, hypothetically, say that the reduction of mental to physical states is possible, how does this show that that is, in fact, the case? Just because such a reduction is *possible*, does that mean that it is the case? Another, slightly different question: how could you show that such a reduction is even possible? – user40443 Jul 30 '19 at 01:52
  • Note that whatever model science produces, there is nothing to tell us that it is indeed the case. For example, general relativity tells us that everything happens *as if* massive objects distort space-time. But we don't know if it is *actually* the case, just that it is the best explanation so far. If indeed someone managed to demonstrate the reduction of mental to physical, it would only mean that the hypothesis of dualism is *unnecessary* to explain our mental states, not that it is *false*. As for how to prove reductionism, I have no idea. How can i prove to you i am conscious ? – armand Jul 30 '19 at 02:42
  • @armand I suppose that it would be difficult to prove reductionism, just like it is difficult to prove that you are conscious from my perspective. I suppose that it would have to be a sort of "best explanation" proof, wouldn't it? As far as I know, that's about the best you can get for the problem of other's consciousness. – user40443 Jul 30 '19 at 02:45
  • @armand Different question, but do you have any sources I can look at for discussions on reconciling physics with dualism? (I'm thinking mainly the arguments 1-3 against dualism in my question) – user40443 Jul 30 '19 at 02:46
  • 1
    In *every* Quantum Mechanics (and Physics by extension) related discussion, one must be aware of the many writers/quackers who hijack QM concepts and loanwords in order to, through vague and pseudointellectual language, persuade the readers of his/her superstitions. I'm not saying that your sources fit into that category, but 1 and 3 have the same author, while 2 is a *huffpost* text, and neither of the authors are physicists; thus, so far, there isn't authoritative endorsement on QM supporting mind-body dualism. –  Jul 30 '19 at 13:02
  • @armand "*To make a case for spirits, one has to show me an actual spirit*"... But then it would no longer be a "spirit" since you also just claimed "*If a soul can be measured, it is not a soul anymore.*".. Either way, you win, apparently. I guess your position is not falsifiable, right? Right. – Speakpigeon Jul 31 '19 at 12:56
  • @Speakpigeon exactly. That's the problem when people think with ill defined concepts: the logic is worth nothing and anything goes. What is a soul supposed to be, anyway ? I even posted a question about this problem : https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/63324/is-physicalism-an-unfalsifiable-position – armand Jul 31 '19 at 13:44
  • If dualism means there are 2 categorically different classes of entities in this universe, then [this new physical theory](https://mindtheory.net) lends support to dualism. According to this theory, mass, energy, forces, and other conventional physical entities are in the mechanical class and the mind, qualia, and consciousness are in the informational class. The 2 classes are categorically different in their nature. But, because information is a physical entity, this theory does not invent novel, non-physical entities to account for the mind and its related phenomena. – user287279 Aug 01 '19 at 02:46
  • Yet, although categorically different, both classes are not totally disconnected. Entities in the latter class are the informational counterparts of entities in the former class, and the former the mechanical counterpart of the latter. An easy analogy is the non-material information that always exists and circulates in the electronic circuit is the counterpart of the circulating material electrical signals in that circuit. Similarly, the mind is the non-material information-processing entity counterpart of the material electrical-signal processing entity – the brain. – user287279 Aug 01 '19 at 02:47
  • @user287279 this is interesting, but hardly new. – armand Aug 01 '19 at 05:19

0 Answers0