It's also not necessarily contradictory for it to be a bit of both.
- Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism.
- Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ.
- Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation.
What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, but a moral one).
Not true even at a fundamental level.
Why should it be true at a macro/aggregate one?
(And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's possible that it's not deterministic. It's perfectly compatible with determinism, just not (AIUI) (and IANATP) currently known whether or not it is the case.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_...
Edit: why downvote this?
Quantum randomness isn't truly random. There's no free lunch for free will to be found in QM.
> the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities
> Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined.
> A critical finding was that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. This would suggest there are no hidden variables, although many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the issue
This appears to be an open issue. With evidence pointing towards true randomness.
You mentioned the pilot wave theory. Is there experimental evidence in favor of it beyond standard quantum mechanics?
> Bohmian mechanics has never been widely accepted in the mainstream of the physics community. [0]
Thanks. This is all quite over my head.
This is the crux you should retain.
--I don't know what 'physicalism' means.
--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to.
--Science does not operate on the principle of causation. The point is to make falsifiable predictions that can, when verified, be considered as evidence that your hypothesis for how things work might just be how they work.
There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance.
>--I don't know what 'physicalism' means.
Is "well-defined" a codeword for "I don't understand"? Physicalism is as well-defined of a concept as anything can be.
>--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to.
Since you don't understand what is "physicalism" I don't think you're going to get this point. The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures.
>--Science does not operate on the principle of causation.
So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?".
>There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance.
Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.
I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question.
>So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?".
A scientist has a model for certain phenomena that can be verified experimentally. One can call this causality, sure, but that it leads inexorably towards determinism seems far from clear to me.
>Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.
I have no opinion on the question of 'free will' as you frame it. Is it part of the human condition that one's circumstances have a large role to play in how life proceeds? Certainly! I'm just against the view that science has anything to say about it.
I get that this question can be recursively applied. It's children's favorite game -- to keep asking "what is ____?". I'm going to guess that you disagree with philosophy as a whole and will keep questioning if anything philosophers discuss is well-defined. If that's the case why are we then discussing philosophy?
EDIT: you can also say "I disagree with physicalism" or "I'm a dualist". But saying all those things are not well-defined is merely a cop-out.
I just have a distaste for bringing science into a discussion where it can be finagled into whatever one finds convenient for the matter at hand.
Because that's the definition that everyone is using in this kind of free-form conversation? Nah. If we were all using the same definition, it wouldn't generate this much discussion.
There are religious scientists - they personally believe that miracles exist so they oppose the real methaphysical naturalism but they assume naturalism during work (that is the methodolical kind), and that is enough for progress, science doesn't care.