PSIAD 1
Wo king Pape - Ve sion 3 (No 20, 2025)
© 2025 A seniy Vodopyano . All igh s ese ed.
Physicalism’s Sel -Re u a ion Is as Implici
as I s Agen -Causa ion Denial (PSIAD)
Au ho : A seniy Vodopyano
1
P e-p in a chi ed a SSRN Elec onic Jou nal: h ps://doi.o g/10.2139/ss n.5401163
P e-p in indexed on PhilPape s: h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/VODPSI
Abs ac
PSIAD is a wo-pa p oo cen e ed on he concep o
genuine pe sonal con ol
(GPC).
A concep o en e e ed o as
agen -causa ion
and
oli ion
. Lemma 1 shows ha GPC
denial is sel - e u ing, while Lemma 2 shows ha physicalism/ma e ialism necessi a es
GPC denial. The e o e, his o e all p oo shows physicalism o be sel - e u ing. I.e.,
PSIAD shows ha accep ing any co esponding coun e (in he o m o
compa ibilism,
epiphenomenalism, quan um inde e minacy, eme gen is /non educ i e physicalism,
p ope y dualism, a gumen s om inc eduli y
, e c.)—p o ably en ails abandoning
undamen al p inciples o logic and physics.
Keywo ds
: Philosophy o Mind, Mind–Body P oblem, Libe a ian F ee Will,
Compa ibilism, De e minism, Ma e ialism, Eme gen ism, Subs ance Dualism,
Panpsychism, Mys e ianism
1 Cen e o S udies in Founda ional Dualism
ORCID:
0009-0007-1900-6073
Email:
[email p o ec ed]
† Fo ma ing no e: All unde lines a e edi o ial. In he ull PDF e sion, appendix ci a ions o en link
o co esponding appendix i les, while hese appendix i les link back o whe e hey we e i s ci ed.
PSIAD 2
Consciousness canno be accoun ed o in physical e ms. Fo consciousness is absolu ely
undamen al. I canno be accoun ed o in e ms o any hing else.
—E win Sch ödinge ,
The Obse e
(Sulli an 1931a, 16)
No. I ega d consciousness as undamen al. … We canno ge behind consciousness.
—Max Plank,
The Obse e
(Sulli an 1931b, 17), in esponse o whe he
“consciousness can be explained in e ms o ma e and i s laws”
2
2 The wo Nobel lau ea es— enowned o o igina ing (Plank) and o mula ing he cen al equa ion o
(
Sch ödinge
) wha is widely ega ded as humani y’s mos success ul scien i ic heo y (see
Appendix
O
)—s a ed his conclusion nea ly a cen u y ago. A g owing numbe o academics ha e since come o
concu (see
Appendix A
).
PSIAD 3
In oduc ion, Me hods And Con ex
• Despi e some slow ans o ma ion in his ega d,
3
o a ge physicalism (as p omised in
abs ac ) s ill ul ima ely means a ge ing a ounda ional p emise o mode n scien i ic
discou se. Li le can be aken o g an ed when na iga ing such deeply con en ious
e i o y. Hence, PSIAD
4
is s uc u ed in somewha unusual, mul ilaye ashion (in ended
o sc u iny by bo h expe s and a id non-expe s). While i s mos impo an con ibu ion
(Lemma 1) is only 85 wo ds and i s sel -su icien co e p oo o e all is only 1,700
wo ds, said co e is backed by h ee laye s o auxilia y suppo :
(a) Se e al de ailed oo no es p o ide addi ional speci ici y.
(b) A 10,000-wo d appendix sec ion p o ides ex ensi e supplemen a y ci a ions and a
ew addi ional a gumen s.
(c) While he o hcoming companion book (
Djin in he Machine
; i le inspi ed by
Thomas Huxley and S ephen Hawking) del es deepe ye in o a ious adjacen p oo s,
po en ial coun e s he e o and suchlike.
• Also no ewo hy is ha a la e olume o he o e all co esponding
Two Na u es
book
-
se ies—helps elucida e how he scien i ic app oach o belie o ma ion is
ne e heless objec i ely supe io o he eligious one
5
and why none o his wo k ele a es
eligious explana ions abo e genuinely scien i ic ones.
3 As exempli ied in
Appendix A
.
4
Appendix B
p o ides some addi ional con ex ia i s elabo a ion on his ac onym choice.
5 As also b ie ly co e ed in
Appendix C
.
PSIAD 4
Fu he Genuine Pe sonal Con ol (GPC) Disambigua ion
• As mean he e, GPC is synonymous wi h p ima y de ini ions o e ms like
oli ion
,
agen -causa ion
,
sel -causal de e mina ion
and
[libe a ian] ee will
. E.g., OED
ap ly de ines he la e as: “The powe o an indi idual o make ee choices, no
de e mined by… he laws o physical causali y, a e, e c.” As dis inc om:
- I mmacula e “ ee choice” ha is ne e in luenc ed by p eceding physical causes.
-
[Physicalis ] Compa ibilism
. Whe e econcilia ion o pu e physics wi h ee will
is sough h ough he ollowing ede ini ion/claim: all ou mo i a ions and beha io s
a e ul ima ely p eselec ed o us by p eceding physical causes, bu while hose
p eselec ed beha io s con o m o hose p eselec ed mo i a ions—we quali y as
possessing genuine ee will.
6
Ins ead, GPC would allow subjec s who a e egula ly in luenced by p eceding
physical causes, o subs an i ely anscend being me e e oless ex ensions/ma ione es
he eo .
7
• GPC can be u he o malized/disambigua ed ia he ollowing b ie al e na i e
de ini ion: he minimum equi emen o easonably esol ing he
anscenden al
,
a
p io i
pa adox es ablished in Lemma 1 (L1). Which is wha ul ima ely keeps his e m
om being a bi a y.
6
Appendix D
co obo a es.
7 On op o he “al e na i e de ini ion” p o ided,
Appendix E
supplemen a ily expands on how such
anscendence becomes “subs an i e” ( a he han me e illusion).
PSIAD 5
Lemma 1
.
The Ma ione e-Scien is Pa adox: GPC Denial Is Sel -Re u ing
S1. I humans indeed hold ze o GPC, hen we [a e me e conscious ma ione es who]
possess ze o capaci y o pe sonally e i y he alidi y o any possibili y wha soe e .
S2. Which would imply he e being ze o genuine human capaci y o hus e i y he ze o-
GPC possibili y i sel .
S3. Any claim o any such human ze o-GPC e i ica ion, he e o e p o ing
una oidably sel - e u ing.
S4. And when any e i iable eason o us o accep a possibili y, p o es una oidably
sel - e u ing
—
so, e ec i ely, does ha possibili y i sel .
8
,
9
8 Because when a possibili y inhe en ly e u es any e i iable eason o us o belie e he ein—we’ e
objec i ely le wi h ze o e i iable eason o belie e he ein. The smalles possible amoun he eo .
Cons i u ing ou igh e u a ion by any humanly- e i iable/scien i ic measu e.
I.e., GPC p o es a b u e, anscenden al scien i ic ac (in he same sense ha “b u e ac s o
expe ience… do no need u he jus i ica ion” (No on 2003, 668). No only so because i is he only
cohe en ounda ion (sine qua non) o genuine human e i ica ion and he e o e genuine human science
(making i as empi ically g ounded as human science i sel ), bu —e en mo e impo an ly—because i s
denial simply p o es sel - e u ing.
9 • Is ‘compa ibilis ee will’ no su icien o esol e his pa adox? No emo ely; because i all ou
mo i a ions and beha io s a e ul ima ely p eselec ed o us by p eceding causes (
Appendix D
), we s ill
lack any “capaci y o pe sonally e i y he alidi y o any possibili y wha soe e .” A mos , we a e
me e e i ica ion ins umen s; wi h co esponding accu acy hinging en i ely on calib a ions ha we can
ne e pe sonally con ol. I.e., Ou assessmen will ne e be accu a e, unless hose p eceding causes
happen o calib a e us acco dingly. Only genuine pe sonal con ol o e s any possibili y o genuinely
pe sonal such ‘calib a ion’/ e i ica ion; and hence, o genuinely esol ing he Ma ione e-Scien is
Pa adox (L1).
• Which (as elabo a ed upon in L2.S1.1.1–2 below) mo eo e implies ha we possess genuine pe sonal
‘adminis a i e’/‘building block’ ype con ol o e e en he co e selec ion c i e ia upon which ou
choices a e based. O he wise, ‘ou choices’ would s ill be ully elian upon hose ex e nal
p ecalib a ions and L1 would emain un esol ed.
• Any inc eduli y-based coun e s (e.g., ‘how could his possibly wo k?’) being o e uled by he
a o emen ioned anscenden al, a p io i na u e o he co esponding p oo ; no unlike Desca es’s
Cogi o. Such coun e s we e mo eo e likewise applied o quan um non-locali y/supe posi ion when i
was i s subs an ia ed; s i ling i al scien i ic p og ess had hey been (illogically) accep ed.
PSIAD 6
Segue
:
Though i pa ially echoes p e ious wo k (e.g., Kan ’s
condi ions o he
possibili y o knowledge
, Desca es’s
Cogi o
)— he p oo con ained in Lemma 1 abo e is
appa en ly qui e no el. The main con ibu ion o Lemma 2 below howe e , is i s
syn hesis o la gely well-es ablished a gumen s in o a single uni ied p oo . I s o e all
conclusion especially, ce ainly being no hing new.
10
Lemma 2.
Physicalism Mus Deny GPC
S1. GPC/
Agen -Causa ion
Is Fundamen ally Incompa ible wi h Ele men al Physics
No only is his pa icula conclusion deeply uncon o e sial
11
, bu i can be subs an ia ed
on se e al key on s.
S1.1. Founda ional/On ological (Mos Impo an )
A co ne s one pos ula ion o elemen al physics (bo h classical and quan um) is:
No elemen al physical en i y can change i s own dynamics (e.g., momen um, ene gy,
pa h). In place o such
agen -causa ion
, all said dynamics a e decided ins ead h ough
e en -causa ion
12
. I.e., Th ough p eceding physical causes which boil down o
in e ac ions om o he such en i ies and he p ese
undamen al laws/pa ame e s
ha
dic a e all
13
co esponding ou comes (including
quan um andomness
,
unce ain y
p inciple
, e c.).
No only is said pos ula ion/p eclusion a s a k logical implica ion, bu i has p o en so
i onclad o e cen u ies o s udy as o i sel ha e been bu essed in o many o he mos
undamen al co esponding p inciples; all o which would be unp eceden edly
14
iola ed
i pu e elemen al physics ea u ed GPC. E.g.,
Conse a ion o ene gy
and
he i s law
o he modynamics
(ene gy canno be c ea ed, only ans e ed),
conse a ion o
momen um
and
New on’s laws o mo ion
(momen um canno be c ea ed, only
ans e ed),
U -conse a ion law
a la ge (
ex nihilo nihil i
;
om no hing, no hing
comes
),
physical
causal comple eness
and
causal closu e
o he physical
10 See
Appendix F
.
11
Appendix G
expands.
12 Ibid.
13 See
Appendix H
.
14
Appendix I co obo a es
.
PSIAD 7
(
physical[is ] causali y
; all physical e en s a e owed o ully-su icien p eceding physical
causes).
Mo e p ecisely, he mul iple le els on which GPC in pu e elemen al physics would
unp eceden edly
15
iola e each abo emen ioned p inciple, include:
S1.1.1. Ini ial Sel -Causal (
Causa Sui
) Th us
a. Physical ene gy/momen um is equi ed o ini ia e any change in a pu ely-physical
elemen al en i y’s [physical] dynamics.
b. I all ene gy/momen um indeed long p eda es all cu en elemen al dynamical changes
and indeed only ollows s ic ixed ules, hen (pe ‘a’ abo e) all said changes mus be
en i ely a ibu able o p eexis ing physical causes; no said en i y’s own GPC. I.e., To
e en -causa ion, no [genuine] agen -causa ion.
c. As such, he e y ini ia ion o any pu ely-physical GPC change in any such en i y’s
dynamics, mus en ail said en i y sel -gene a ing nonze o new physical
ene gy–
momen um
16
om li e al no hingness.
(As, again, he e is no o he sou ce/ ounda ion i
can come om in a pu ely-physical sys em.) Which would al eady clea ly iola e
each
17
a o emen ioned undamen al p inciple.
S1.1.2. Sel -De e mina ion Exace ba ions
I only done in a blind/uncon olled way howe e , he sel -gene a ion o hose
ini ial
oli ion h us s
alone—canno cons i u e GPC. Said pu ely-physical elemen al en i y
mus also be capable:
a. O exe cising GPC o e how said h us s a e di ec ed; i.e., o e which pa h i
subsequen ly akes. (O he wise—ins ead o GPC—i is me ely sel -gene a ing ‘ andom
dice olls’.)
b. O mo eo e exe cising such pe sonal con ol o e he selec ion c i e ia upon
which said choices a e based.
c. And e en o [ e]assessing, modi ying and c ea ing new such c i e ia; down o he
co esponding building block le el; in a uly pe sonal, meaning ul way.
15 Ibid.
16 The mos s aigh o wa d con i ma ion o co esponding coupling is simply ha GPC ac ualiza ion
equi es momen um c ea ion, which is impossible wi hou ene gy c ea ion (
Appendix
J.4
con i ms
).
17 Appendices
J.2
–
J.4
expand.
PSIAD 8
O he wise said en i y’s beha io emains ully p eselec ed by wha e e p io causes
de e mined said selec ion c i e ia; ul ima ely allowing said en i y no mo e GPC han
possessed by a complex
Rube Goldbe g con ap ion
(i.e., none).
This compounds each iola ion es ablished in S1.1.1 abo e, because hese addi ional
laye s o con ol would—in u n— equi e hose pu ely-physical elemen al en i ies o sel -
gene a e a mo e ene gy–momen um ye .
S1.1.3.
GPC Ac ualiza ion Mechanism
Canno Ul ima ely Be Physical
Though his may al eady be clea om s1.1.1–2 abo e, lis ed below a e wo addi ional
easons why his conclusion is so pa icula ly inescapable.
S1.1.3.1. Physics: No Componen s, No Mechanism
a. Pu ely physical GPC ac ualiza ion, would equi e some pu ely physical GPC-
ac ualiza ion mechanism.
b. No mechanism [and ce ainly no such mechanism] can consis o a singula physical
componen .
c. Ye an elemen al physical en i y mus i sel [by de ini ion] consis o a singula
componen .
d. E go, an elemen al physical en i y canno possess a pu ely-physical GPC-ac ualiza ion
mechanism. And i i does possess GPC none heless, he co esponding ac ualiza ion
mus be nonphysical
18
in na u e.
S1.1.3.2. Physics: No C i e ia, No Meaning
Le ’s igno e he p e ious a gumen he e and mo eo e (gene ously
19
) g an ha bo h
physical
meaning
and
physical selec ion c i e ia
a e easible co esponding concep s
o begin wi h. I ’s es ablished ia
L1.ii/L
2.S1.1.2 abo e, ha meaning ul building-block-
le el ( e)con igu a ion o co e pe sonal selec ion c i e ia—is a equisi e GPC capaci y.
This howe e , is logically impossible unde pu e physics:
a. Much as buildings canno disassemble/ eassemble hei own ounda ions, pu ely
physical en i ies canno in p inciple pe o m meaning ul/pe sonal building-block-le el
18 Nonphysical need no be o en i ely di e en composi ion, jus adically/ undamen ally so
(Appendix
J.1.3
expands).
19 See
Appendix K
.
PSIAD 9
econ igu a ion o hei own co e physical selec ion c i e ia; because wi hou co e
physical selec ion c i e ia, physical meaning has no basis. I.e., Such [meaning ul]
pu ely-physical disassembly/ eassembly o co e selec ion c i e ia— equi es said
c i e ia. This
in ini e- eg ess/homunculus allacy
p ecludes pu ely physical such
en i ies om possessing said capaci y and hus, om possessing GPC.
b. The only hope o his c i e ial pa adox being ou maneu e ed, hinges on some
inne mos nonphysical/‘ x- ac o ’ ype componen (s) p o iding addi ional
co esponding deg ees o eedom. I.e., On said en i y possessing some nonphysical
mind/consciousness which can manipula e nonphysical selec ion c i e ia—along wi h
hei building blocks—in ways ha physical componen s/p ocesses canno in p inciple
pe mi (again, pe ‘a’ di ec ly abo e).
While any such nonphysical mechanism hailing- om and mo ing he physical, would
implici ly iola e each undamen al p inciple in ques ion all o e again.
20
In Sum o S1.1
And so, in each o hose h ee cases (S1.1.1–3), all o hose undamen al p inciples
would be iola ed.
21
S1.2. Empi ical
a. No , a e many cen u ies o s udy, is he e any [expe imen al o obse a ional]
e idence o he con a y. I.e., O elemen al physical en i ies possessing GPC.
b. All empi ically- e i ied co esponding heo ies (in bo h classical and quan um
domains) likewise lea ing no oom o GPC beha io in elemen al physics.
22
S1.3. P ecluded by he Ve y ‘Language O Physics’
The law/ ule based ma hema ical ‘language o physics’
23
is i sel undamen ally
incapable o compu ing/exp essing GPC. Because in o de o be uly
compu able/exp essible ( a he han me ely loosely-desc ibable) ia any ixed
co esponding law(s)/ ule(s),
x
mus be s ic ly go e ned he eby. E en quan um
andomness quali ies; as i is so s ic ly go e ned by unde lying ules (e.g., physical
20 Appendices
J.2
–
J.4
expand.
21 Appendix
J.4
expands.
22 Ins ead, lea ing oom o beha io dic a ed by p eceding (de e minis ic and/o pu ely- andom)
causes only. (
Appendix L
expands.)
23
Appendix M con i ms.
PSIAD 16
Ca oll, Sean M. 2021. “Why Some hing Ra he Than No hing?” In The Rou ledge
Companion o he Philosophy o Physics, edi ed by Eleano Knox and
Alas ai Wilson. Rou ledge.
Chalme s, Da id J. 2006. “S ong and Weak Eme gence.” In The Re-Eme gence o
Eme gence: The Eme gen is Hypo hesis om Science o Religion, edi ed by
Philip Clay on and Paul Da ies. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Chalme s, Da id J., and Da id Bou ge . 2023. “Philosophe s on Philosophy: The 2020
PhilPape s Su ey.” Philosophe s’ Imp in 23 (11).
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814071956/h ps://su ey2020.philpeople.o g/
su ey/ esul s/4838
.
Choi, Cha les Q. 2013. “Some hing om No hing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes o
Ligh .” Scien i ic Ame ican, 2013.
Chu chland, Paul. 2011. “Consciousness and he In ospec ion o ‘Quali a i e
Simples’.” Eidos, no. 15, 12–47.
h ps://www. esea chga e.ne /publica ion/262457233_Consciousness_and_ he_I
n ospec ion_o _'Quali a i e_Simples
'.
Cox, B ian, and Je Fo shaw. 2012. The Quan um Uni e se. Da Capo P ess.
C ane, Tim. 2001. “The Signi icance o Eme gence.” In Physicalism and I s
Discon en s, edi ed by B. Loewe and G. Gille . Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
C ane, Tim. 2010. “Cosmic He meneu ics s. Eme gence: The Challenge o he
Explana o y Gap.” In Eme gence in Mind, edi ed by Cyn hia Macdonald and
G aham Macdonald. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Da ies, Paul, and John G ibbin. 2007. The Ma e My h: D ama ic Disco e ies Tha
Challenge Ou Unde s anding o Physical Reali y. Simon & Schus e .
Dawkins, Richa d. 2012. “Some hing om No hing.” Lec u e o he O igins P ojec ,
A izona S a e Uni e si y. YouTube ideo, 1:58:12.
h ps://www.you ube.com/wa ch? =gH9U n AR 8& =7092s
.
Deacon, Te ence W. 2006. "Eme gence." In The Re-Eme gence o Eme gence: The
Eme gen is Hypo hesis om Science o Religion, edi ed by Philip Clay on
and Paul Da ies. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
De Swa , Ha ie. 2018. Philosophical and Ma hema ical Logic. Sp inge
Unde g adua e Tex s in Philosophy.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-030-03255-
5
.
Du y, B ian R. 1998. “Wo k and Ene gy.” Lec u e no es, Physics Depa men ,
Bos on Uni e si y.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814201405/h ps://physics.bu.edu/~du y/
py105/no es/Ene gy.h ml
.
Encyclopedia o Science and Religion. 2025. “Downwa d Causa ion.”
Encyclopedia.com.
PSIAD 17
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813031412/h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/
educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/downwa d-causa ion
.
Encyclopedia o Science and Religion. 2025. “Physicalism, Reduc i e and
Non educ i e.” Encyclopedia.com.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813024710/h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/
educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/physicalism- educ i e-
and-non educ i e
.
F ancesco i, Robe M. 2000. “On ological Physicalism and P ope y Plu alism: Why
They A e Incompa ible.” Paci ic Philosophical Qua e ly 81 (4): 349–62.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1468-0114.00109
.
Galilei, Galileo. 1957. Disco e ies and Opinions o Galileo. T ansla ed and edi ed by
S illman D ake. Ancho Books.
Göcke, Benedik Paul. 2012. “In oduc ion.” In A e Physicalism, edi ed by Benedik
Paul Göcke. Uni e si y o No e Dame P ess.
Hawking, S ephen. 2007. The Illus a ed Theo y o E e y hing: The O igin and Fa e
o he Uni e se. Phoenix Books.
Hawking, S ephen. 2010. The G and Design. Ban am Books.
Hossen elde , Sabine, and Tim Palme . 2020. "Re hinking Supe de e minism."
F on ie s in Physics 8 (139).
h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ phy.2020.00139
.
Humph eys, Paul. 2016. “Eme gence.” In The Ox o d Handbook o Philosophy o
Science, edi ed by Paul Humph eys. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/ox o dhb/9780199368815.001.0001
.
Janssen, Sa ah, ed. 2022. The Wo ld Almanac and Book o Fac s 2023. Wo ld
Almanac Books.
Ke šys, Ma as. 2022. "Epicu us’ Swe e and he Randomness Objec ion o F ee Will."
Li e a ū a 64 (3): 31–42.
h ps://doi.o g/10.15388/Li e a.2022.64.3.3
.
Kim, Jaegwon. 1993. “The My h o Non educ i e Ma e ialism.” In Supe enience
and Mind, 265–84. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9780511625220.015
.
Kim, Jaegwon. 2005. Physicalism, o Some hing Nea Enough. P ince on Uni e si y
P ess.
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/j.c 7sn s
.
Koch, Ch is o . 2009. “F ee Will, Physics, Biology, and he B ain.” In Downwa d
Causa ion and he Neu obiology o F ee Will, edi ed by Nancey Mu phy,
Geo ge F.R. Ellis, and Timo hy O’Conno . Unde s anding Complex Sys ems.
Sp inge .
Koch, Ch is o . 2014. “Ubiqui ous Minds.” Scien i ic Ame ican, 2014.
PSIAD 18
K auss, Law ence M. 2012. A Uni e se om No hing: Why The e Is Some hing
Ra he han No hing. F ee P ess.
K auss, Law ence M. 2012. “Some hing om No hing.” Lec u e o he O igins
P ojec , A izona S a e Uni e si y. YouTube ideo, 1:59:06.
h ps://www.you ube.com/wa ch? =gH9U n AR 8& =7146s
.
Läh eenmäki, Pasi, G. S. Pa aoanu, K. Y. Tan, J. Hassel, P. J. Hakonen, and M. A.
Sillanpää. 2013. “Dynamical Casimi E ec in a Josephson Me ama e ial.”
P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences 110 (11): 4234–38.
London, F i z, and Edmond Baue . 1983. “The Theo y o Obse a ion in Quan um
Mechanics.” In Quan um Theo y and Measu emen , edi ed by J. A. Wheele
and W. H. Zu ek. P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814213156/h ps://www3.nd.edu/~dhowa d1/
The%20Theo y%20o %20Obse a ion%20in%20Quan um%20Mechanics.pd
.
McHen y, Leemon. 2010. “Sp igge’s On ology o Consciousness.” Royal Ins i u e o
Philosophy Supplemen s 67: 5–20.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1358246110000093
.
McKenna, Michael, and D. Jus in Coa es. 2025. “Compa ibilism.” In The S an o d
Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Summe 2025 ed., edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a
and U i Nodelman.
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2025/en ies/compa ibilism/
.
Mon oy-Nas , Zu aya. 1998. “Ca esian Dualism and he Union o Mind and Body: A
Synch onic In e p e a ion.” The Paideia A chi e: Twen ie h Wo ld Cong ess
o Philosophy 11: 122–27.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5840/wcp20-paideia199811252
.
Moo e, Dwayne. 2019. “Causal Exclusion and Physical Causal Comple eness.”
Dialec ica 73 (4): 479–505.
h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/48552634
.
Mun, Cecilea. 2021. In e disciplina y Founda ions o he Science o Emo ion:
Uni ica ion wi hou Consilience. Palg a e Macmillan.
Nagel, Thomas. 1974. “Wha Is I Like o Be a Ba ?” The Philosophical Re iew 83
(4): 435–50.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2183914
.
Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos: Why he Ma e ialis Neo-Da winian
Concep ion o Na u e Is Almos Ce ainly False. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Nelkin, Dana Kay. 2011. “A Compa ibilis Accoun o Agen Causa ion.” In Making
Sense o F eedom and Responsibili y. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/acp o :oso/9780199608560.003.0005
.
Neumann, John on. 1955. Ma hema ical Founda ions o Quan um Mechanics.
T ansla ed by Robe T. Beye . P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Nicke son, Raymond S. 2020. A gumen a ion: The A o Pe suasion. Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
PSIAD 19
No on, John D. 2003. “A Ma e ial Theo y o Induc ion.” Philosophy o Science 70
(4): 647–70.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1086/378858
.
O’Conno , Timo hy. 2025. “Eme gen P ope ies.” In The S an o d Encyclopedia o
Philosophy, Summe 2025 ed., edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a and U i Nodelman.
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2025/en ies/p ope ies-eme gen /
.
Olenick, Richa d P., Tom M. Apos ol, and Da id L. Goods ein. 2008. The
Mechanical Uni e se: Mechanics and Hea , Ad anced Edi ion. Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
O , Wal e , and Alex Dunn. 2013. “René Desca es (1596–1650).” In Mode n
Philosophy. BCcampus.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815031614/h ps://open ex bc.ca/mode nphilo
sophy/
.
Pang, Damian K. F. 2024. "Is he Uni e se Conscious?: Could consciousness be a
undamen al p ope y o he uni e se?" Psychology Today, 2024.
h ps://www.psychology oday.com/ca/blog/consciousness-and-beyond/202409/
is- he-uni e se-conscious
.
Paull, R. C ans on, and Theodo e R. Side . 1992. “In De ense o Global
Supe enience.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Resea ch 52 (4): 833–
54.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813033047/h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/
UEHIDO
.
Pi s, J. B ian. 2021. “Conse a ion o Ene gy: Missing Fea u es in I s Na u e and
Jus i ica ion and Why They Ma e .” Founda ions o Science 26: 559–84.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10699-020-09657-1
.
Poppe , Ka l R., and John C. Eccles. 1977. The Sel and I s B ain: An A gumen Fo
In e ac ionism. Rou ledge.
Pospiech, G., M. Michelini, and E. S e anel. 2016. "The ole o ma hema ics o
physics eaching and unde s anding." Il Nuo o Cimen o C 38(3): 110.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1393/ncc/i2015-15110-6
.
Rae, Alas ai . 2004. Quan um Physics: Illusion o Reali y? Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess.
Resche , Nicholas, and Mo on L. Schag in. 2025. “Fallacy.” In Encyclopedia
B i annica.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813211323/h ps://www.b i annica.com/
opic/ allacy
Robinson, Howa d. 2024. “Dualism.” In The S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy,
Summe 2024 ed., edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a and U i Nodelman.
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2024/en ies/dualism/
.
Ryan, Liam D. 2024. “Going Men al: Why Physicalism Should No Posi Insc u able
P ope ies.” E kenn nis 89 (8).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10670-024-00894-5
.
PSIAD 20
Sagan, Ca l. 1995. The Demon-Haun ed Wo ld: Science as a Candle in he Da k.
Random House.
Sa ka , Saho a, and Jessica P ei e , eds. 2006. “Physicalism.” In The Philosophy o
Science: An Encyclopedia. Rou ledge.
Schmiljun, And é. 2018. “Why Can’ We Rega d Robo s as People?” E hics in
P og ess 9 (1): 44–61.
h ps://doi.o g/10.14746/eip.2018.1.3
.
Schneide , Susan. 2012. "Why P ope y Dualis s Mus Rejec Subs ance Physicalism."
Philosophical S udies: An In e na ional Jou nal o Philosophy in he
Analy ic T adi ion 157 (1): 61–76.
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/41406961
.
Schome us, Henning. n.d. “Quan um Mechanics — PHYS223.” Lec u e no es,
Lancas e Uni e si y, Depa men o Physics. Accessed Augus 14, 2025.
Seage , William E. 2010. “Panpsychism.” In The S an o d Encyclopedia o
Philosophy, Fall 2010 ed., edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815002049/h ps://www.u sc.u o on o.ca/
~seage /pan_seage .pd
.
Seage , William E., Philip Go , and Sean Allen-He manson. 2022. “Panpsychism.” In
The S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, 2022 ed., edi ed by Edwa d N.
Zal a and U i Nodelman.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815002904/h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/SEAP
.
Sea le, Amy. 2025. “No-Go Theo em Illumina es How Quan um P ocesses A e
Cons ained by Classical Causali y.” Physics Wo ld, 2025.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250923225232/h ps://physicswo ld.com/a/no-go-
heo em-illumina es-how-quan um-p ocesses-a e-cons ained-by-classical-
causali y/
.
Sha p, Hasana. 2011. Spinoza and he Poli ics o Rena u aliza ion. Uni e si y o
Chicago P ess.
S ephan, Achim. 1997. “A mchai A gumen s agains Eme gen ism.” E kenn nis 46
(3): 305–14.
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/20012770
.
S oga z, S e en. 2022. "Wha Is Quan um Field Theo y and Why Is I Incomple e?"
Quan a Magazine, 2022.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250823223926/h ps://www.quan amagazine.o g/
wha -is-quan um- ield- heo y-and-why-is-i -incomple e-20220810/
.
S ye , Daniel F. 2000. The S ange Wo ld o Quan um Mechanics. Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250122235748/h ps:/www2.obe lin.edu/
physics/ds ye /S angeQM/in o.h ml
.
Sulli an, J. W. N. (1931). “In e iews wi h g ea scien is s. IV. E win Sch ödinge .”
The Obse e [Newspape In e iew] Janua y 11.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813230739/h ps://www.newspape s.com/
a icle/ he-obse e - he-obse e -jan-11-1931/101389961/.
PSIAD 21
Sulli an, J. W. N. (1931). “In e iews wi h g ea scien is s. VI. Max Plank.” The
Obse e [Newspape In e iew] Janua y 25.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20251120020331/h ps://www.newspape s.com/
a icle/ he-obse e -max-planck-obse e -12531/25590070/
.
Thaga d, Paul. 2003. “Cogni i e Science.” In The S an o d Encyclopedia o
Philosophy, Summe 2003 ed., edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a.
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2003/en ies/cogni i e-science/
.
Tye, Michael. 2021. “Qualia.” In The S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Fall 2021
ed., edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a.
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/ all2021/en ies/qualia/
.
Uni e si y College Dublin, School o Ma hema ics and S a is ics. 2023. “Theo e ical
Physics.” Unde g adua e FAQs, 2023.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250816014142/h ps:/www.ucd.ie/ma hs a /
s udy/unde g adua es udy/unde g adua e aq/
.
Velissa is, Ch is, and Cos as E himiou. 2015. “Momen um.” Lec u e no es,
Uni e si y o Cen al Flo ida.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814194954/h ps://physics.uc .edu/
~c elissa is/Summe 15/PSC1121/OldLec u es/9%20Momen um.pd
.
Ve oo , L. 2019. “P obabili y Theo y as a Physical Theo y Poin s o
Supe de e minism.” En opy 21 (9): 848.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/e21090848
.
Vilasini, Ved an, and Rena o Renne . 2024. "Fundamen al Limi s o Realising
Quan um P ocesses in Space ime." Physical Re iew Le e s 133 (8): 080201.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1103/PhysRe Le .133.080201
.
Vin iadis, Elly. 2021. “Eme gence.” In In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815011923/h ps://iep.u m.edu/eme gence/
.
Vodopyano , A. 2025. “Simplici y, No Simplism: In De ence o Occam’s Razo as
Scien i ic Necessi y.” SSRN Elec onic Jou nal.
h p://doi.o g/10.2139/ss n.5570539
.
Weine , F iedel. 1998. “Philosophy o Science: When he Scien is Tu ns
Philosophe .” Pape p esen ed a he 20 h Wo ld Cong ess o Philosophy,
Bos on Uni e si y.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814205414/h ps://www.bu.edu/wcp/Pape s/
Scie/ScieWein.h m
.
Wei , R. 2024. “P ope y Dualism Implies Subs ance Dualism.” Jou nal o
Philosophical Theological Resea ch 26 no. 1 (Special issue: Mind, Body,
and Consciousness): 21–46.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814231533/h ps://p k.qom.ac.i /a icle_2728
_ac6215627aec096d65c16be0c33671d1.pd
.
Weisbe g, Josh. 2021. “The Ha d P oblem o Consciousness.” In In e ne
Encyclopedia o Philosophy.
PSIAD 22
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815024942/h ps://iep.u m.edu/ha d-p oblem-
o -conciousness/
.
Wigne , E. P. 1960. “The Un easonable E ec i eness o Ma hema ics in he Na u al
Sciences.” Communica ions in Pu e and Applied Ma hema ics 13: 1–14.
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20240514035743/h ps://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/
blogs.uo egon.edu/dis /c/11942/ iles/2016/02/Wigne -ma h-in-na u al-
sciences-1960-J-pu e-appplied-ma h-2dk4spx.pd
.
Wol son, Richa d. 2016. Essen ial Uni e si y Physics. Pea son.
PSIAD 23
Appendices
This appendix sec ion con ains ap opos ci a ions and some supplemen a y a gumen s.
Said a gumen s a e mos ly ligh elabo a ion on wha is al eady implied in he main ex .
Whe eas—aside om co obo a ing less- han-ob ious basics—said ci a ions se e
supplemen a y e e ence and ein o cemen pu poses only. Once again, PSIAD’s co e
s eng h is in ended o be sel -con ained ( a he han elian on ei he such seconda y
a gumen s o appeals o au ho i y
1
).
1
Appendix C
elabo a es.
PSIAD 24
Appendix A.
Sch ödinge and Plank Ce ainly No Alone
a. The cu en poin —along wi h a ious co esponding nuances—is co e ed a mo e
leng h in Appendices
J
and
K
. E.g., J.2.4.1.e.ii (Chu chland 2011, 17; Chu chland
2014, 37):
“We ha e he e a ga he ing consensus ha he… conscious… is some hing ha he
physical sciences… will ne e explain.”
b. O pe he
Royal Ins i u e o Philosophy
(McHen y 2010, 16):
“We ha e come a long way in ha he numbe o philosophe s who no longe ega d
[ he iew ha ‘consciousness [i]s some hing no explicable in physical e ms’] as
inc edible has inc eased signi ican ly. Gi en he s alema e in explaining consciousness
in con empo a y philosophy o mind, e en panpsychism has been e-in oduced in o
mains eam by he likes o Da id Chalme s, Galen S awson, Da id Sk bina, and
William Seage .”
c. And u he echoed in
Psychology Today
, by he cogni i e scien is bes known o
disco e ing he
Subliminal Senso y Bu e S o e
(Pang, 2024):
“[Enough] schola s ha e sugges ed ha [consciousness] is a undamen al aspec o he
uni e se[ ha ] his iew, [some imes e e ed o as conscious] undamen alism is no
longe jus a inge heo y bu has some espec ed suppo e s (Ho man e al., 2022;
Schu ge & G aziano, 2022).”
PSIAD 25
Appendix B
. PSIAD Ac onym Elabo a ion
The ac onym o his p oo ’s i le—PSIAD—is p onounced “psy add” o jus “sad.”
Which is ap opos because:
a. This p oo add esses he ques ion o whe he o no ce ain i e u able ace s o ou
psyches necessi a e li ing he longs anding ban on open, la ge-scale scien i ic inqui y
in o an en i e addi ional ounda ion.
b. And i such a s aigh o wa d p oo canno be easonably e u ed, is i no indeed ‘an
objec i ely sad hing’ ha an en i e domain—wi h i s un old scien i ic po en ial—
emains so ho oughly
1
o e looked (me ely o p olong physicalism’s illogical,
unscien i ic eign)?
A e all, pe
S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy
(SEP): “Philosophy, in pa icula
philosophy o mind, is pa o cogni i e science”
(Thaga d 2003
)
.
1
Appendix D
elabo a es.
PSIAD 32
d. Ano he amed physicis , physicalis and a heis also epea edly concludes:
“The s a e o he uni e se and i s con en s, like ou sel es, a e comple ely de e mined
by he laws o physics... So much o ee will” (Hawking 2007, 63).
“Though we eel ha we can choose wha we do, ou … biological p ocesses a e
go e ned by he laws o physics and chemis y and he e o e a e as de e mined as he
o bi s o he plane s. … Ou physical b ain, ollowing he known laws o science,
de e mines ou ac ions, and no some agency ha exis s ou side hose laws …We a e
no mo e han biological machines[,] ee will is jus an illusion” Hawking 2010, 31–
32).
e. As la e echoed by ye ano he amed physicis , physicalis and a heis Law ence
K auss (2012, 1:59:06):
“E e y hing I know abou he wo ld ells me he e’s no such hing as ee will.
[Humans a e] jus like… pa icles[
—
] hey beha e as i hey can do hings ha
hey’ e no being o ced o do…and we beha e as i we ha e ee will, because we
li e in a e y complex wo ld [whose complexi y si es said ee will illusion].”
. And as likewise echoed by he o he pa icipan o ha same p esen a ion— amed
biologis , physicalis and a heis Richa d Dawkins (2012, 1:58:12):
“I ha e a ma e ialis iew o he wo ld. I hink ha hings a e de e mined in a a ional
way by an eceden e en s. And so ha commi s me o he iew ha , when I hink I
ha e ee will, when I hink ha I’m exe cising ee choice—I’m deluding mysel .
Tha my b ain s a es a e de e mined by physical e en s.” I.e., By e en -causa ion, no
agen -causa ion.
PSIAD 33
Appendix H.
All Physics Con olled by Laws/Rules
Exce p s om he i s ou ci a ions pe aining o Appendix G abo e, should amply
su ice he e:
Pe 7.a: “The laws o physics… comple ely desc ibe… he en i e u u e o he
uni e se[.] The e is no oom o human choice, so he e is no such hing as ee will.”
Pe 7.b: “All any objec e e does is obey… he laws o physics. …The ‘ eason’
[any hing] happens is because i was he ine i able ou come o he s a e o he
uni e se a an ea lie ime.”
Pe 7.c: “Fundamen al laws o na u e… go e n he beha iou o all physical objec s
in he uni e se.”
Pe 7.d: “The s a e o he uni e se and i s con en s, like ou sel es, a e comple ely
de e mined by he laws o physics”… “as de e mined as he o bi s o he plane s.”
Ca ea : Single-Handedly Subs an ia ing Lemma 2
While e en his poin alone, is su icien o subs an ia e Lemma 2 (pe
ex nihilo nihil i )
.
I.e., I such immu able law ulness we e indeed he sole ounda ion o all exis ence—
GPC’s quin essen ial law- anscendence would ha e o a ise om li e al no hingness
(i.e.,
ex nihilo
; om he u e absence he eo ). Thus iola ing all
1
he undamen al
p inciples in ques ion.
1 See
Appendix J
a la ge and and
J.4
in pa icula .
PSIAD 34
Appendix I.
Has Quan um Mechanics (QM) o Any O he Aspec o Elemen al Physics
Been P o en o Viola e Any o These Laws/P inciples? (No.)
Ca ea : No a PSIAD Mus , bu Happens o Be So
Mus his be he case o PSIAD o wo k? No unless he e is a easonable, pu ely-
physicalis delinea ion o he co esponding mechanism which can also accoun o GPC.
In lieu he eo , o he such iola ions would only g ow he lis o phenomena ha
physicalism canno explain. Cons i u ing only mo e co esponding p oblems; a he han
easonable solu ions wi h which o coun e PSIAD. Tha said, he ac ha hese p inciples
ha e no o he p o en excep ions [much less pu ely physicalis ones]—does s eng hen
PSIAD u he ye .
I.1. Ene gy–Momen um Conse a ion
a. Pe he college physics ex book by Dallas Uni e si y Physics Depa men chai , R.
Olenick and Cal ech’s F. Gilloon Dis inguished P o esso o Physics, D. Goods ein e al.:
“The law o conse a ion o ene gy is one o he mos undamen al laws o physics.
No ma e wha you do, ene gy is always conse ed” (2008, 219).
“The law o conse a ion o momen um [is] like ha o conse a ion o
ene gy[—]a as and powe ul p inciple. I makes an o e all s a emen abou na u e
wi hou ussing o e he de ails o he o ce in ol ed. …The wo d
in e ac
in
physics means ha some o ce is applied be ween he objec s. We may no know he
de ails o he o ce, and we may no know whe he he objec s ha e ouched o [pe
‘quan um nonlocali y’] in e ac ed a a dis ance wi hou di ec con ac , bu we can
conclude ha o a b ie ime he pa icles ha e exe ed o ces on each o he om
he ac ha he mo ion o each objec is changed. By using he laws o conse a ion
o ene gy and momen um, we can p edic much abou he subsequen mo ion o
pa icles in his ype o encoun e ” (2008, 275).
b. “Physics does no allow any excep ions. The p inciple o ene gy conse a ion has
been es ed again and again and always comes ou a winne ” (Koch 2009, 41).
PSIAD 35
c. “The law o conse a ion o ene gy s a es ha ene gy can no be c ea ed o des oyed...
The law o conse a ion o ene gy applies always, e e ywhe e, in any si ua ion” (Du y,
1998).
d. “I a sys em is isola ed (NOT in luenced by ex e nal o ces) Conse a ion o
Momen um is always alid" (Velissa is and E himiou 2015).
e. See also J.2.4.2.c below (Chu chland 2011, 45; Chu chland 2014, 55): ”momen um in
any closed sys em is always conse ed.”
In Sum o I.1: No p o en physicalis excep ions o ene gy o momen um conse a ion
exis .
I.2.
Some hing om No hing
The closes ha mode n elemen al/ undamen al physics comes o a genuine
ex nihilo
nihil i
iola ion—i.e., o some hing a ising om uly no hing—is wha ’s known as he
quan um acuum luc ua ion
phenomenon. Said acuum ha ing some imes been
misleadingly equa ed wi h ‘no hingness’ in popula science books such as Law ence
K auss’s
A Uni e se om No hing: Why The e Is Some hing Ra he han No hing
(2012).
a. Among his amed c i iques o his K auss book/claim, Di ec o o he MA P og am in
The Philosophical Founda ions o Physics a Columbia Uni e si y, Da id Albe (2012),
w o e:
“K auss… appa en ly means o announce… ha he laws o quan um mechanics ha e
in hem he makings o a ho oughly scien i ic… explana ion o why he e is some hing
a he han no hing. …I kid you no . Look a he sub i le. Look a how Richa d
Dawkins sums i up in his a e wo d…
[Bu ] whe e, o s a e s, a e he laws o quan um mechanics hemsel es supposed o
ha e come om? K auss is mo e o less up on .. abou no ha ing a clue[. Mo eo e ]
he undamen al physical laws ha K auss is alking abou [—] he laws o ela i is ic
quan um ield heo ies[—]ha e no hing wha soe e o say on he subjec o whe e
PSIAD 36
[ hei ] ields came om… [Ye hose] ela i is ic-quan um- ield- heo e ical acuum
s a es—no less han gi a es o e ige a o s o sola sys ems—a e pa icula
a angemen s o elemen a y physical s u . The ue ela i is ic-quan um- ield-
heo e ical equi alen o he e no being any physical s u a all isn’ his [as K auss
de ines i , bu ] he simple absence o … ields.”
b. E en o e a decade ea lie , physicis John D. Ba ow (Di ac P ize and he Gold Medal
o he Royal As onomical Socie y) made i clea ha he quan um acuum has by hen
long been es ablished as a om ue no hingness:
“The quan um e olu ion showed us why he old pic u e o a acuum as an emp y
box was un enable. [I s] s a e was by no means emp y. …A acuum ene gy…
pe mea ed e e y ib e o he Uni e se. [Said ene gy] was de ec ed and shown o ha e
a angible physical p esence” (2000, 10).
c. The abo e conclusions we e hen only u he ein o ced ia mul iple s udies (Choi
2013; Läh eenmäki e al. 2013):
“The scien is s de ailed hei indings online… in P oceedings o he Na ional
Academy o Sciences. ‘This wo k and a numbe o o he ecen wo ks demons a e
ha he acuum is no emp y bu ull o i ual pho ons,’ says heo e ical physicis
S e en Gi in a Yale.”
d. Sean Ca oll, in his own di ec esponse o K auss’s book/claim, likewise w o e
(2012):
“Do ad ances in mode n physics and cosmology help us add ess hese unde lying
ques ions, o why he e is some hing called he uni e se a all, and why he e a e
hings called ‘ he laws o physics,’ and why hose laws seem o ake he o m o
quan um mechanics…? In a wo d: no. I don’ see how hey could. Some imes
physicis s p e end ha hey a e add essing hese ques ions, which is oo bad, because
hey a e jus being lazy and no hinking ca e ully abou he p oblem.”
e. A decade la e , Ca oll’s disbelie in he e y co esponding possibili y was ap ly
o malized ia
The Rou ledge Companion o he Philosophy o Physics
(2021, 703):
“E e y a emp o answe he ques ion ‘Why is he e some hing a he han no hing?’
ul ima ely g ounds in a b u e ac [wi h] no u he explana ion.”
PSIAD 37
See also pa I.3 below.
In Sum o I.2: The e exis no p o en physicalis iola ions o
ex nihilo nihil i
.
I.3. Physical[is ]: Causal Closu e, Comple eness, Causali y
Gi en how closely hese p inciples a e ela ed, he in o ma ion below also u he
con i ms I.2 abo e. I.e., I
ex nihilo nihil i
is iola ed in pu e elemen al physics, hen
some hing physical mus ha e come om li e al no hingness, which would in u n mean
ha said new physical phenomenon was causeless and hus iola es physical[is ]
closu e/comple eness/causali y. And he e o e, con e sely, he con i ma ions below as o
he lack o any p o en such iola ions in elemen al physics—also ea i m he (I.2
co obo a ed) lack o any
ex nihilo nihil i
iola ions.
a. B ad o d Eme i us Philosophy o Science P o esso , F iedel Weine (1998), no only
con i ms ha QM does no iola e physical causali y, bu emphasizes he impo ance o
ca e ul co esponding dis inc ion:
“Despi e popula imp essions ha quan um mechanics has spel he end o causali y,
quan um mechanics does no abandon causali y. [Ins ead, q]uan um mechanical
e idence led o a ca e ul dis inc ion be ween de e minism and causali y.”
b. Vilasini and Renne (2024) es ablished ha , as ph ased by Sea le (2025):
“Quan um p ocesses a e cons ained by classical causali y.”
c. Gi en he abo e, i is also unsu p ising ha he ollowing wo ci a ions con i m QM’s
cen al equa ion o be desc ibing causal p ocesses:
i. “The cen al equa ion o quan um mechanics [is] he Sch ödinge equa ion”
(Schome us, n.d.).
ii. “The Sch ödinge equa ion has all he ea u es o a causal connec ion” (London
and Baue 1983, 232).
PSIAD 38
d. No is his a su p ise gi en ha e en in his seminal wo k on QM, physicis John on
Neumann (1956 En ico Fe mi Awa d and Na ional Medal o F eedom) w o e:
“[The Sch ödinge equa ion] desc ibes how he sys em changes con inuously and
causally” (1955, 229).
e. SEP also blun ly s a es (O’Conno and Wong 2025):
“Physicalism[’s] hesis is s anda dly unde s ood o en ail ‘ he causal closu e o he
physical’… accoun s [ ha iola e causal closu e] a e inconsis en wi h physicalism.”
. In he seminal collabo a ion be ween Nobel lau ea e neu ophysiologis (Eccles) and
p eeminen philosophe o science bes known o his all-impo an
alsi iabili y
p inciple (Poppe ), he au ho s likewise s a e:
“The physicalis p inciple o he closedness o he physical wo ld… is o decisi e
impo ance [i.e.,] he cha ac e is ic p inciple o physicalism o ma e ialism” (1977, 51).
In Sum o I.3: The e exis no p o en physicalis iola ions o physical[is ]: causal closu e,
comple eness, causali y.
In Sum o Appendix I: Any physicalis iola ion o he undamen al physical p inciples
lis ed in L2.S.1.1, would indeed be scien i ically “unp eceden ed”.
PSIAD 39
Appendix J:
Can ‘Physicalis GPC’ A oid Viola ing Any o These O he wise-
Immu able
1
P inciples? (No.) Is Founda ional Dualism Really a Signi ican
Imp o emen ? (Yes.)
The wo main poin s men ioned in he i le abo e, a e elabo a ed upon ia pa s J.1 and
J.2
(in e e se o de ). Pa
J.3
con i ms ha
s ong eme gence
is pu ely specula i e.
While pa
J.4
is a ligh elabo a ion on why Lemma 2’s “In Sum o S1.1” co ec ly s a es
ha all o hose undamen al p inciples a e iola ed in each o hose h ee cases (as
desc ibed in L2 S1.1.1–3).
J.1.
Is Founda ional Dualism Really a Signi ican Imp o emen ?
J.1.1. A e These P inciples No Equally Viola ed Unde Founda ional Dualism? (No.)
I me i s eemphasis ha a emp ing o i GPC in o physicalism is wha makes
co esponding iola ions so inescapable and ex eme. Some hing changed d ama ically
unde a dualis scena io whe e GPC s ems ins ead om a sepa a e, nonphysical
ounda ion. Fo s a e s:
ex nihilo nihil i
and
physical[is ]
comple eness/closu e/causali y iola ions—would all no longe apply in he la e case.
As GPC would hen ha e a dis inc (
non no hing
) sou ce and physics could no longe be
conside ed a
closed/isola ed sys em
;
whe e all causes a e s ic ly in e nal/physical. Said
dualism could well also p o e key o esol ing he emaining wo iola ions, because (i)
ene gy and momen um conse a ion laws we e likewise concei ed unde hose
closed/isola ed physicalis sys em
assump ions and (ii) said laws s a e ha while ene gy–
momen um canno be c ea ed, i can be con e ed om o he co esponding o ms.
Some hing pe ec ly allowable unde he dualis GPC scena io (unlike i s pu ely
physicalis coun e pa ).
a. Pe
Wo ld Almanac and Book o Fac s 2023
:
“Conse a ion o Momen um: All mo ing objec s ha e momen um, and in a closed
sys em, o al momen um is always conse ed. …Conse a ion o Ene gy: The o al
1 As es ablished in
Appendix I
.
PSIAD 40
amoun o ene gy in a closed sys em will no change excep when con e ed”
(Janssen 2022, p. 2027).
b. See also:
• J.2.4.2.c below: “momen um in any closed sys em is always conse ed” (Chu chland
2011, 45; Chu chland 2014, 55).
• I.1.d abo e: “The p inciple o conse a ion o momen um… is alid only i he ne
ex e nal o ce ac ing on he sys em is ze o… [I.e.,] I a sys em is isola ed (no in luenced
by ex e nal o ces) Conse a ion o Momen um is always alid” (Velissa is 2015).
I.e., Founda ional dualism would:
• En i ely emo e hose a ious, o he wise-inescapable iola ions o undamen al logic.
• En i ely emo e he mos se e e co esponding iola ions o undamen al physics.
• Supply a dis inc (and o he wise dis inc ly-absen ) possibili y o hose wo emaining
undamen al physics iola ions being esol ed.
• And e en i some o m o hose la e wo iola ions ul ima ely emains, his is no
longe ei he logic-b eaking no unexpec ed [unde ounda ional dualism].
In Sum o J.1.1: Recas ing GPC in said dualis e ms deescala es an o he wise-
una oidable b eakdown o undamen al logic and physics alike, down o he so o
anomalies expec ed i an en i e ounda ion—so ex ensi ely dismissed and excluded in
mains eam academia—indeed exis s and in e ac s wi h he physical. Via some
unsu p isingly s ill-undisco e ed nexus.
J.1.2. “Dismissed And Excluded”
a. As obse ed by Lib a y o Cong ess Dis inguished Schola Chai (Schneide 2012,
62):
“Subs ance dualism is all oo o en dismissed as ‘ inge’ by mains eam philosophy o
mind. [I.e., By mains eam cogni i e science
2
. Due o a] p esump ion in a o o
subs ance physicalism
.
”
2 See
Appendix B
.
PSIAD 41
b. As echoed by SEP (Robinson 2024):
“Al hough dualism has been ou o ashion… he a gumen is by no means o e . Some
dis inguished neu ologis s, such as… Eccles (Poppe and Eccles 1977) ha e con inued
o de end dualism as he only heo y ha can p ese e he da a o consciousness.”
c. And by Resea ch Associa e a Ox o d’s Ian Ramsey Cen e (Wei 2024, 21):
“Acco ding o a widely held iew in he philosophy o mind… subs ance dualism
need no be aken se iously.”
J.1.3.
Does Some O he D awback O e ide The Me i s Co e ed in J.1.1? (No.)
“The eason s anda dly o e ed o he supposed incohe ence o Ca esian in e ac ionis
dualism is ha i is di icul o ‘concei e’ how wo subs ances wi h such adically di e se
na u es… could exe cise causal in luence on each o he . …An hony Kenny, a philosophe
well known o his philosophical acui y as well as his o ical e udi ion, w i es: ‘On
Desca es’[s] p inciples i is di icul o see how an unex ended hinking subs ance can
cause mo ion in an ex ended un hinking subs ance and how he ex ended un hinking
subs ance can cause sensa ions in he unex ended hinking subs ance. The p ope ies o
he wo kinds o subs ance seem o place hem in such di e se ca ego ies ha i is
impossible o hem o in e ac .’
7
The ouble is ha his is all ha Kenny has o say abou
Desca es’s di icul ies wi h mind–body causa ion—and, as a as I know, ha is p e y
much all we ge om Desca es’s c i ics and commen a o s. Bu as an a gumen his is
incomple e… As i s ands, i is no much o an a gumen ; a he , i only exp esses a
ague, inchoa e dissa is ac ion… Why is i incohe en o hink ha he e can be causal
in e ac ion be ween hings in ‘di e se ca ego ies’? Why is i ‘impossible’ o hings wi h
di e se na u es o en e in o causal ela ions wi h one ano he ?” (Kim 2005, 73-74).
Some o he mo e ob ious co esponding e u a ions include:
a. Non Sequi u
As men ioned b ie ly in oo no e 18, jus because he e a e wo sepa a e ounda ions—
does no mean ha he phenomena hey si e mus lack any common p ope ies; ei he o
which can se e as a nexus o hei in e ac ion.
PSIAD 48
Though he co esponding implica ions lis ed in he i le he e a e likely al eady clea om
J.2.3 abo e, he ollowing ci a ions should help d i e he co esponding eali ies home.
a. ESR (“Downwa d Causa ion,” 2025) u he co obo a es and elabo a es-upon i hus:
“I [physically] eme gen men al p ope ies a e i educibly dis inc om physical
p ope ies (as main ained in eme gen ism and non- educ i e physicalism alike), and i
ins ances o hese men al p ope ies may be independen highe -le el causes and
e ec s o lowe -le el physical (e.g., bodily) e en s, hen some physical e en s canno
be ully explained in e ms o physical an eceden s and laws alone. [I.e., A e, again,
“explana o ily i educible.”] This esul , howe e , would iola e wo highly espec ed
and impo an philosophical p inciples: he p inciple o he causal closu e o he
physical domain and he closely ela ed p inciple o he comple eness o physics. Tha
is o say, assuming causal in e ac ion be ween highe -le el p ocesses on he one hand
and p ocesses a he basic le el o physics on he o he (as p esupposed in [again,
‘eme gen ism and non- educ i e physicalism alike’]), he e can no longe be a
comple e physical heo y o physical phenomena.” I.e., Men al causa ion (much less
GPC) e u es physicalism.
b.
As echoed ia he expanded e sion o he SEP exce p ci ed in I.3.e
abo e:
“
Physicalism
, unde s ood as he hesis ha all na u al phenomena a e wholly
cons i u ed and comple ely me aphysically de e mined by undamen al physical
phenomena[,] is s anda dly unde s ood o en ail ‘ he causal closu e o he physical’,
acco ding o which ( oughly) any undamen al-le el physical e ec has a pu ely
undamen al physical cause. ‘S ong’ eme gence accoun s a e inconsis en wi h
physicalism and causal closu e” (O’Conno 2025).
c. And—long be o e hen—by enowned P esiden o Ame ican Philosophical
Associa ion Jaegwon Kim (1989, 43; 1993, 280); ia his ellingly- i led “The My h o
Non educ i e Ma e ialism,” published as pa o
Camb idge S udies in Philosophy
:
“ ‘The causal closu e o he physical domain’ [ oughly s a es] ha i we ace he causal
ances y o a physical e en , we need ne e go ou side he physical domain. To deny
his [as, pe abo e, mains eam ‘non educ i e ma e ialism’ does] is o accep he
Ca esian idea ha some physical e en s ha e only nonphysical causes, and i his is
PSIAD 49
ue he e can in p inciple be no comple e and sel -su icien physical heo y o he
physical domain. [I.e., Again, no physicalism, e en ‘in p inciple’.] I he causal closu e
ailed, ou physics would need o e e in an essen ial way o nonphysical causal
agen s [like] Ca esian souls.” I.e., To Ca esian/ ounda ional dualism.
d. “Non- educ i e physicalis s deny ha he e is any explana ion o men ali y in pu ely
physical e ms, bu do no deny ha he men al is en i ely de e mined by and cons i u ed
ou o unde lying physical s uc u es. The e a e impo an issues abou he s abili y o
such a iew which ee e s on he edge o explana o y educ ionism on he one side and
dualism on he o he (see Kim 1998)” (Seage 2010; 2022).
e. Ca ea : I educible ye Explainable? (No.)
Some occasionally p opose ha on ological i educibili y may be compa ible wi h
explana o y educibili y (C ane 2001; 2010). Howe e , as well es ablished (e.g., ia
wha ’s known as
explana o y gap o qualia
) i a p ope y’s eme gence om i s
cons i uen s can be adequa ely explained, hen i is in ac educible/ educ i e and
canno se e as a basis o non educ i e physicalism; whe eas non educ i e
physicalism’s accep ance o consciousness’ “on ologically i educible” na u e—
necessa ily likewise implies i s explana o y i educibili y.
i.
SEP’s “Qualia and he Explana o y Gap” segmen o i s “Qualia” en y elabo a es
(Tye 2021):
“Fo no ma e how deeply we p obe in o he physical s uc u e o neu ons and he
chemical ansac ions which occu when hey i e, no ma e how much objec i e
in o ma ion we come o acqui e, we s ill seem o be le wi h some hing ha we
canno explain, namely, why and how such-and-such objec i e, physical changes,
wha e e hey migh be, gene a e so-and-so subjec i e eeling, o any subjec i e
eeling a all. This is he amous ‘explana o y gap’ o qualia (Le ine 1983, 2000).”
ii. E en Paul Chu chland (Endowed Chai o Cali o nia Uni e si y’s Philosophy
Depa men and ellow o he Ame ican Academy o A s and Sciences), a e his long
ca ee as a leading p oponen o elimina i e ma e ialism, had o acknowledge by 2011:
PSIAD 50
“Al oge he , we ha e he e a ga he ing consensus ha he quali a i e dimension o
ou conscious expe ience is some hing ha he physical sciences, such as mode n
neu oscience, will ne e explain.” (Chu chland 2011, 17; Chu chland 2014, 37)
iii. Which, in u n, u he co obo a es s a emen s like (S ephan 1997, 310):
“To he eme gen is ‘i educible’ always means ‘explana o ily i educible’.
6
”
J.2.4.2. Viola ing Ene gy–Momen um Conse a ion
I is jus as ho oughly es ablished ha mains eam physicalism’s men al causa ion
(howe e de e minis ic) likewise iola es ene gy/momen um conse a ion.
a. Le ’s s a he e wi h ano he pe inen SEP en y (Robinson 2024):
“In e ac ionism is he iew ha mind and body—o men al e en s and physical
e en s—causally in luence each o he . [Ye ] he e appea s o be a con lic be ween
in e ac ionism and some basic p inciples o physical science. Fo example, i causal
powe was lowing in and ou o he physical sys em, ene gy would no be
conse ed, and he conse a ion o ene gy is a undamen al scien i ic law.”
b. Senio Camb idge Uni e si y esea che and philosophe o physics J. Pi s, w i es in
his
Founda ions o science
jou nal pape (2021, 562–3):
“New on in ac qui e equen ly a i med s ong iews o men al causa ion (Dempsey
2006). He seems no o ha e been wo ied by he idea o conse a ion law ailu e due
o men al o ce.
3
I is qui e ob ious ha momen um conse a ion ails due o lack o
he ac ion- eac ion o he wise gua an eed by New on’s hi d law o mo ion. …
momen um is no conse ed.”
c. “Any [physicalis ] posi ion ha includes non-physical elemen s in he causal dynamics
o he b ain mus iola e bo h he law ha ene gy is nei he c ea ed no des oyed, and
he law ha he o al momen um in any closed sys em is always conse ed”
(Chu chland 2011, 45; Chu chland 2014, 55).
PSIAD 51
d. “I imma e ial mind could mo e ma e , hen i would c ea e ene gy; and i ma e
we e o ac on imma e ial mind, hen ene gy would disappea . In ei he case ene gy…
would ail o be conse ed.” (Bunge 1980, 17).
In Sum o J.2.4.2: I is indeed likewise widely acknowledged ha (howe e de e minis ic)
he men al causa ion pe aining o he mos mains eam physicalism o ms - indeed also
iola es ene gy/momen um conse a ion.
J.2.4.3. Some hing om No hing
a.
The Ox o d Handbook o Philosophy o Science
acknowledges he ollowing
objec ion wi hou o e ing ebu als (Humph eys 2016, 15):
“[One objec ion o such eme gen ism is he] gene al p inciple ha he no el elemen
equi ed o eme gence canno come om a basis ha lacks ha ea u e, a a ian o he
‘ne e some hing om no hing ’ p inciple .”
b. O as mo e blun ly s a ed by Edi o -in-Chie o
A i icial Li e
magazine and co-
ounde o he Eu opean Cen e o Li ing Technology (Bedau 1997, 376–377):
“These examples highligh wo… use ul hallma ks o eme gen phenomena:
(1) Eme gen phenomena a e somehow cons i u ed by, and gene a ed om,
unde lying p ocesses.
(2) Eme gen phenomena a e somehow au onomous om unde lying p ocesses.
… A wo s , he wo hallma ks seem o make eme gen phenomena la -ou
inconsis en . A bes , hey s ill aise he spec e o illegi ima ely ge ing some hing
om no hing. ...
S ong eme gence [again, an essen ial componen o mains eam physicalism] is
uncom o ably like magic. How does an i educible bu supe enien downwa d causal
powe a ise, since by de ini ion i canno be due o he agg ega ion o he mic o-le el
po en iali ies? Such causal powe s would be qui e unlike any hing wi hin ou
scien i ic ken. This no only indica es how hey will discom o easonable o ms o
ma e ialism. Thei mys e iousness will only heigh en he adi ional wo y ha [such]
eme gence en ails illegi ima ely ge ing some hing om no hing.”
PSIAD 52
c. And as mos blun ly s a ed by enowned neu oscien is Ch is o Koch (p esiden and
chie scien i ic o ice o he Allen Ins i u e o B ain Science in Sea le and ecipien o
many hono s like he Ame ican Academy o Neu ology’s Public Leade ship in Neu ology
Awa d and Time Magazine’s Top Ten Medical B eak h oughs ecogni ion): “The men al
is oo adically di e en o i o a ise g adually om he physical. This eme gence [o he
men al i sel , le alone men al causa ion o GPC] is a odds wi h a basic p ecep o
physical hinking, he U -conse a ion law—
ex nihilo nihil i
.” A s a emen ollowed
by Koch’s ap conclusion ha consciousness clea ly “hails om a kingdom o he han he
physical and is subjec o di e en laws” (2014).
J.3. U e ly Specula i e: Mains eam Physicalism “S a s Whe e Scien i ic Explana ion
Ends”
The ollowing should no be much o a su p ise gi en Appendix I.
a. Pe IEP (Vin iadis, 2021):
“We do no ha e ac ual empi ical p oo ha [s ongly] eme gen p ope ies exis .”
b. SEP (O’Conno 2025) con i ms:
“The e is a p esen a lack o clea empi ical e idence o s ong eme gence.”
c. As does
The Ox o d Handbook o Philosophy o Science
(Humph eys 2016, 15):
“The laws and o he condi ions ha a e p esen in ou uni e se p eclude, o jus happen
no o ha e p oduced, cases o [such] eme gence.”
d. Bedau’s
P incipia
a icle (2002, 5) eph ases i hus
:
“All he e idence oday sugges s ha s ong eme gence is scien i ically i ele an . …
The e is no e idence ha s ong eme gence plays any ole in con empo a y science.
…S ong eme gence s a s whe e scien i ic explana ion ends.”
In Sum o J.1–3
PSIAD 53
Appendix J should now ha e subs an ia ed ha all hose unp eceden ed
4
PSIAD-lis ed
iola ions ha e indeed long been ound, e en by mains eam schola s, o apply e en o
such mains eam-accep ed/de e minis ic men al causa ion. No only indeed ein o cing
conclusions o Lemma 2 u he ye , bu also unde sco ing jus how low ha J.1-desc ibed
“scien i ic cos ” [o a mains eam shi om physicalism o ounda ional dualism] has
long become. I.e. In e ec , despi e he longs anding “p esump ion in a o ” he eo ,
mains eam physicalism has al eady had so much o i s subs ance ea en away by con a y
e idence— ha wha emains is a me e scien i ic equi alen o a
shell co po a ion
. A
me e hollow acade. PSIAD only se ing o help b ing his al eady-di e si ua ion o a
head.
(Dualism and physicalism a e e isi ed again in Appendix P.)
J.4.
All Said P inciples Viola ed On Each Said Le el? (Yes.)
Ca ea : I should i s be no ed he e ha in o de o co obo a e L2.S1.1, one need p o e
only ha elemen al-physics-based GPC mus iola e jus one said p inciple on bu a
single le el. E go, p o ing such GPC o equi e all hose a ious co esponding
iola ions on each o hose h ee le els—d i es he co esponding poin home in deeply
o e abundan , compounding ashion.
Tha said, u he delinea ion o he main co esponding ex should now be mos ly
edundan . I.e., I should by now be clea how/why
ex nihilo
ene gy and/o momen um
c ea ion (L1.S1.1.1–2) as well as
ex nihilo
c ea ion o nonphysical mechanism(s)
capable he eo (L1.S1.1.3) mus iola e:
ex nihilo nihil i ,
as well as physical
comple eness, causal closu e and causali y. The only poin ha could pe haps use mo e
cla i y is ha , ouched upon in oo no e i . I.e., Why he abo e would necessi a e
iola ion o bo h ene gy and momen um conse a ion.
Again, in a pu ely physicalis sys em all momen um mus ollow ixed ules only
5
. I ha
does no change, all ac ions a e owed o p eceding physical causes (i.e., e en -causa ion);
while GPC (i.e., agen -causa ion) would ne e be ac ualized. Whe eas i GPC is
4 See
Appendix I
.
5 See
Appendix H
.
PSIAD 54
ac ualized, ha law-bound momen um mus ha e been changed somewhe e in he sys em.
Which in u n means ha new momen um mus ha e been c ea ed. While he c ea ion o
new momen um is impossible wi hou he c ea ion o new ene gy:
“Kine ic ene gy [is he] o m o ene gy ha an objec o a pa icle has by eason o
i s mo ion” (B i annica, 2025).
Whe eas pe
Essen ial Uni e si y Physics
(Wol son 2016, 62): “M omen um is he
‘quan i y o mo ion’.”
In Sum o J.4: While GPC implies new physical momen um/mo ion, said new
momen um indeed implies new physical (kine ic) ene gy.
(
Momen um–ene gy coupling
in pa icula , is u he codi ied ia wha ’s known as he
wo k–ene gy p inciple.
While b oade c oss-coupling be ween ene gy and momen um is
also co obo a ed by undamen al p inciples like
ene gy–momen um ela ion
,
Lo en z
co a iance
and
Noe he ’s heo em
.
PSIAD 55
Appendix K.
Why “Gene ously”?
This side-poin is su icien ly co obo a ed he e simply by ei e a ing he well-es ablished
ac ha non educ i e/eme gen is physicalism and he unde lying
explana o y gap
ha e
become widely accep ed in mains eam academia despi e he longs anding o e a ching
push owa d he mos educ i e physicalism possible
1
. E go, his pape will no u he
sc u inize ha pa icula aside, beyond b ie ly lis ing some amed co esponding
a gumen s:
• Le ine’s
Explana o y Gap
(see
J.2.4.1.e.i
).
• Da idson’s
I educibili y o he Men al
(men al concep s (i) canno be subsumed
unde s ic physical laws (ii) a e no educible o physical p ope ies).
• Nagel’s
Subjec i i y
( i s -pe son
wha i is like
pe spec i e canno be cap u ed by
hi d-pe son physical accoun s).
• Chalme s’s
Ha d P oblem
(explaining all physical unc ions ela ed o cogni ion
does no esol e why hese unc ions a e accompanied by conscious expe ience).
• B en ano’s
Abou ness
(men al phenomena possess
in en ionali y
— hey a e di ec ed
owa d o a e abou some hing—making hem dis inc - om/i educible- o pu ely
physical phenomena).
As Nagel pu i in his seminal
Philosophical Re iew
a icle (1974, 435):
“Consciousness is wha makes he mind–body p oblem eally in ac able.”
1 As es ablished in
Appendix J
.
PSIAD 56
Appendix L.
De e minism And Randomness Only
This is an accu a e co esponding bina y gi en ha in absence o ue andomness—all
such beha io in elemen al physics (quan um p obabilis ic, s ochas ic, e c.) p o es s ic ly
de e minis ic.
a.
Rou ledge
Philosophy O Science
encyclopedia con i ms (Sa ka and P ei e 2006,
566):
“Causal comple eness o physics[ s a es]: E e y physical e ec ha has a su icien
cause has a su icien physical cause. (Physical e en s ha a e no causally de e mined
may be said o ha e hei objec i e chances o occu ence de e mined by physical
causes.)” I.e., e en s de e mined by quan um andomness ( ha a e he e o e no
conside ed classically de e minis ic) a e ne e heless s ill “de e mined by physical
causes.”
1
b. “Physical e en s a e ei he de e minis ic o p obabilis ic[, while] he hallma k o
p obabilis ic o andom sys ems is (1) unp edic abili y o indi idual ou comes, and mo e
impo an ly, (2) ‘ equency s abiliza ion’
10,11,14–16
. The genuine p obabilis ic na u e o an
e en can, in he end, only be e i ied by he ac ha i s ela i e equency, as i is
measu ed in a epea ed expe imen , s abilizes owa ds a ixed numbe when he numbe o
ials inc eases. All p obabilis ic sys ems, s emming om he eno mous a ie y o
p obabilis ic disciplines and sub- ields, show his equency s abiliza ion and sa is y he
simple ules o p obabili y heo y” (Ve oo 2019, 848).
c. The ollowing
F on ie s in Physics
exce p con i ms bo h ha andomness is he
closes known hing o
nonde e minis ic elemen al physics
and ha his is insu icien o
accoun o GPC:
“De e minis ic heo y implies ha he ou come o any ac ion o decision was in
p inciple ixed a he beginning o he uni e se. [E] en adding a andom elemen (as
in quan um mechanics) does no allow human beings o choose one o se e al u u e
op ions, because in his case he only ambigui ies abou he u u e… a e en i ely
1 See Appendices
N
and
O
.
PSIAD 57
una ec ed by any hing o do wi h human hough ” (Hossen elde and Palme 2020,
139).
d. Mo eo e (as alluded o in Appendix O) while QM is he mos success ul and
p edic i e known heo y—i is also among he mos in amously ambiguous in wha i
e eals abou he ul ima e na u e o physical eali y. Wi h se e al s ill-compe ing
co esponding
in e p e a ions
. One o which, hough less a o ed, e en challenges he
idea ha QM (and he e o e empi ically p o en elemen al physics) en ails any genuine
andomness o speak o . E.g., Pe
En opy’
s
abo e-ci ed a icle (Ve oo 2019, 848):
“P obabili y heo y poin s owa ds supe de e minism [o e i s] compe i o ,
inde e minism[.] This sugges s ha [physicis s] should… ejec inde e minism.”
