A. Vodopyano PSIAD
Wo king Pape - Ve sion 2.1 (Sep embe 30, 2025)
This is a wo king pape in ended o ci cula ion and discussion. Commen s a e welcome and should be di ec ed
o
wona u es@li e.com
.
©2025 A seniy Vodopyano . All igh s ese ed.
1
Physicalism’s Sel -Re u a ion Is as Implici
as I s Agen -Causa ion Denial (PSIAD1)
Au ho : A. Vodopyano , Independen Resea che
Email: wona u es@li e.com
P e-p in a chi ed a SSRN: h ps://doi.o g/10.2139/ss n.5401163
A chi ed a Zenodo (mi o ): h ps://doi.o g/10.5281/zenodo.16989732
Indexed on PhilPape s: h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/VODPSI
Abs ac
The ollowing wo-pa p oo is cen e ed on
genuine pe sonal con ol
(GPC); o en
e e ed o as
agen -causa ion/ oli ion
. Lemma 1 shows ha GPC denial is
sel - e u ing. Lemma 2 shows ha physicalism/ma e ialism necessi a es GPC
denial. Hence his o e all p oo shows ha physicalism—is sel - e u ing. Doing
so in a way ha add esses all po en ial co esponding coun e s (e.g.,
quan um
inde e minacy, compa ibilism, eme gen is /non educ i e physicalism, p ope y dualism,
epiphenomenalism, a gumen s om inc eduli y
). Showing he accep ance o such
coun e s o en ail baselessly 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
A Vodopyano PSIAD
2
In oduc ion
This pape is w i en o bo h expe s and a id non-expe s. The pages ha
ollow his in oduc ion consis o : a sel -su icien 1500-wo d p oo , a 600-wo d
oo no e sec ion (i– ii) o added speci ici y, a supplemen a y 12,000-wo d
endno e sec ion (No es 1–16) wi h ex ensi e ci a ions and a bibliog aphy. All
cons i u ing a dis illa ion o se e al chap e s o my o hcoming book,
Djin in he
Machine
( i le inspi ed by Thomas Huxley and S ephen Hawking). Which
explo es consciousness’ unique po ency as scien i ic anomaly, physicalism
alsi ie and dualism necessi a o . Del ing deepe ye in o a ious adjacen
p oo s, po en ial coun e s and he like. Whe eas a la e olume o he o e all
co esponding
Two Na u es
book
-
se ies helps elucida e why he scien i ic
app oach o belie o ma ion is inhe en ly supe io o he eligious one
2
and why
none o his wo k ele a es eligious explana ions abo e genuinely scien i ic ones.
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 (
doi.o g/10.1093/OED/3166353930
) 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:
- Immacula e “ ee choice” ha ‘s ne e in luenced 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.
3
Ins ead, GPC would allow subjec s who a e egula ly in luenced by p eceding
physical causes, o meaning ully anscend being me e e oless
ex ensions/ma ione es he eo .
4
• 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.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Lemma 1 (1 o 1)
3
”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.”
5
– E win Sch ödinge , Nobel lau ea e who o mula ed quan um physics’ cen al equa ion
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 .
i,ii
iBecause 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, p. 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.
ii
•
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,
3
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‘ 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 (Ma Sci) Pa adox.
•
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 Ma Sci 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 anscenden al, a p io i na u e o he co esponding p oo
10
; akin o 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.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Lemma 2 (1 o 4)
4
Segue: Though i o cou se 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.
6
Lemma 2. Physicalism Mus Deny GPC
S1. GPC/
Agen -Causa ion
Is Fundamen ally Incompa ible wi h Elemen al Physics
No only is his pa icula conclusion deeply uncon o e sial
7
, 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 ion7
. 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
8
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
9
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
(a.k.a.
ex nihilo nihil i
;
om no hing, no hing comes
),
physical causal comple eness
and
causal closu e o he physical
(a.k.a.
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
9
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.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Lemma 2 (2 o 4)
5
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 umiii
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
10
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.
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
i
in na u e.
iii 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.10
i Nonphysical needn’ be o en i ely di e en composi ion, jus adically/ undamen ally so.10
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Lemma 2 (3 o 4)
6
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
11
) 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/L2.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 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., 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.
10
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.
10
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.
S1.3. P ecluded by he Ve y ‘Language O Physics‘
The law/ ule based ma hema ical ‘language o physics‘
13
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 causali y, laws o chance
14
) as o allow quan um mechanics o be
Ins ead, lea ing oom o beha io dic a ed by p eceding (de e minis ic and/o
pu ely- andom
12
) causes only.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Lemma 2 (4 o 4)
7
he mos widely/accu a ely p edic i e physics heo y o all ime.
15
(And he e o e
also he mos compu able; such p edic i eness being impossible wi hou
compu abili y.) I his we e ue o
x
howe e ,
x
could no cons i u e GPC.
i
In Sum o S1
And so (pe S1.1–3) he undamen al incompa ibili y be ween GPC and elemen al
physics is indeed p o oundly e i iable on mani old such on s.
S2. Physicalism: Elemen al Physics = Sole Founda ion
A co e pos ula ion o uly scien i ic physicalism, is ha elemen al physics is he
sole ounda ion o all exis ence; gi ing ise o e e y hing else. (The al e na i e
no ion ha exis ence a ises om wo dis inc ounda ions, being he de ini ion o
physicalism’s p ima y i al:
Ca esian subs ance dualism
.)
16
S3. Eme gence o GPC/
Agen -Causa ion
Is The e o e Also Fundamen ally
Incompa ible wi h Physicalism
Gi en S1–2 abo e, scien i ic o ms o physicalism ba hemsel es—in
p inciple— om appealing o GPC eme gence. I.e., Gi en ha he sole
co esponding ounda ion (elemen al physics) is so s ead as ly de oid:
a. no only o any easible co esponding building blocks (S1.2.1).
b. no only o any p o en heo e ical exp ession ha would no agg essi ely
exclude such eme gence (S1.2.2.b).
c. no o any expe imen al o obse a ional co esponding e idence (S1.2.2.a).
d. no e en o so much as a language ha would no undamen ally exclude
his possibili y (S1.3).
e. bu mos impo an ly, o any way o said phenomenon o mani es wi hou
adically and con inually iola ing many o i s own ounda ion’s mos
quin essen ial laws/p inciples and basic logic alike (pe S1.1).
Lea ing any physicalis appeals o GPC eme gence—in insically un enable.
Whe he hey hinge on:
quan um andomness
/
wei dness,
he
s ong eme gence
and
downwa d causa ion
specula ions pe aining o
non educ i e/eme gen is physicalism
along wi h any co esponding
p ope y dualism
o shoo and so on.
10
S4. GPC The e o e Cons i u es U mos Physicalism Falsi ica ion
And so, (pe S1–2) GPC exis ence is s aunchly incompa ible wi h scien i ic
physicalism’s sole ounda ion, while (pe S3) GPC eme gence is mo eo e jus as
s aunchly incompa ible wi h scien i ic physicalism a la ge. Which means ha
GPC would alsi y scien i ic physicalism; while exposing any emaining
physicalism i e a ion as un alsi iable/unscien i ic. I.e., The highes deg ee o
scien i ic alsi ica ion.
i Because some hing so law-bound/ o mulaic is ca ego ically insu icien o esol e Ma Sci.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD
8
Conclusion/Summa y
Lemma 1: GPC denial is sel - e u ing.
Lemma 2: Physicalism necessi a es GPC denial.
Conclusion: Physicalism is sel - e u ing.
I.e., Only one
ii
easonable conclusion emains. A ounda ion o he han physics
no only exis s, bu plays an in ima e ole in ou conscious decision-making.
ii Does PSIAD Really Demand Such Dualism O e Al e na i es? (Yes.)
A mos , PSIAD pe mi s al e na i es o pa ially complemen his ounda ional dualism (again,
some imes also e e ed o as Ca esian and/o subs ance dualism). B ie examples:
•
Milde Subs ance Dualism Fo ms: Insu icien
E en o ms whe e mind is acknowledged as a di e en subs ance om ma e , bu is posi ed
o’ e a isen he e om and/o o always be conjoined he ewi h
16
— ail o sa is y PSIAD’s
sepa a e ounda ion equi emen .
•
Neu al/Russellian Monism: Would Only Add Dubious Monis Sca olding
PSIAD does no necessi a e posi ing a specula i e deepe common ounda ion o o ce he
men al and physical ounda ions back in o one. Doing so a bi a ily iola es scien i ic
pa simony, while ailing o easonably explain why he wo p o e so undamen ally dis inc .
•
Idealism: O e co ec ion
Simila ly, i ’d be un ounded o claim ha PSIAD demands a wholesale in e sion om
physicalism o he idealis iew o physics as me e illusion o men al cons uc .
•
Mys e ianism: De ea is Non Sequi u
No does PSIAD p o e GPC (and by ex ension, consciousness) o be oo ’unknowable’ o
igo ous scien i ic s udy. Ins ead, i ’s such absolu is asse ions ha p o e sel -nega ing.
Lacking scien i ic legi imacy in he absence o nea -absolu e co esponding knowledge; while
he p esence o such knowledge would di ec ly e u e he e y unknowabili y being asse ed.
•
Panpsychism: As Complemen a y Redundancy Only
PSIAD suppo s he panpsychis iew o GPC/consciousness as undamen al, bu disp o es
he physical[is ] panpsychis iew o i being undamen al o physics. The o me alone
howe e , only echoes a key aspec o ounda ional dualism.
(No e 10.1 elabo a es u he .)
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (1 o 26)
9
No es
• This endno e sec ion con ains ap opos ci a ions and a ew supplemen a y a gumen s. Said
a gumen s mos ly consis o 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 e e ence
and ein o cemen pu poses only. 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
2
).
• In his pape ’s ull PDF e sion, each endno e ma ke (e.g.,
1
) is hype linked o he
co esponding endno e, while each endno e numbe (e.g., No e 1) is linked back o he i s
appea ance o he co esponding endno e ma ke in he main ex .
• Bibliog aphy p o ides In e ne -A chi e-p ese ed e sions o mos sou ce links ci ed he e.
• All unde lines a e edi o ial.
No e 1. 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. Said p oo conce ns whe he 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 o e looked
3
(me ely o p olong physicalism’s illogical, unscien i ic eign)?
A e all: ”Philosophy, in pa icula philosophy o mind, is pa o cogni i e science.”
—Paul Thaga d, S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Summe 2003 edn.), unde ”Cogni i e
Science,”
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2003/en ies/cogni i e-science/
.
No e 2. Au ho i y and Science
The co e eason why claims om mains eam academic sou ces a e ci ed he e ” o e e ence
and ein o cemen only,” is he same eason why (as men ioned a he ou se ) scien i ic belie
is demons ably supe io o he eligious. Which boils down o he la e exal ing au ho i y
o e unde lying e idence, whe eas he o me is mean o cons i u e he e e se app oach.
The ollowing ou ci a ions—pa icula ly he las —bes illus a e he a ionale guiding his
pape ‘s e e ence use.
a. ”Fo in he sciences he au ho i y o housands… is no wo h as much as one iny spa k o
eason in a[ single] indi idual.”
—Galileo Galilei, as quo ed in Disco e ies and Opinions o Galileo, (Ancho Books, 1957), 134.
b. Ano he amed as onome , Ca l Sagan, la e elabo a ing:
”One o he g ea commandmen s o science is, ’Mis us a gumen s om au ho i y’.
(Scien is s, being p ima es, and hus gi en o dominance hie a chies, o cou se do no
always ollow his commandmen .) Too many such a gumen s ha e p o ed oo pain ully
w ong. Au ho i ies mus p o e hei con en ions like e e ybody else. This independence
o science, i s occasional unwillingness o accep con en ional wisdom, makes i
dange ous o doc ines... Because science ca ies us owa d an unde s anding o how he
wo ld is, a he han how we would wish i o be, i s indings may no in all cases be
immedia ely comp ehensible o sa is ying.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (8 o 26)
16
in Cha les Q. Choi, “Some hing om No hing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes o Ligh ,”
Scien i ic Ame ican, 2013.
d. Sean Ca oll, in his own di ec esponse o K auss’s book/claim, likewise w o e:
”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.”
—Sean M. Ca oll, ”A Uni e se om No hing?” Disco e Magazine, 2012,
h ps://www.disco e magazine.com/a-uni e se- om-no hing-27013
.
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:
”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.”
—The Rou ledge Companion o he Philosophy o Physics, Eleano Knox and Alas ai Wilson
ed. (Rou ledge, 2021), 703.
See also no e 9.3.
In Sum o 9.2: The e exis no p o en physicalis iola ions o ex nihilo nihil i .
9.3. 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
9.2 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 (9.2 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 , 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.”
—F iedel Weine , ”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, 1998),
h ps://www.bu.edu/wcp/Pape s/Scie/ScieWein.h m
.
b. ”Quan um p ocesses a e cons ained by classical causali y.”
—V. Vilasini and Rena o Renne , “Fundamen al limi s o ealising quan um p ocesses
in space ime,” Physical Re iew Le e s 133, no. 080201 (2024): as discussed in Amy Sea le,
“No-go heo em illumina es how quan um p ocesses a e cons ained by classical
causali y,” Physics Wo ld, 2025,
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/
.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (9 o 26)
17
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.”
—Henning Schome us, ”Quan um Mechanics — Lec u e no es o PHYS223,” (Lec u e
a Lancas e Uni e si y, n.d.)
h ps://www.lancas e .ac.uk/s a /schome u/lec u eno es/Quan um-Mechanics/S2.h ml
.
ii. ”The Sch ödinge equa ion has all he ea u es o a causal connec ion.”
—F i z London and Edmond Baue , ”The Theo y o Obse a ion in Quan um
Mechanics,” in Quan um Theo y and Measu emen , ed. J. A. Wheele and W. H. Zu ek
(P ince on Uni e si y P ess, 1983), 232,
h ps://www3.nd.edu/~dhowa d1/The%20Theo y%20o %20Obse a ion%20in%20Quan um%20Mechanics.pd
.
d. No is his a su p ise gi en ha e en in his seminal wo k on QM, 1956 En ico Fe mi
Awa d and Na ional Medal o F eedom ecipien physicis John on Neumann w o e:
”[The Sch ödinge equa ion] desc ibes how he sys em changes con inuously and
causally.”
—John on Neumann, Ma hema ical Founda ions o Quan um Mechanics, ans. Robe T.
Beye , (P ince on Uni e si y P ess, 1955), 229.
e. SEP also blun ly s a es:
”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.”
—Timo hy O’Conno and Hong Yu Wong, S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Summe
2025 edn.), unde ”Eme gen P ope ies,”
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2025/en ies/p ope ies-eme gen /
.
. As did John Eccles (Nobel p ize winning neu ophysiologis /philosophe ) and Ka l Poppe
(’ a he o alsi iabili y,’ Royal Socie y ellow); in hei seminal 1977 book:
”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.”
—Ka l R. Poppe and John C. Eccles, The Sel and I s B ain:An A gumen Fo
In e ac ionism, (Rou ledge, 1977), 51.
In Sum o No e 9.3: The e exis no p o en physicalis iola ions o physical[is ]: causal
closu e, comple eness, causali y.
In Sum o No e 9: 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”.
No e 10. Can ‘Physicalis GPC‘ A oid Viola ing Any o These O he wise-Immu able
9
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 10.1 and
10.2 (in e e se o de ). Pa 10.3 con i ms ha s ong eme gence is pu ely specula i e. While
pa 10.4 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 (L2 S1.1.1–3).
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (10 o 26)
18
10.1. Is Founda ional Dualism Really a Signi ican Imp o emen ?
10.1.1. 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. ”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 amoun o ene gy
in a closed sys em will no change excep when con e ed.”
—Sa ah Janssen, ed., The Wo ld Almanac and Book o Fac s 2023 (Wo ld Almanac Books,
2022), 2027.
b. See also:
• 10.2.4.2.c below: ”momen um in any closed sys em is always conse ed.” (Chu chland,
1988)
• 9.1.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, i will no longe
be ei he logic-b eaking o unexpec ed.
In Sum o 10.1.1: 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.
d. As obse ed by Lib a y o Cong ess Dis inguished Schola Chai , Susan Schneide :
”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
1
. Due o a] p esump ion in a o o subs ance
physicalism.”
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (11 o 26)
19
—Susan Schneide , “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, no.
1 (2012): 62,
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/41406961
.
e. As echoed ia SEP:
”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.”
—Howa d Robinson, S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (summe 2024 edn.),
unde ”Dualism,”
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2024/en ies/dualism/
.
. And by Resea ch Associa e a Ox o d’s Ian Ramsey Cen e, Ralph Wei :
”Acco ding o a widely held iew in he philosophy o mind… subs ance dualism need
no be aken se iously.”
—Ralph Wei , “P ope y Dualism Implies Subs ance Dualism,” Jou nal o Philosophical
Theological Resea ch 26, no. 1 (2024): 21,
h ps://p k.qom.ac.i /a icle_2728_ac6215627aec096d65c16be0c33671d1.pd
.
10.1.2. Does Some O he D awback O e ide Said Me i s? (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 .‘7The 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 ?”
—Jaegwon Kim, Physicalism, o Some hing Nea Enough (P ince on Uni e si y P ess, 2005),
73–74,
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/j.c 7sn s
.
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 , jus because he e a e wo sepa a e ounda ions—doesn‘
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.
b. Sailed Ship
The non sequi u na u e o said ” ague… dissa is ac ion,” is only u he highligh ed by he
eali y ha he mos dominan /mains eam co esponding posi ions (compa ibilism and
non educ i e/eme gen is physicalism) al eady accep ha i educibly/inexplicably dis inc
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (12 o 26)
20
men al p ope ies in e ac wi h hei physical coun e pa s. As co e ed in no e 3 abo e and
no e 10.2 below.
c. Tex book Inc eduli y Fallacy
No o men ion he inhe en illogic o such inc eduli y appeals:
i. ”A gumen om pe sonal inc eduli y [is] he allacy o in e ing ha because you… ind
some hing imp obable o ha d o belie e, i is he e o e un ue, and ins ead you p e e ed
explana ion is ue.”
—D. Bebbing on, ”A gumen om Pe sonal Inc eduli y,” Think (published on behal o
The Royal Ins i u e o Philosophy by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess) 10, no. 28 (2011): 27,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1477175611000030
.
ii. A Sp inge logic ex book elabo a es unde i s ”Fallacies” chap e :
”Inc eduli y
…In he his o y o science he e ha e been nume ous occasions whe e scien is s ha e
been collec i ely mis aken in hei ejec ion o a new idea: o en he mis ake hen s ems
om his [i.e., ‘inc eduli y‘] allacy… some his o ical examples ha a e based on his
allacy [include :]
‘Hea ie - han-ai lying machines a e impossible.’ (Lo d Kel in, p esiden Royal
Socie y, 1895)…
‘All a ick. …Absolu e swindle .’ (membe s o B i ain’s Royal Socie y, 1926, a e a
demons a ion o ele ision)
‘Space a el is bunk.’ (Si Ha old Spence Jones, As onome Royal o B i ain, 1957,
wo weeks be o e he launch o Spu nik).”
—Ha ie de Swa , Philosophical and Ma hema ical Logic, Unde g adua e Tex s in
Philosophy (Sp inge , 2018), 499,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-030-03255-5
.
In Sum o 10.1 and Segue o 10.2: (i) I should now be clea ha —despi e being ”ou o
ashion” [and co esponding mechanisms he e o e unsu p isingly emaining poo ly
unde s ood]—Lemma 1 indeed exposes such dualism as he a mo e easonable op ion. (ii)
I mo eo e me i s emphasis ha he scien i ic cos o shi ing away om physicalism and
owa d such dualism p o es a lowe ye , gi en wha emains o mains eam physicalism.
10.2 Mains eam (I.e., Non educ i e/Eme gen is ) Physicalism
As subs an ia ed sho ly, he exis ence o he nonphysical (namely o ”i educibly dis inc ”
consciousness) has al eady p o en so undeniable, ha i is now accep ed e en unde he
mos mains eam physicalism i e a ions. No e 3 has mo eo e al eady demons a ed ha
epiphenomenalism (i.e., he iew ha men al causa ion is al oge he illuso y) has likewise
become a mino i y iew. The mos mains eam co esponding scien i ic iew now al eady
being ha he nonphysical genuinely exis s and impac s physics, bu also ha i s emmed
om physics in some inexplicable/i educible way and ha i s impac is limi ed o
e en -causa ion.
While his iew excludes GPC and is he e o e e u ed in Lemma 1 wi hou posing a
challenge o Lemma 2, a b ie u he look a co esponding de ails is ne e heless help ul;
e ealing ha he iola ions in ques ion ha e 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
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (13 o 26)
21
ein o cing conclusions o Lemma 2 u he ye , bu also unde sco ing jus how low ha
10.1-men ioned ”scien i ic cos ” has long been.
10.2.1. Is Non educ i e/Eme gen is Physicalism Really so Mains eam? (Yes.)
a. As epea edly a i med ia Encyclopedia o Science and Religion (ESR):
i. ”Non educ i e physicalism,... mo e o less became he ecei ed iew in he philosophy
o mind o he las qua e o he wen ie h cen u y.”
—Dennis Biel eld , “Physicalism, Reduc i e and Non educ i e,” in Encyclopedia o
Science and Religion, ed. Wen zel an Huyss een e al. (Macmillan Re e ence, 2003), 228
(p in ) and online a Encyclopedia.com, upda ed 2019,
h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/downwa d-causa ion
.
ii. ”Non educ i e physicalism has gene ally eplaced educ i e physicalism in he
philosophy o mind” and he e o e, again, in cogni i e science a la ge
1
.
—Theo C. Meye ing, ”Downwa d Causa ion,” in Encyclopedia o Science and Religion, ed.
J. Wen zel an Huyss een e al. (Macmillan Re e ence, 2003), 663 (p in ) and online a
Encyclopedia.com, upda ed 2019,
h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/physicalism- educ i e-and-non educ i e
.
b. And indeed by 1992, academics like Ted Side (Dis inguished P o esso o Philosophy a
Ru ge s Uni e si y) we e making unequi ocal s a emen s like:
“Non educ i e ma e ialism is he dominan posi ion in he philosophy o mind.”
—R. C ans on Paull and Theodo e R. Side , “In De ense o Global Supe enience,”
Philosophy and Phenomenological Resea ch 52, no.4 (1992): abs ac ,
h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/UEHIDO
.
c. ”Since he middle o he las cen u y, he de aul … has been he physicalis [ hesis ha ]
e e y hing is physical. …Fo easons well known, educ i e physicalism ailed. ‘…The hesis
ha men al s a es ‘jus a e’ (iden ical wi h) physical s a es is simply unin elligible‘ (Lowe
2008: 23).4Non educ i e physicalism is he only o he p ima acie plausible e sion o
physicalism.”
—Benedik Paul Göcke, ”In oduc ion,” in A e Physicalism, ed. Benedik Paul Göcke
(Uni e si y o No e Dame P ess, 2012), 1–2.
d. “Ma e ialis s in oke some hing hey call eme gen ism o explain how consciousness can…
eme ge.”
—Ch is o Koch, “Ubiqui ous Minds,” Scien i ic Ame ican, 2014.
10.2.2. Ye Mains eam Physicalism Excludes GPC/Agen -Causa ion? (Yes.)
a. ”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.”
—William Seage , S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy ( all 2010 edn.) unde
“Panpsychism,”as a chi ed a Uni e si y o To on o,
h ps://www.u sc.u o on o.ca/~seage /pan_seage .pd
.
See also William E. Seage , S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (2022 edn.), unde
“Panpsychism,”as a chi ed a PhilPape s,
h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/SEAP
.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (14 o 26)
22
b. ”Non educ i e physicalis s endo se he p inciple o men al causa ion, acco ding o which
some e en s ha e men al causes: Sid climbs he hill because he wan s o. Non educ i e
physicalis s also endo se he p inciple o physical causal comple eness, acco ding o which
physical e en s ha e su icien physical causes: Sid climbs he hill because a complex neu al
p ocess in his b ain igge ed his climbing.” (In he causal comple eness sense, ”su icien ”
unmis akably means ‘de e minan ‘.)
—Dwayne Moo e, “Causal Exclusion and Physical Causal Comple eness,” Dialec ica 73,
no. 4 (Decembe 2019): 479,
h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/48552634
.
c. Though some imes obscu ed by mu kily ( e)de ined e minology, his eali y should also
be clea om ci a ions p o ided in no es 3,7and 8abo e, as well as 10.2.4.1.b below. (While
e en any a e i e a ion o non educ i e/eme gen is physicalism ha pu po s o encompass
GPC—is s ill subjec o PSIAD a la ge as well as 10.2.4 h ough 10.4 below.)
10.2.3. Does Mains eam Physicalism Really Accep he Men al As [Explana o ily]
I educible Nonphysical Phenomena/Causes? (Yes.)
a. Again, pe he SEP exce p ci ed in 10.2.2.a. abo e: ”Non- educ i e physicalis s deny ha
he e is any explana ion o men ali y in pu ely physical e ms.”
b. Uni e si y o Tennessee’s In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy (IEP) elabo a es:
” he eme gen is iew [is ha ] he whole canno in p inciple be deduced om knowledge
o he pa s and hei a angemen . [I.e.,] The basic ene o s ong eme gen[ce] is ha a a
ce ain le el o physical complexi y no el p ope ies appea ha a e… on ologically
i educible o he mo e undamen al ma e om which hey eme ge and ha con ibu e
causally o he wo ld. Tha is, eme gen p ope ies ha e new downwa d causal
powe s ha a e i educible o he causal powe s o he p ope ies o hei [’ undamen al
ma e ’] base.” I.e., This is wha ”on ologically i educible” means, while ”bo h
non- educ i e physicalism and eme gen ism deny on ological educ ion.”
—Elly Vin iadis, In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy, unde “Eme gence,” las modi ied
2021,
h ps://iep.u m.edu/eme gence/
.
c. ”P ope ies [being] explana o ily i educible despi e being on ologically educible,…
sa is [ies] he wo condi ions o s ong eme gence.” (S ong eme gence and i s ele ance is
u he elabo a ed upon in 10.2.3.g below.)
—Ma as Ke šys, “Epicu us’ Swe e and he Randomness Objec ion o F ee Will,”
Li e a u a Vol. 64 No. 3 (2022): 39,
h ps://doi.o g/10.15388/Li e a.2022.64.3.3
.
d. ESR con i ms:
• ”non educ i e physicalism… may be seen as no hing bu a mode n applica ion o classical
eme gen ism wi hin he philosophy o mind. Al hough i holds ha , on ologically speaking,
all he e is a e physical en i ies and… agg ega es he eo , i a gues ha psychological
p ope ies a e i educibly dis inc om he unde lying physical and biological p ope ies.”
• ”The educ i e physicalis a i ms, while he non educ i e physicalis denies, ha men al
p ope ies a e ’no hing bu ’ he physical. [I.e.,] Non educ i e physicalism… conjoins he
i educibili y o nonphysical p ope ies (p ope y dualism) o on ological physicalism.”
—Theo C. Meye ing, ”Downwa d Causa ion” and Dennis Biel eld , “Physicalism,
Reduc i e and Non educ i e,” in Encyclopedia o Science and Religion, ed. J. Wen zel an
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (15 o 26)
23
Huyss een e al. (Macmillan Re e ence USA, 2003), pp.228, 662 (p in ); Encyclopedia.com,
upda ed 2019,
www.encyclopedia.com/educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/physicalism- educ i e-and-non educ i e
.
e. ”non- educ i e physicalism claims ha [ i s ly] e e y hing exis ing in he wo ld is physical
(and a pa o a monis ic sys em) bound by ’ ans-o dinal laws’ (B oad 1925, 77-78)10. [While]
secondly, al hough we ully migh know all abou mic os uc u es o a sys em, he
appea ance o i s mac o p ope ies like… men al s a es canno be de i ed [ he e] om…
(Becke mann 2001, 221) which demands a ’p ope y dualism’ (Kalles up 2006, 459).”
—And é Schmiljun, “Why Can’ We Rega d Robo s as People?” E hics in P og ess 9, no. 1
(2018): 50,
h ps://doi.o g/10.14746/eip.2018.1.3
.
. See also ESR ia 10.2.4.1.a below: ”[physically] eme gen men al p ope ies [being]
i educibly dis inc om physical p ope ies [i]s main ained in eme gen ism and
non- educ i e physicalism alike.”
g. S ong Eme gence = Non educ i e (I.e., ”Rele an ”), On ological, Inexplicable,
Specula i e;
Weak Eme gence = Reduc i e (I.e., I ele an ), Epis emological, Explicable, P o en
i. Unlike ”s ong eme gence”:
”Weak eme gence is compa ible wi h educ ion” because ”weak eme gence is de ined in
e ms o … unexpec edness, i is an epis emological a he han a
me aphysical[/on ological] no ion.”
—Elly Vin iadis, In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy, unde “Eme gence,” las modi ied
2021,
h ps://iep.u m.edu/eme gence/
.
ii. I.e., Pe Ha a d an h opologis Te ence Deacon ( i s quo e) and NYU cogni i e
scien is Da id Chalme s (second quo e):
• ”‘s ong eme gence’… implies a dissocia ion om he physics ele an o he pa s
and hei ela ionships. I is con as ed wi h ‘weak eme gence’ ha does no en ail
[ his].”
• ”S ong eme gence has much mo e adical consequences han weak eme gence. I
he e a e phenomena ha a e s ongly eme gen wi h espec o he domain o physics,
hen… he e a e phenomena whose exis ence is no deducible om he ac s abou he
exac dis ibu ion o pa icles and ields h oughou space and ime (along wi h he laws
o physics), hen his sugges s ha new undamen al laws o na u e a e needed o
explain hese phenomena. The exis ence o phenomena ha a e me ely weakly eme gen
wi h espec o he domain o physics does no ha e such adical consequences [I.e.,]
does no on i s own h ea en he comple eness o he ca alogue o undamen al laws
ound in physics. As long as he exis ence o hese phenomena is deducible in p inciple
om a physical speci ica ion o he wo ld… hen no new undamen al laws o
p ope ies a e needed... So i we wan o use eme gence o d aw conclusions abou he
s uc u e o na u e a he mos undamen al le el, i is no weak eme gence bu s ong
eme gence ha is ele an . …
In [ his] way, he philosophical mo als o s ong eme gence and weak eme gence a e
diame ically opposed. S ong eme gence, i i exis s, can be used o ejec he [ educ i e]
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (16 o 26)
24
physicalis pic u e o he wo ld as undamen ally incomple e. By con as , weak
eme gence can be used o suppo he physicalis pic u e o he wo ld, by showing how
all so s o phenomena ha migh seem no el and i educible a i s sigh can
ne e heless be g ounded in unde lying simple laws.”
—Te ence W. Deacon, ”Eme gence,” and Da id J. Chalme s, ”S ong and Weak
Eme gence,” in The Re-Eme gence o Eme gence:The Eme gen is Hypo hesis om
Science o Religion (Ox o d, 2006), Philip Clay on and Paul Da ies (eds), 122,
245–246.
In Sum o 10.2.3.g: Only he S ong
Gi en he dis inc ions es ablished abo e, i ‘s key o emembe ha , unlike
educ ion-compa ible weak eme gence, only s ong eme gence is ” ele an ” he e. Tha is,
only s ong eme gence is pos ula ed o ha e caused o he wise- educ i e physicalism o
become non educ i e— ia i s “in p inciple” inexplicable ans o ma ion o physical
p ope ies in o hei men al coun e pa s; along wi h hei ca ego ically “new downwa d
causal powe s ha a e i educible o he causal powe s o he p ope ies o hei [pu ely
physical] base” (10.2.3.b). As such, while weak and s ong eme gence a e some imes
con la ed, hei ele ance o opics like his could indeed ha dly be mo e “diame ic.” While,
unsu p isingly, i is weak eme gence ha is a guably well-e idenced (e.g., he in amous
‘we ness o wa e ‘). Whe eas s ong eme gence emains pu ely specula i e (10.3).
In Sum o 10.2.3: Mains eam physicalism eally does accep he men al as [explana o ily]
i educible nonphysical phenomena/causes.
10.2.4. Mains eam Con i ma ion o Viola ional Un enabili y o Physicalis Men al-Causa ion
(Howe e De e minis ic)
10.2.4.1. Viola ing Explana o y Reducibili y, Physical[is ] Comple eness/Closu e/Causali y,
and Hence—Physicalism I sel
Though he co esponding implica ions lis ed in he i le he e a e likely al eady clea om
10.2.3 abo e, he ollowing ci a ions should help d i e he co esponding eali ies home.
a. ESR 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.
—Theo C. Meye ing, ”Downwa d Causa ion,” in Encyclopedia o Science and Religion, ed.
J. Wen zel an Huyss een e al. (Macmillan Re e ence USA, 2003), p.229 (p in ) and
online a Encyclopedia.com, accessed July 5, 2025.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (17 o 26)
25
b. As echoed ia he expanded e sion o he SEP exce p ci ed in 9.3.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.”
—Timo hy O’Conno , S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Summe 2025 edn.), unde
“Eme gen P ope ies,”
h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2025/en ies/p ope ies-eme gen /
.
c. And—long be o e hen—by enowned P esiden o Ame ican Philosophical Associa ion
Jaegwon Kim; 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 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.
—Jaegwon Kim, “The My h o Non educ i e Ma e ialism,” in Supe enience and Mind
(Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1993), 280,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9780511625220.015
. O iginally
published in he P oceedings and Add esses o he Ame ican Philosophical Associa ion 63, no.
3 (1989), 43,
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/3130081
.
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).”
—William Seage , S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy ( all 2010 edn.), unde
“Panpsychism,” as a chi ed a Uni e si y o To on o,
h ps://www.u sc.u o on o.ca/~seage /pan_seage .pd
;
see
also William E. Seage , S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (2022 edn.), unde
“Panpsychism” as a chi ed a PhilPape s,
h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/SEAP
.
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:
”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
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (24 o 26)
32
No e 15. Is Quan um Mechanics The Mos Success ul/P edic i e Known Theo y? (Yes.)
a. Pe 2023 A gonne Na ional Labo a o y lec u e:
”Quan um physics is a guably he mos success ul scien i ic heo y e e de ised. I
explains an eno mous a ie y o na u al phenomena o an ex ao dina y deg ee o
accu acy — e e y hing om semiconduc o s o he Sun i sel . Ye he e is a p oblem: i ’s
unclea wha his immensely ui ul heo y says abou eali y.”
—Adam Becke , “The T ouble wi h Quan um Physics, and Why I Ma e s,” A gonne
Na ional Labo a o y, 2023,
h ps://www.anl.go /e en / he- ouble-wi h-quan um-physics-and-why-i -ma e s
.
b. ”Quan um physics has been p obably he mos success ul heo y o mode n science.
Whe e e i can be es ed, be i in he exo ic beha iou o undamen al pa icles o he
ope a ion o he silicon chip, quan um p edic ions ha e always been in comple e ag eemen
wi h expe imen al esul s.”
—Alas ai Rae, Quan um Physics (Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2004), 95.
c. ”Almos e e y hing we hink we know abou he na u e o ou wo ld comes om one
heo y o physics. This heo y… wen on o become qui e simply he mos success ul heo y
o physics e e de ised. I s concep s unde pin much o he wen y- i s cen u y echnology…
This is quan um heo y.”
—Jim Baggo , The Quan um S o y (Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2011), xiii.
d. ”The heo y o quan um ields is a guably he mos success ul scien i ic heo y o all ime.
In some cases, i makes p edic ions ha ag ee wi h expe imen s o an as onishing 12 decimal
places.”
—S e en S oga z, “Wha Is Quan um Field Theo y and Why Is I Incomple e?,” Quan a
Magazine, 2022,
h ps://www.quan amagazine.o g/wha -is-quan um- ield- heo y-and-why-is-i -incomple e-20220810/
.
e. “Quan um mechanics is he mos success ul heo y ha humani y has e e de eloped; he
b igh es jewel in ou in ellec ual c own.”
—Daniel F. S ye , “In oduc ion,” in The S ange Wo ld o Quan um Mechanics, (Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess, 2000), 3 and online
h ps://www2.obe lin.edu/physics/ds ye /S angeQM/in o.h ml
.
No e 16. >1 Founda ion ≠ Physicalism
Ca ea : Shi ing Sands
As demons a ed abo e, well-es ablished e ms a e o en subjec ed o a emp s a a ious
obscu a i e ede ini ions and ad hoc ’ ide s’ in mains eam academia. Especially so
when ” ashion[able]” o hodoxies like physicalism a e a s ake. F om a emp ed con la ion
o ”de ec ed[,] angible physical” phenomena wi h ”no hing” (9.2), o he now-p e ailing
compa ibilis con la ion o ‘ ee will‘ wi h u e de e minism
3
, o misleading use o weak
eme gence as p oo o ”diame ic” s ong eme gence (10.2.3.g), o occasional a emp s a
ede ining agen -causa ion in o compa ibili y wi h e en -causa ion (Nelkin, 2011) and so on.
E en a emp s o ede ine dualism in o compa ibili y wi h physicalism (and ice e sa) a e
now commonplace; despi e physicalism‘s inhe en commi men o monism (16.1).
Co esponding appeals o wha ‘s known as p ope y dualism a e mos commonplace, bu as
his inc easingly p o es insu icien —e en subs ance dualism isn’ spa ed. E.g., Pe SEP:
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (25 o 26)
33
”Supposing ha s ong eme gence does b ing a new subs ance in i s wake, [ he physicalis
i.e.,] eme gen is commi men o subs ance monism is main ained by he weake cons ain
ha no ‘highe -le el‘ subs ances o subjec s ‘ loa ee‘… om hei dependence bases.”
(O’Conno , “Eme gen P ope ies.”)
P omp ing impo an co ec i e pape s like ”Why P ope y [Much Less Subs ance]
Dualis s Mus Rejec … Physicalism” (10.1.1.d), “Physicalism and P ope y Plu alism: Why
They A e Incompa ible” (F ancesco i, 2000), e c. As well as leading his pape o op o
mo e unmis akable e ms like ‘GPC‘ and ounda ional dualism o e me e use o
be e -known al e na i es like ee will, agen -causa ion o subs ance dualism. Tha said, he
s anda d de ini ions ci ed below—elucida e only u he why he e m ounda ional dualism
is so pa icula ly unmis akable.
16.1. Physicalism = Singula Founda ion
a. ”A physicalis on ology [is] one consis ing o jus he basic elemen s o physics plus
s uc u al, dynamical, and unc ional combina ions o hose basic elemen s.”
—Josh Weisbe g, “The Ha d P oblem o Consciousness,” In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy,
las modi ied 2021,
h ps://iep.u m.edu/ha d-p oblem-o -conciousness/
.
b. ”When we ake ‘ undamen al’, ‘depend’, and ‘g ound’ oge he , we ha e a clea e pic u e
o wha physicalism claims: he only undamen al p ope ies in he uni e se a e physical,
and all o he p ope ies depend on physical p ope ies because hey a e ul ima ely and
ca ego ically g ounded in hem. Fo ins ance, chemical p ope ies depend on a omic
p ope ies o chemical-cons i u ing a oms, which depend on suba omic p ope ies o
a om-cons i u ing suba omic p ope ies. I he suba omic p ope ies canno be decomposed
in o smalle pa s, hen suba omic p ope ies a e undamen al [i.e., elemen al], and he o he
p ope ies a e g ounded in hem. Wha is common be ween… physicalis accoun s is ha he
poin o he heo y is o explain e e y en i y in e ms o he physical sciences.”
—Liam D. Ryan, “Going Men al: Why Physicalism Should No Posi Insc u able
P ope ies,” E kenn nis 89, no. 8 (2024), sec. 2, “Known Unknowns.”
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10670-024-00894-5
.
c. ”non- educ i e physicalism claims ha … e e y hing exis ing in he wo ld is physical (and a
pa o a monis ic sys em).”
—And é Schmiljun, “Why Can’ We Rega d Robo s as People?” E hics in P og ess 9, no. 1
(2018): 50,
h ps://doi.o g/10.14746/eip.2018.1.3
.
d. ”Monism is ue only i all phenomena supe ene on a ce ain undamen al ype o
phenomena. Physicalism, [being] a o m o monism, speci ies ha hese undamen al
phenomena a e physical.”
—To in Al e and Robe J. Howell , ”Physicalism, supe enience, and monism” Syn hese
200, 515 (2022),
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11229-022-03965-8
.
16.2. Two Founda ions = Dualism
a. ”The o e all de ini ion o subs ance dualism is: ’Mind and ma e a e undamen ally
dis inc kinds o ounda ions.’10”
—Howa d Robinson, S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy (Win e 2012 edn.),
unde ”Dualism”; as quo ed in Pe e Ca mack, “The Mind-Body P oblem: An A gumen
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: No es (26 o 26)
34
o Subs ance Dualism,” Elenchus 2, no. 2 (2016): 5–6.
h ps://www.academia.edu/39724866/The_Mind_Body_P oblem_An_A gumen _ o _Subs ance_Dualism
.
b. ”In e ec , Ca esian dualism claims he independen exis ence o a non-co po eal ealm
and a physical ealm. [I.e., The nonphysical ounda ion and he physical one.] Bu , a he
same ime, h ough his wo ks, whene e Desca es p esen s he dis inc ion be ween hough
and ma e , he men ions he igh ela ion in he human beings be ween mind and body.”
I.e., Two ”independen ealm[s]” = ”Ca esian dualism” ≠ physicalism.
—Zu aya Mon oy-Nas , “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
(1998), 123,
h ps://doi.o g/10.5840/wcp20-paideia199811252
.
c. O as Desca es himsel o iginally desc ibed:
”How hough and ex ension may be dis inc ly known, as cons i u ing, he one he na u e
o mind, he o he ha o body…
Though and ex ension may be ega ded as cons i u ing he na u es o in elligen and
co po eal subs ance; and hen hey mus no be o he wise concei ed han… wi h he
g ea es clea ness and dis inc ness.”
—Wal e O and Alex Dunn, ”René Desca es (1596–1650),” in Mode n Philosophy
(BCcampus OpenEd, 2013), 31 and online
h ps://open ex bc.ca/mode nphilosophy/
.
16.3. Plu alism Wouldn‘ Help
Making i clea ha adding mo e ounda ions ye (i.e., ounda ional plu alism), would only
u he any co esponding heo y om [inhe en ly monis ] physicalism.
(Fulle discussion—including ex ended ea men o se e al opics e e enced in hese
no es—is p o ided in he a o emen ioned o hcoming companion wo k, Djin in he Machine.)
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (1 o 7)
35
Acknowledgemen s
The au ho hanks Jeaneas Fan o he aluable edi o ial con ibu ions.
Bibliog aphy
Albe , Da id. ”On he O igin o E e y hing.” Re iew o A Uni e se om No hing: Why The e
Is Some hing Ra he han No hing, by Law ence K auss. New Yo k Times, 2012.
Al e , T., and Robe . J. Howell. ”Physicalism, supe enience, and monism.” Syn hese 200,
515 (2022).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11229-022-03965-8
.
Baggo , Jim. The Quan um S o y:A His o y in 40 Momen s. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2011.
Ba ow, John D. The Book o No hing. Vin age Books, 2000.
Bebbing on, D. ”A gumen om Pe sonal Inc eduli y.” Think 10, no. 28 (2011): 27–28.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1477175611000030
.
Becke , Adam. “The T ouble wi h Quan um Physics, and Why I Ma e s.” A gonne
Na ional Labo a o y, 2023.
h ps://www.anl.go /e en / he- ouble-wi h-quan um-physics-and-why-i -ma e s
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250823203229/h ps://www.anl.go /e en / he- ouble-wi h-quan um-physics-and-why-i -ma e s
].
Bedau, Ma k A. “Weak Eme gence.” Philosophical Pe spec i es 31, no. s11 (1997): 375–99.
doi:10.1111/0029-4624.31.s11.17. Open-access PDF a chi ed a Reed College:
h ps://people. eed.edu/~mab/pape s/weak.eme gence.pd
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815195750/h ps://people. eed.edu/~mab/pape s/weak.eme gence.pd
].
Bedau, Ma k. “Downwa d Causa ion and he Au onomy o Weak Eme gence.” P incipia:
An In e na ional Jou nal o Epis emology 6, no. 1 (2002): 5–50. Open-access PDF a chi ed
a Reed College:
h ps://people. eed.edu/~mab/publica ions/pape s/p incipia.pd
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20240616082353/h ps://people. eed.edu/~mab/publica ions/pape s/p incipia.pd
].
Biel eld , Dennis. ”Physicalism, Reduc i e and Non educ i e.” In Encyclopedia o Science and
Religion, edi ed by Wen zel an Huyss een e al. Macmillan Re e ence, 2003. Upda ed
2019.
h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/physicalism- educ i e-and-non educ i e
[In e ne A chi e:
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
].
Bunge, Ma io. The Mind–Body P oblem: A Psychobiological App oach. Pe gamon P ess, 1980.
Ca mack, Pe e . ”The Mind-Body P oblem: An A gumen o Subs ance Dualism.” Elenchus
2, no. 2 (2016): 1–16.
h ps://www.academia.edu/39724866/The_Mind_Body_P oblem_An_A gumen _ o _Subs ance_Dualism
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250725185220/h ps://www.academia.edu/39724866/The_Mind_Body_P oblem_An_A gumen _ o _Subs ance_Dualism
].
Ca oll, Sean M. ”A Uni e se om No hing?” Disco e Magazine, 2012.
h ps://www.disco e magazine.com/a-uni e se- om-no hing-27013
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/sa e/h ps://www.disco e magazine.com/a-uni e se- om-no hing-27013
].
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (1 o 7)
36
Ca oll, Sean M. ”Dys eleological Physicalism.” O iginally published in Edge: Wo ld
Ques ion Cen e , 2011. Republished in Disco e Magazine, 2011. Blog e sion in
P epos e ous Uni e se, Janua y 17, 2011. [In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250524234855/h ps://www.p epos e ousuni e se.com/blog/2011/01/17/dys eleological-physicalism/
].
Ca oll, Sean M. ”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, 2021.
Ca oll, Sean M. The Big Pic u e:On he O igins o Li e, Meaning, and he Uni e se I sel . Du on,
2017.
Chalme s, Da id J., and Da id Bou ge . “Philosophe s on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPape s
Su ey.” Philosophe s’ Imp in 23, no. 11 (2023). Based on he online su ey esul s a
PhilPape s, 2020.
h ps://su ey2020.philpeople.o g/su ey/ esul s/4838
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814071956/h ps://su ey2020.philpeople.o g/su ey/ esul s/4838
].
Chalme s, Da id J. ”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, 2006.
Choi, Cha les Q. ”Some hing om No hing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes o Ligh .”
Scien i ic Ame ican, 2013.
Chu chland, Paul. “Consciousness and he In ospec ion o ‘Quali a i e Simples.’” Eidos no.
15 (2011): 12–47.
h ps://www. esea chga e.ne /publica ion/262457233_Consciousness_and_ he_In ospec ion_o _‘Quali a i e_Simples‘
.
Rep in ed in Consciousness Inside and Ou : Phenomenology, Neu oscience, and he Na u e
o Expe ience, edi ed by Richa d B own, 35–56. S udies in B ain and Mind 6. Sp inge ,
2014.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-94-007-6001-1_4
.
Cox, B ian and Je Fo shaw. The Quan um Uni e se. Da Capo P ess, 2012.
C ane, Tim. “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, 2010.
C ane, Tim. “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, 2001.
Da ies, Paul, and John G ibbin. The Ma e My h:D ama ic Disco e ies Tha Challenge Ou
Unde s anding o Physical Reali y. Simon & Schus e , 2007.
Dawkins, Richa d. “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. ”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, 2006.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (2 o 7)
37
De Swa , Ha ie. Philosophical and Ma hema ical Logic. Unde g adua e Tex s in Philosophy.
Sp inge , 2018.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-030-03255-5
.
Du y, B ian R. “Wo k and Ene gy.” Lec u e no es, Physics Depa men , Bos on Uni e si y,
1998. A chi ed a Bos on Uni e si y:
h ps://physics.bu.edu/~du y/py105/no es/Ene gy.h ml
[In e ne
A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814201405/h ps://physics.bu.edu/~du y/py105/no es/Ene gy.h ml
].
F ancesco i, Robe M. “On ological Physicalism and P ope y Plu alism: Why They A e
Incompa ible.” Paci ic Philosophical Qua e ly 81, no. 4 (2000): 349–362.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1468-0114.00109
. Open-access PDF a chi ed a PhilA chi e:
h ps://phila chi e.o g/a chi e/FRAOPA
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815231113/h ps://phila chi e.o g/a chi e/FRAOPA
].
Galilei, Galileo. Disco e ies and Opinions o Galileo. T ansla ed and edi ed by S illman D ake.
Ancho Books, 1957.
Göcke, Benedik Paul. ”In oduc ion.” In A e Physicalism, edi ed by Benedik Paul Göcke.
Uni e si y o No e Dame P ess, 2012.
Hawking, S ephen. The G and Design. Ban am Books, 2010.
Hawking, S ephen. The Illus a ed Theo y o E e y hing:The O igin and Fa e o he Uni e se.
Phoenix Books, 2007.
Hossen elde , Sabine, and Tim Palme . ”Re hinking Supe de e minism.” F on ie s in Physics
8 (2020): 139.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ phy.2020.00139
.
Humph eys, Paul. ”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, 2016.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/ox o dhb/9780199368815.001.0001
.
Janssen, Sa ah, ed. The Wo ld Almanac and Book o Fac s 2023. Wo ld Almanac Books, 2022.
Ke šys, Ma as. “Epicu us’ Swe e and he Randomness Objec ion o F ee Will”. Li e a ū a
64, no. 3 (2022): 31–42.
h ps://doi.o g/10.15388/Li e a.2022.64.3.3
.
Kim, Jaegwon. “The My h o Non educ i e Ma e ialism.” In Supe enience and Mind,
265–284. Camb idge S udies in Philosophy. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1993.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9780511625220.015
. O iginally published in P oceedings and Add esses
o he Ame ican Philosophical Associa ion 63, no. 3 (1989): 31–47.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/3130081
.
Kim, Jaegwon. Physicalism, o Some hing Nea Enough. P ince on Uni e si y P ess, 2005.
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/j.c 7sn s
.
Koch, Ch is o . ”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 , 2009.
Koch, Ch is o . “Ubiqui ous Minds.” Scien i ic Ame ican, 2014.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (4 o 7)
38
K auss, Law ence M. A Uni e se om No hing: Why The e Is Some hing Ra he han No hing.
F ee P ess, 2012.
K auss, Law ence M. ”Some hing om No hing.” Lec u e o he O igins P ojec , A izona
S a e Uni e si y, 2012. YouTube ideo, 1:59:06.
h ps://www.you ube.com/wa ch? =gH9U n AR 8& =7146s
.
Läh eenmäki, Pasi, e al. ”Dynamical Casimi E ec in a Josephson Me ama e ial.”
P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences 110, no. 11 (2013): 4234–4238. Ci ed in
Cha les Q. Choi, ”Some hing om No hing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes o Ligh .”
Scien i ic Ame ican, 2013.
London, F i z, and Edmond Baue . ”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, 1983. Open-access PDF a chi ed a Uni e si y o No e Dame:
h ps://www3.nd.edu/~dhowa d1/The%20Theo y%20o %20Obse a ion%20in%20Quan um%20Mechanics.pd
[In e ne A chi e:
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. ”Sp igge’s On ology o Consciousness.” Royal Ins i u e o Philosophy
Supplemen s 67 (2010): 5–20.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1358246110000093
.
McKenna, Michael, and D. Jus in Coa es. ”Compa ibilism.” In S an o d Encyclopedia o
Philosophy, Summe 2025 Edi ion, 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/
.
Meye ing, Theo C. ”Downwa d Causa ion.” In Encyclopedia o Science and Religion, edi ed by
Wen zel an Huyss een e al. Macmillan Re e ence, 2003. Upda ed 2019.
h ps://www.encyclopedia.com/educa ion/encyclopedias-almanacs- ansc ip s-and-maps/downwa d-causa ion
[In e ne A chi e:
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
].
Mon oy-Nas , Zu aya. “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
(1998): 122–127.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5840/wcp20-paideia199811252
.
Moo e, Dwayne. “Causal Exclusion and Physical Causal Comple eness.” Dialec ica 73, no. 4
(2019): 479–505.
h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/48552634
.
Nagel, Thomas. 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, 2012.
Nagel, Thomas. “Wha Is I Like o Be a Ba ?” The Philosophical Re iew 83, no. 4 (1974):
435–50.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2183914
.
Nelkin, Dana Kay. “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, 2011.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/acp o :oso/9780199608560.003.0005
.
Neumann, John on. 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, 1955.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (5 o 7)
39
Nicke son, Raymond S. A gumen a ion:The A o Pe suasion. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess,
2020.
No on, John D. “A Ma e ial Theo y o Induc ion.” Philosophy o Science 70, no. 4 (2003):
647–70.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1086/378858
.
O’Conno , Timo hy. “Eme gen P ope ies.” In S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Summe
2025 Edi ion, 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., e al. The Mechanical Uni e se:Mechanics and Hea , Ad anced Edi ion.
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2008.
O , Wal e and Alex Dunn. ”René Desca es (1596–1650).” In Mode n Philosophy. BCcampus,
2013. Open-access PDF a chi ed a BCcampus:
h ps://open ex bc.ca/mode nphilosophy/
[In e ne A chi e
:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815031614/h ps://open ex bc.ca/mode nphilosophy/
].
Pang, Damian K. F. ”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 . “In De ense o Global Supe enience.” Philosophy
and Phenomenological Resea ch 52, no. 4 (1992): 833–854.
h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/UEHIDO
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813033047/h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/UEHIDO
].
Pi s, J B ian. “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 (2021): 559–584.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10699-020-09657-1
.
Poppe , Ka l R., and John C. Eccles, The Sel and I s B ain:An A gumen Fo In e ac ionism.
Rou ledge, 1977.
Pospiech, G., e al. ”The ole o ma hema ics o physics eaching and unde s anding.” Il
Nuo o Cimen o C 38, no. 3 (2016): 110.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1393/ncc/i2015-15110-6
. A chi ed a
Ha a d Uni e si y:
h ps://ui.adsabs.ha a d.edu/abs/2016NCimC..38..110P/abs ac
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250823212528/h ps://ui.adsabs.ha a d.edu/abs/2016NCimC..38..110P/abs ac
].
Rae, Alas ai . Quan um Physics:Illusion o Reali y? Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2004.
Resche , Nicholas, and Mo on L. Schag in. “Fallacy.” In Encyclopedia B i annica, las
modi ied Ma ch 13, 2025.
h ps://www.b i annica.com/ opic/ allacy
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250813211323/h ps://www.b i annica.com/ opic/ allacy
].
Robinson, Howa d. “Dualism.” In S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Summe 2024 Edi ion,
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. “Going Men al: Why Physicalism Should No Posi Insc u able P ope ies.”
E kenn nis 89, no. 8 (2024).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10670-024-00894-5
.
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (6 o 7)
40
Sagan, Ca l. The Demon-Haun ed Wo ld:Science as a Candle in he Da k. Random House, 1995.
Sa ka , Saho a, and Jessica P ei e , eds. ”Physicalism.” In The Philosophy o Science:An
Encyclopedia. Rou ledge, 2006.
Schmiljun, And é. “Why Can’ We Rega d Robo s as People?” E hics in P og ess 9, no. 1
(2018): 44–61.
h ps://doi.o g/10.14746/eip.2018.1.3
.
Open-access PDF a chi ed a Geo gia
Ins i u e o Technology:
h ps://si es.cc.ga ech.edu/classes/AY2022/cs4002a_sp ing/pape s/26.pd
[In e ne
A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250816023327/h ps://si es.cc.ga ech.edu/classes/AY2022/cs4002a_sp ing/pape s/26.pd
].
Schneide , Susan. “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, no. 1 (2012):
61–76.
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/41406961
.
Schome us, Henning. ”Quan um Mechanics — PHYS223.” Lec u e no es, Lancas e
Uni e si y, Depa men o Physics. Accessed Augus 14, 2025.
h ps://www.lancas e .ac.uk/s a /schome u/lec u eno es/Quan um%20Mechanics/S2.h ml
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814211619/h ps://www.lancas e .ac.uk/s a /schome u/lec u eno es/Quan um%20Mechanics/S2.h ml
].
Sch ödinge , E win. In e iew by J. W. N. Sulli an. The Obse e , Janua y 11, 1931. A chi ed
a Newspape s.com:
h ps://www.newspape s.com/a icle/ he-obse e - he-obse e -jan-11-1931/101389961/
[In e ne
A chi e
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/
].
Seage , William E. ”Panpsychism.” In S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Fall 2010 Edi ion,
edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a. Open-access PDF a chi ed a Uni e si y o To on o:
www.u sc.u o on o.ca/~seage /pan_seage .pd
[In e ne A chi e:
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 & Sean Allen-He manson. ”Panpsychism.” In S an o d
Encyclopedia o Philosophy, 2022 Edi ion, edi ed by Edwa d N. Zal a and U i Nodelman.
h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/SEAP
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815002904/h ps://philpape s.o g/ ec/SEAP
].
Sea le, Amy. “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://physicswo ld.com/a/no-go- heo em-illumina es-how-quan um-p ocesses-a e-cons ained-by-classical-causali y/
[In e ne A chi e:
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. Spinoza and he Poli ics o Rena u aliza ion. Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, 2011.
S ephan, Achim. “A mchai A gumen s agains Eme gen ism.” E kenn nis 46, no. 3 (1997):
305–14.
h p://www.js o .o g/s able/20012770
.
S oga z, S e en. “Wha Is Quan um Field Theo y and Why Is I Incomple e?” Quan a
Magazine, 2022.
h ps://www.quan amagazine.o g/wha -is-quan um- ield- heo y-and-why-is-i -incomple e-20220810/
[In e ne A chi e:
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. The S ange Wo ld o Quan um Mechanics. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2000.
A chi ed a Obe lin College and Conse a o y:
h ps://www2.obe lin.edu/physics/ds ye /S angeQM/in o.h ml
[In e ne A chi e:
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
].
A. Vodopyano PSIAD: Bibliog aphy (7 o 7)
41
Thaga d, Paul. ”Cogni i e Science.” In S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Summe 2003
Edi ion, 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. ”Qualia.” In S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, Fall 2021 Edi ion, 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. “Theo e ical Physics.”
Unde g adua e FAQs, 2023.
h ps://www.ucd.ie/ma hs a /s udy/unde g adua es udy/unde g adua e aq/
[In e ne A chi e:
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/
].
Vilasini, Ved an, and Rena o Renne . “Fundamen al Limi s o Realising Quan um
P ocesses in Space ime.” Physical Re iew Le e s 133, no. 8 (2024): 080201.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1103/PhysRe Le .133.080201.
Velissa is, Ch is and Cos as E himiou. ”Momen um.” Lec u e no es, Uni e si y o Cen al
Flo ida, 2015.
h ps://physics.uc .edu/~c elissa is/Summe 15/PSC1121/OldLec u es/9%20Momen um.pd
[In e ne A chi e:
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. ”P obabili y Theo y as a Physical Theo y Poin s o Supe de e minism.” En opy
21, no. 9 (2019): a icle 848.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/e21090848
.
Vin iadis, Elly. “Eme gence.” In In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy. Las modi ied 2021. ISSN
2161-0002.
h ps://iep.u m.edu/eme gence/
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815011923/h ps://iep.u m.edu/eme gence/
].
Weine , F iedel. ”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, 1998.
h ps://www.bu.edu/wcp/Pape s/Scie/ScieWein.h m
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250814205414/h ps://www.bu.edu/wcp/Pape s/Scie/ScieWein.h m
].
Wei , R. ”P ope y Dualism Implies Subs ance Dualism.” In ”Mind, Body, and
Consciousness special issue”. Jou nal o Philosophical Theological Resea ch 26, no. 1
(2024): 21–46.
h ps://p k.qom.ac.i /a icle_2728_ac6215627aec096d65c16be0c33671d1.pd
[In e ne A chi e:
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. “The Ha d P oblem o Consciousness.” In In e ne Encyclopedia o Philosophy.
Las modi ied 2021. ISSN 2161-0002.
/h ps://iep.u m.edu/ha d-p oblem-o -conciousness
[In e ne
A chi e:
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. ”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 (1960): 1–14.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/cpa.3160130102
. Open-access PDF a chi ed a Uni e si y o Edinbu gh:
h ps://webhomes.ma hs.ed.ac.uk/~ 1 anick/pape s/wigne .pd
[In e ne A chi e:
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20250815021850/h ps://webhomes.ma hs.ed.ac.uk/~ 1 anick/pape s/wigne .pd
].
Wol son, Richa d. Essen ial Uni e si y Physics. Pea son, 2016.
