As a minimum, we need to add emergence to physics. Plus a time model that accounts for the present. Plus a causation model. Plus a consciousness model. Physics is so far from done, that Carroll is just fooling himself.
Plus physics is not closed. We know that, as QM is underdetermined. This leaves the potential for an emergent phenomenon or a spirit to a) change the probabilities of QM events, then leverage those consequences up to macro scales using chaos principles, or b) only very occasionally just move stuff, violating physics at the right spot, but at an energy level we would not see it, or c) integrate mind stuff with physics, with a higher level causal closure of mind plus matter, or d) other as yet undefined options.
Corrections: science has no laws, only regularities, And there is no One True Logic, logic is pluralistic. See https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877 The logic based approaches to science, and physics, and morality that appear in this article, and in a few others of your writing would benefit from understanding what pluralism does to logic. The selection of a logic is discretionary, it is an empirical question what logic fits what part of our world. This makes Truth a pragmatic term, not an absolute one.
Overall, I have been very impressed with your podcasts and writing. It is rare to find a fellow philosopher who has puzzled themselves to a similar working worldview. Keep up the good work. :-)
Very interesting article, a lot of this stuff is new to me.
Prior to reading this article, I found that a lot of Carroll’s arguments hinges on the heavy lifting of the phrase, “… if there were other laws (causal effects), we would have found them already.”
However, *clearly* the things which go over and beyond the core theory would only show up in specific scenarios which haven’t been tested.
As a silly example, it would be perfectly coherent to imagine that there are angels which only “interfere” with the core theory in exceptional circumstances. Or as another example, the extraordinary experiences that happen during NDEs only happen near death which makes them much harder to study than a particle in an accelerator! Finally, under the Copenhagen interpretation, it would be possible that these extra forces dictate which state a quantum system collapses to (and so they would be non local hidden variables.)
The point here isn’t that we have a good reason necessarily to believe any of the above, but that Carroll’s argument begs the question at the outset.
Of course, at a certain point, it is not really an argument per se, but rather the articulation of a consistent worldview.
Emerson,
Excellent essay. If you are interested, I have a few additions, and some corrections.
The additions:
Carroll is arguing for global reductionism, plus causal closure of the physical. Philosophers of science have almost all rejected global; reductionism. See SEP on scientific reduction, section 5: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/#UnreIssu Also, see the philosophy of chemistry: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/#CheRed and see reductionism in biology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/#ProbRedu Carroll is correct this is a break from the past. In the middle of the 20th century, global reductionism was a near consensus. But today, its falsity is a near consensus.
As a minimum, we need to add emergence to physics. Plus a time model that accounts for the present. Plus a causation model. Plus a consciousness model. Physics is so far from done, that Carroll is just fooling himself.
Plus physics is not closed. We know that, as QM is underdetermined. This leaves the potential for an emergent phenomenon or a spirit to a) change the probabilities of QM events, then leverage those consequences up to macro scales using chaos principles, or b) only very occasionally just move stuff, violating physics at the right spot, but at an energy level we would not see it, or c) integrate mind stuff with physics, with a higher level causal closure of mind plus matter, or d) other as yet undefined options.
Corrections: science has no laws, only regularities, And there is no One True Logic, logic is pluralistic. See https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877 The logic based approaches to science, and physics, and morality that appear in this article, and in a few others of your writing would benefit from understanding what pluralism does to logic. The selection of a logic is discretionary, it is an empirical question what logic fits what part of our world. This makes Truth a pragmatic term, not an absolute one.
Overall, I have been very impressed with your podcasts and writing. It is rare to find a fellow philosopher who has puzzled themselves to a similar working worldview. Keep up the good work. :-)
Very interesting article, a lot of this stuff is new to me.
Prior to reading this article, I found that a lot of Carroll’s arguments hinges on the heavy lifting of the phrase, “… if there were other laws (causal effects), we would have found them already.”
However, *clearly* the things which go over and beyond the core theory would only show up in specific scenarios which haven’t been tested.
As a silly example, it would be perfectly coherent to imagine that there are angels which only “interfere” with the core theory in exceptional circumstances. Or as another example, the extraordinary experiences that happen during NDEs only happen near death which makes them much harder to study than a particle in an accelerator! Finally, under the Copenhagen interpretation, it would be possible that these extra forces dictate which state a quantum system collapses to (and so they would be non local hidden variables.)
The point here isn’t that we have a good reason necessarily to believe any of the above, but that Carroll’s argument begs the question at the outset.
Of course, at a certain point, it is not really an argument per se, but rather the articulation of a consistent worldview.