(1) The universe is an isolated system.
(2) In an isolated system, the total amount of energy is constant.
(3) If souls interact with bodies, they change the total amount of
energy of the universe.
(4) Souls interact with bodies.
(5) 1–4 are inconsistent.
(6) Therefore, reject 4. — José Gusmão Rodrigues
The argument is not sound because, unlike the universe & bodies, there is not any public evidence of "souls".(1) The universe is an isolated system.
(2) In an isolated system, the total amount of energy is constant.
(3) If souls interact with bodies, they change the total amount of
energy of the universe.
(4) Souls interact with bodies.
(5) 1–4 are inconsistent.
(6) Therefore, reject 4. — José Gusmão Rodrigues
The argument is not sound because, unlike the universe & bodies, there is not any public evidence of "souls". — 180 Proof
Trust me: I assess how good people are at philosophy for a living. — Bartricks
Hence reinforcing the intuition that any spirit or other supposed non-physical entity, if it is detectable, is physical.
And the converse, that a spirit that is not part of this universe does not work and is irrelevant, dropping out of consideration faster than a beetle in a box.
others might be able to harden such an argument up. — Banno
Why are you framing this physical-nonphysical dualism in physical terms of "causality", "energy", "conservation laws" etc?
What warrants your assumption that nonphysical substance shares the property of "causality" with physical substance?
And if this assumption is warranted, then what warrants assuming that they are two, different "substances"? — 180 Proof
If you don't mind, please explain why you are, if I understand correctly, a "material-immaterial dualist". — 180 Proof
If they are not physical, they cannot do stuff. — Banno
This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest. — Benj96
Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs). — Banno
Consider actual material examples! Does a human or a car have an opposite? — universeness
What's the opposite of this universe? — universeness
Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs). — Banno
This thread is about whether the principle of conservation is compatible with duaiism. Is A compatible with B. I have argued that they are. — Bartricks
First, note that the evidence that the principle of the conservation of energy is true is empirical evidence and no empirical evidence will ever conflict with dualism.
Second, in order for the principle of the conservation of energy to be violated, some energy would need either to disappear or be introduced into the picture by the addition of event B. But event B does not do this. We have no more or less energy in the system than if one supposed A caused C directly. Thus, there is no violation of the principle. — Bartricks
There is no evidence that 'something from nothing' happens as 'nothing' is impossible to quantify or even qualify. You can't even reference 'nothing' as your reference is 'something.' — universeness
Well, at least I can reaffirm my rejection of duality.
The credence you are giving to a notion such as 'a potential universe,' has no credence at all for me.
Similar to the idea of a 'potential car, human, unicorn or god.' Such notions just seem meaningless to me. — universeness
:roll: We're still waiting for the disproof of Noether's theorem (e.g. a "perpetual motion machine")....the law of conservation is not true... — Metaphysician Undercover
Aka "woo-of-the gaps" (via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics). Okay. I appreciate your honesty, Ben.This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest. — Benj96
via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics — 180 Proof
The "dualism" referred to in the OP and (mostly) discussed throughout this thread is substance dualism. I assumed that is also what you meant by "dualism". If I was mistaken and you are a property dualist instead, then my criticism doesn't apply. At best, as far as I can tell, you are conflating substance with property — 180 Proof
Pro-tio: Making up your own, idosyncratic terms / definitions almost always confuses more than it clarifies the issue. — 180 Proof
Time is not physical in the "material" sense. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.