Abstract

Abstract Many common arguments for physicalism begin with the principle that the cosmos is “causally closed.” But how good are the arguments for causal closure itself? I argue that the deductive, a priori arguments on behalf of causal closure tend to beg the question. The extant inductive arguments fare no better. They commit a sampling error or a non-sequitur, or else offer conclusions that remain compatible with causal openness. In short, we have no good arguments that the physical world is causally closed.

Highlights

  • Many common arguments for physicalism begin with the principle that the cosmos is “causally closed.”1 What does it mean for the cosmos to be causally closed? Roughly, the principle of causal closure (CC) states that forces outside the physical world make no causal difference to what happens in the physical world

  • I have argued that there are no good arguments for the principle of causal closure (CC)

  • None should be accused of engaging in rational malpractice or demonstrating a lack of loyalty to modern physics

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many common arguments for physicalism begin with the principle that the cosmos is “causally closed.” What does it mean for the cosmos to be causally closed? Roughly, the principle of causal closure (CC) states that forces outside the physical world make no causal difference to what happens in the physical world. Every physical effect has a physical cause (the Causal Closure premise). 2. There is no systematic causal over-determination of physical effects (this premise is often labeled the Exclusion Principle.). As a piece of the argument for physicalism, causal closure stands against hylomorphic accounts of causation, supernatural theistic accounts of divine causation, and dualistic accounts of mental causation, or Platonic accounts of formal causation. The scope of this paper is not to discuss physicalism in general but causal closure and its relation to physicalism. Are those who reject causal closure guilty of some rational malpractice?

Formulating CC
Argument from Conservation
The Exclusion Principle
Argument from Scientific Progress
Appeals to Progress
Argument from Usefulness
Physicalism as Temperament
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.