Right, good point. The question is whether you think the future version is some (in most contexts) tiny modification, like Newton → Einstein, or something that adds new laws to account for what consciousness is doing. E.g., interactionism is (usually) considered to work outside the current laws, so you would need something very different to explain the role of consciousness.
Changed it to
The laws of physics (or a future refinement of them) are causally closed. (I.e., they exhaustively describe how physical stuff evolves.)
I just took this and answered “unsure” since this version still confuses me. If “conciousness” is doing something that’s not currently understood, why wouldn’t it be included in future/better laws of physics?
Think about it as how much changes and under what conditions. Special Relativity only becomes relevant when you move things with close to the speed of light. But if Interactionism is true, the laws of physics are violated every time a human decides to something. So it happens under perfectly normal circumstances, and the effects ought to be sizeable. It might be included in future laws, but they would contradict the old laws much more than Relativity contradicts Newtonian mechanics.
I mean, it’s not a formal distinction, but I still think it’s a useful one.
Right, good point. The question is whether you think the future version is some (in most contexts) tiny modification, like Newton → Einstein, or something that adds new laws to account for what consciousness is doing. E.g., interactionism is (usually) considered to work outside the current laws, so you would need something very different to explain the role of consciousness.
Changed it to
I just took this and answered “unsure” since this version still confuses me. If “conciousness” is doing something that’s not currently understood, why wouldn’t it be included in future/better laws of physics?
Think about it as how much changes and under what conditions. Special Relativity only becomes relevant when you move things with close to the speed of light. But if Interactionism is true, the laws of physics are violated every time a human decides to something. So it happens under perfectly normal circumstances, and the effects ought to be sizeable. It might be included in future laws, but they would contradict the old laws much more than Relativity contradicts Newtonian mechanics.
I mean, it’s not a formal distinction, but I still think it’s a useful one.