Talk:Physicalism

Physical monism vs David Deutsch and Sean M. Carroll's Absolute rationalism (old rationalists irrationally believed in soul as a simple (philosophy) without any elaboration of its Brodmann-like modalities and correct wiring = connectome [or how it works without them])

David Deutsch and Sean M. Carroll use physicalism to simply mean absolute rationalism. Many (not all) Croatian atheists overfocus on aspects of monism when they use the term physicalism.

No Mention of Quantum Mechanics?

It seems very odd this article makes no mention of quantum mechanics, considering that it's the best description of the fundamental nature of reality that science currently provides, as well as the profound implications the theory has to the question of what it means for something to be "physical" in the first place. Is that purposeful? Surely at least a brief mention of wave function collapse and entanglement would be an important addition. Betamaleparticle (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

a) Do you have any reliable sources that discuss "wave function collapse and entanglement" in connection with physicalism?

b) This article is about physicalism, not physics.

c) It's not clear that any of the views and arguments discussed in the article would change if we lived in a strictly Newtonian world with no quantum mechanics. Jibal (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There should be an objections/criticism section

I think the article should feature a section which mentions some common objections, criticism or attempts to refute physicalism. I am not an expert on the topic, just saying that the article feels incomplete without this. 213.175.38.130 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A critique of this thesis, as it is presented (that «everything is physical»), if anyone is interested, is the pointing of the fact that, in fact, «the physical» is not a concept with a semantically clear or well defined meaning, unless, as Hempel's dilemma points, the case we were talking about the concept "the physical" as handled by a future ideal physics (in which case today we do not yet know even close what such a meaning of "the physical" would be and, therefore, in that case, such a meaning would not be the one we currently handle for the expression «the physical» when emitting this pseudo-thesis). Apart, etymologically, "physical" would mean nothing but "natural", term that is typically defined negatively, by mere contrast to "the supernatural"; this way, the thesis «everything is physical», where «physical» is defined as a synonymous with «natural», would be too a semantically circular thesis and, therefore, a semantically empty thesis. Regards. 84.121.82.221 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Separate physicalism to: physical monism and physical logicism (unitary logic is wrong for many neologicists)

Typically many people argue for hours and their main argument is different definitions of a noun. This is very common because people have emotions for terms. 2A02:2149:8A2D:F400:301D:6D07:4B97:3B35 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A critique

A critique of this thesis, as it is presented (that «everything is physical»), if anyone is interested, is the pointing of the fact that, in fact, «the physical» is not a concept with a semantically clear or well defined meaning, unless, as Hempel's dilemma points, the case we were talking about the concept "the physical" as handled by a future ideal physics (in which case today we do not yet know even close what such a meaning of "the physical" would be and, therefore, in that case, such a meaning would not be the one we currently handle for the expression «the physical» when emitting this pseudo-thesis). Apart, etymologically, "physical" would mean nothing but "natural", term that is typically defined negatively, by mere contrast to "the supernatural"; this way, the thesis «everything is physical», where «physical» is defined as a synonymous with «natural», would be too a semantically circular thesis and, therefore, a semantically empty thesis. 84.121.82.221 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)