34
Has there ever been a viable alternative to the phsycialist model of the universe?
(sh.itjust.works)
"Has anyone found a viable alternative to falsifiable hypotheses?"
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
34 points (88.6% liked)
Ask Science
13830 readers
55 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think it is possible, logically at least, to have gods, free will and souls even if everything were physical matter, unless you define those terms specifically to be metaphysical but then its like a True Scotsman fallacy.
Physicalism might be the most viable, but that does not mean its viable enough. There are huge holes - we have no explanation for consciousness, sentience, free will, physics still doesn't explain everything physical, and quantum mechanics is such a weird aberration of physical matter I am tempted to not call it that.
However, nothing beats the scientific method for truth finding at the moment. And, at the moment, the scientific method is content with only giving us physical results.
I mean, taking a stance that living beings have no consciousness, sentience or free will totally distinct from inanimate objects would be the simplest hypothesis, and is also what the models predict.
Basically, there's a little wiggle room left in our current model of the universe, but not much, and absolutely nothing close to human-scale. Dualism is nowhere to be found - we can observe the mind breaking or operating physically - and Idealism better be indistinguishable from materialism to work.
I hear that “Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism” as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.
Yep. The grain of truth here is that materials at really small scale look quite different. At small scale, and in a specific, rigorously defined way. I don't want your crystals or dog THC, Karen.
Ah gee. So it was all "Crystal Talk" (I refuse to use the word "woo" because it carries racial implications)
Wait, it does?
that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists
If it has no basis in physical reality, how would you detect, measure or quantify it? On what basis would you prove its existence?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Assuming that the universe actually exists outside ourselves and that our perceptions can be explained by some set of rules (that we call "physics") seem like necessary axioms to get anywhere in science. You could reject those assumptions, but then I don't see much of a compelling reason to accept anything beyond solipsism if you don't believe in reality.
That said, I'm not sure that physics will ever be able to provide a good, complete explanation of qualia.
What about biology? What if one day a neurologist finds the brain part that creates the illusion you're not just a brain?
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
“Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”
Observed particles behave different.
No they don't. Or, maybe, depending on what you mean by "observed". A consciousness doesn't have to be involved in any case.
Double slit experiment?
"observing" means interacting with.
Of course interacting with something changes how it behaves. It's in the name.
Still works if the electron is a wave the whole time. You just get a detector and a physicist in multiple states as well. That's the multiple worlds interpretation.
There's a bunch of other models, like collapse existing, but being caused by size or gravity. Collapse by consciousness is a "possibility" really only pseudoscientists are selling. I think OP mentioned Chopra.
The Dual Slit Experiment doesn't actually work that way
view more: next ›