Fatalism

Thank you, Beginner. This is turning out to be quite fun. QUANTUM INDETERMINISMPro asserts that there must be a deterministic explanation for quantum mechanics which we are currently unaware of, with his reasoning being that science has explained seemingly indeterministic phenomena before. However, all his examples of that come from a time when the field of science was virtually non-existent; obviously, ignorant lay-men will be quick to attribute natural phenomena to randomness or divine intervention. But with quantum mechanics, there has been over a century of systematic scientific study (involving some of humanity's most brilliant scientists & most advanced technology), and all of it indicates that there is no deterministic explanation for the movements of sub-atomic particles. There have been a few attempts at explaining quantum mechanics in a deterministic fashion, collectively known as the aptly-named "hidden-variable theories", but they've been widely discredited within the scientific community as ad-hoc violations of Occam's Razor -- they attempt to impose determinism on a blatantly indeterministic phenomenon by assuming the existence of variables which don't have a shred of empirical confirmation. It's no different than creationists who try to reconcile their beliefs with reality by speculating that Satan intentionally put all the evidence for evolution in place to deceive humanity. Anyways, most hidden variable theories have already been definitively refuted by John Neumann's statistical proofs. The only one that hasn't is Bohmian Mechanics, and not even its own developer thinks it is likely to be true: "Bohm's original aim was not to make a serious counterproposal but simply to demonstrate that hidden-variable theories are indeed possible... Bohm said he considered his theory to be unacceptable as a physical theory due to the guiding wave's existence in an abstract multi-dimensional configuration space, rather than three-dimensional space" [https://en.wikipedia.org...].The general scientific consensus, based upon more than a century of empirical observation, is that quantum mechanics is indeterministic, and the only contrary theory in existence relies upon a violation of the most fundamental principles of abductive reasoning. It simply isn't rational to claim that particle movements are subject to hard determinism. SUBSTANCE DUALISMAllow me to re-iterate my point here: if a non-deterministic mind substance exists, then it does not matter if every particle in existence is deterministic. As long as the mind substance can independently act upon the physical world (via humans exercising free will), it can change the predetermined "fate" of the universe, thereby negating fatalism. In other words, substance dualism grants us autonomy, and our actions as autonomous human beings defy fatalism. Pro briefly mentions that it is possible for even the mind substance to be subject to determinism, but there's no reason whatsoever to believe this. The onus for that claim is on Pro. It's prima facie obvious from a first-person perspective that we have free will, which is reason enough to believe that an inherently first-person mental substance would be similarly free of external constraint.Contrary to Pro's assertions, my argument here is not an appeal to ignorance. It is an appeal to the fundamental differences in the ontology of mind & matter. Mind is inherently first-person, while the brain is inherently third-person, so they cannot be the same entity. I am not simply claiming that science hasn't progressed enough to explain consciousness; I am claiming that it is impossible for first-person qualia to be explained scientifically because any such explanation would necessarily be limited to the third-person perspective. We can talk all day about how serotonin travels along neural pathways in the brain and interacts with various receptors to induce responses associated with happiness, but none of that actually explains how the sensation of happiness is experienced. Like I said, neurology reduces human beings to inanimate robots.If you are consciously experiencing reading this debate (as opposed to being a robot simulating the action of reading this debate), then you must accept substance dualism as being more plausible than the physicalism Pro advocates. Over to Pro.