Ep. 329 Steve Patterson and Bob Murphy Offer Competing Resolutions to the Mind-Body Problem
Steve Patterson returns, this time trying to solve the mind-body problem with Bob.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The YouTube version of this interview.
- Steve Patterson’s attempted solution to the mind-body problem.
- Steve’s website.
- Murphy’s talk about dualism in Mises.
- “Voltaire vs. Leibniz” (in verse). An explainer on Leibniz’s optimism.
- The EPR paradox.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
Episode 329. The Atomic Age started the 329th minute of the day.
I like it very much when you have Steve on, Bob. I don’t always agree with him, but I often do. More importantly, I like the way he thinks. Even when I think he’s generating incorrect hypotheses, I like the manner in which he does so.
I found Bob’s “two possible answers” to the Steve’s question: “Why is there order in the universe, rather than total chaos?” unsatisfying. (1) God wills it so, and (2) Some appeal to a hypothetical multiverse scenario in which we happen to find ourselves in an orderly universe. I think the correct answer is “We don’t know.” and that answers (1) and (2) presume the existence of things (God or the multiverse) for which we have no solid evidence for.
“We don’t know.” is boring, but I think it’s the truth. Steve’s claim that “we have to answer these fundamental questions about the nature of the universe somehow!” is false. No we don’t. Not yet anyway. We don’t know. We are only hypothesizing.
Not that there’s anything wrong with speculation. Just don’t confuse that with certainty, or anything close to it.
As a poker player, I try to be very aware of what I know and what I don’t know – and I try to never lie to myself. It’s costly.
I can’t swear I followed all of Steve’s argument in this episode, but I suspect he might have just renamed “God” as “The Universal Function” and not solved the conundrum. Either that or “The Universal Function” is just a placeholder concept for what causes one state to change into the next state and it’s so broad that I don’t know what use it is.
Good chance I just didn’t understand his argument (or his framework).
Regardless, very interesting episode. Thank you!