User:Physicalist/Hempel's Dilemma

The philosophical concept, “Physicalism” claims all matter that exists in our world is purely physical, and all can be explained through the laws of nature. This poses the question– what is ‘natural’? (In physicalism 'natural' means procedural, causally coherent, or all effects have particular causes, regardless of human knowledge [like physics] and interpretation. It also means 'ontological reality', and not just a hypothesis or a calculational technique), but one common understanding of the claim is that everything in our world is ultimately explicable in the terms of physics. This is known as reductive physicalism. However, this type of physicalism in its turn leaves open the question of what we are to consider as the proper terms of physics. There seem to be two options here, and these options form the horns of Hempel's dilemma, because neither seems satisfactory.

On one hand, we may define the physical as what is explained by our best physical theories, e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity. Though many would find this definition unsatisfactory, some would accept that we have at least a general understanding of the physical based on these theories, and can use them to assess what is physical and what is not. And therein lies the rub, as a worked-out explanation of mentality currently lies outside the scope of such theories.

On the other hand, if we say that some future, "ideal" physics is what is meant, then the claim is rather empty, for we have no idea of what this means. The "ideal" physics may even come to define what we think of as mental as part of the physical world. In effect, physicalism by this second account becomes the circular claim that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because physics properly defined is whatever explains all phenomena.

Beenakker has proposed[2] to resolve Hempel's dilemma with the definition: "The boundary between physics and metaphysics is the boundary between what can and what cannot be computed in the age of the universe".

Hempel's dilemma relates to the philosophy of mind due to the explanation of issues such as consciousness, representation, and intentionality. These are very hard to come by using current physics, although many people in philosophy (and other fields such as cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience) hold to physicalism.

** When we are finalizing our enhancements of the article, the structure of our article needs to be completely revised. It is necessary we discard/improve upon what is highlighted, because it demonstrates a personal narrative resembling a subjective essay– which we want to absolutely avoid. There can be no “we”,”us”,”our”,”you” engagement in a research article. To make this successful, it is essential we utilize the existing sources to incorporate more vital information. Our primary focus should be to #1 remove any pre-existing subjectivity we see within the article, #2 remove any information that is seemingly unnecessary(If possible) #3 with the use of new/existing sources, elaborate on existing points that may be unclear due to a lack of specificity. #4 Use new/existing sources to introduce new information that would be useful to an individual seeking fact and depth regarding Hempel’s Dilemma.

VVV to help with the understanding of objective research writing

https://www.tutor2u.net/sociology/reference/sociological-research-objectivity-and-subjectivity#:~:text=To%20be%20objective%2C%20a%20researcher,considered%20scientific%2C%20objectivity%20is%20paramount.