In the near future, our understanding of the physical sciences has continued to press forward, but not radically in most veins, and discoveries have largely not upended current theories about the universe. With one exception. Our understanding of brain function has progressed by leaps and bounds, to the point where we can predict human behavior with a high degree of accuracy, based on physical, neurological causes.
The difficulty is, these methods of prediction are only reliable for most people, not for everyone. That is, most people behave exactly as their synaptic structures and hormone balances (etc) would predict, but some do not.
Terminology has been proposed along these lines:
Neuro-Psychic Characteristics are attributes of behavior driven entirely by physical and/or electrochemical processes
Para-Psychic Characteristics are attributes of behavior which appear to flout physical laws
People whose behavior is driven primarily (either continuously or for periods of time) by Para-Psychic Characteristics (that is, whose behavior is not reliably predictable by neuro-chemical and synaptic states beforehand), are referred to as PCs, while those whose behavior is attributable entirely to Neuro-Psychic Characteristics are called NPCs.
Some scientists additionally allege that they have documented sporadic departures of “inanimate” objects from regular causality, and this (possibly only speculative) effect on objects is called Divergent Mechanical action, or just DM Intervention.
What would be the scientific consensus to explain the existence of PCs and NPCs? That we are living in a simulation, or something else?
Question stripped of the playful jargon:
Scientists have succeeded in decoding the brain to the point that they can fully account for the behavior of people by an application of physical laws as we know them. That is, consciousness, or at least behavior, has been "solved", and an accurate and predictive model has been developed to link sense input all the way through to behavioral output. (Handwaving slightly because each person is a highly complicated and and distinct system, resembling but not mirroring other humans.)
However, there exists a minority of people for whom the aforementioned model is not predictive; who, given their training and dietary sugar levels and synaptic map and blah blah blah, ought to react in manner X but do not.
The fact is that the model is predictive for most but not all people. (Like the fact is that there are fossils of animals which are different than those currently observed, but which largely correspond to each other, based on our estimates of the age of the rocks containing them, and the characteristics of those animal fossils changes incrementally based on the age of the rocks.)
The question is, how would scientists (not the general public) be likely to account for the failure of their models for only some people?