Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A transfer that results purely from the tendency of persi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A transfer that results purely from the tendency of persistence cannot be assumed a priori to be integrable.

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Persistence operates moment to moment, propagating a state forward without reference to a governing field.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no a priori guarantee that such moment-to-moment propagation is path-independent or globally consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle of continuity entails that infinitesimal persistence steps are governed by differential laws that are inherently integrable by construction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the tendency of persistence is formalized via a connection on a fiber bundle, integrability follows from the flatness condition, which is physically motivated, not merely stipulated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's Second Analogy establishes that causal succession in nature is necessarily rule-governed, implying that any genuine persistence tendency must conform to a law that guarantees path-independence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A tendency that produces non-integrable transfers would violate the lawlike unity of nature required for experience, rendering it not a genuine physical tendency but an artifact of incomplete description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A tendency that produces non-integrable transfers would violate the lawlike unit...If the tendency of persistence is formalized via a connection on a fiber bundle,...Kant's Second Analogy establishes that causal succession in nature is necessaril...Leibniz's principle of continuity entails that infinitesimal persistence steps a...
    +2 moreShow less
    Persistence operates moment to moment, propagating a state forward without refer...There is no a priori guarantee that such moment-to-moment propagation is path-in...

    Similar

    The problem of change cannot determine which theory of persistence to ...75%Each major theory of persistence fails when combined with presentism75%Worldly vagueness in persistence should be rejected74%Even if STR did not differentiate between spatial and temporal dimensi...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: weyl
    View source passageHide passage
    What is the cause of this discrepancy between the idea of congruent transfer and the behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks? I differentiate between the determination of a magnitude in Nature by “persistence” (Beharrung) and by “adjustment” (Einstellung). I shall make the difference clear by the following illustration: We can give to the axis of a rotating top any arbitrary direction in space. This arbitrary original direction then determines for all time the direction of the axis of the
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit