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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Backward causation violates the principle of the fixity of the past: a later event cannot alter what is already causally closed (Dummett notwithstanding).

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The fixity of the past assumes a B-theory rejection; on eternalism, all moments exist equally, making temporal direction metaphysically arbitrary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Backward causation need not alter past facts—only establish causal relations across time; changing relations differs from changing intrinsic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quantum mechanics suggests non-local correlations may violate classical causal ordering, empirically challenging fixity assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The past is causally closed: once events occur, no subsequent intervention can modify their intrinsic properties or actual occurrence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Backward causation requires later events to change past facts, which contradicts the logical principle that what has occurred cannot become un-occurred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accepting backward causation undermines our ability to reason about counterfactuals and modal claims, destabilizing epistemic foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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