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 Defending causal contextuality entails abandoning FM for non-maximal observables of type f(Q)

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.FM can be reinterpreted dispositionally: pre-measurement values are stable dispositions that are only *manifested* through interaction, not created by it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a dispositional reading (cf. Mumford, Molnar), causal activation of a disposition does not entail the disposition was absent before activation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, causal contextuality and FM are compatible if FM tracks dispositional possession rather than categorical, occurrent value-assignment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P3 illegitimately conflates causal production of a *determinate outcome* with causal production of the *value itself* as a pre-existing element of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bohmian mechanics demonstrates that non-maximal observables like spin can be contextual in their measured results while the wavefunction encodes definite pre-interaction structure, preserving a weaker FM.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hence the argument from causal necessity to the abandonment of FM overgeneralizes: it refutes only a naive categorical FM, not the dispositional or Bohmian variants Valentini and Dürr defend.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Under causal contextuality, the values of non-maximal observables causally depend on the presence of certain measurement arrangements
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If values causally depend on measurement arrangements, those arrangements are causally necessary for the values to come about
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If measurement arrangements are causally necessary for values, the values cannot be present before the system-apparatus interaction
      ?

      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.