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
    Every conjunctive fork ACB where C is earlier than A and ... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Every conjunctive fork ACB where C is earlier than A and B must belong to a closed fork ABCD

    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.C occurs at time 0 and A and B occur at later time t, forming a conjunctive fork ACB
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evolving the set of microstates in C forward to time t' > t yields D = U_t'(C), which occurs after A and B
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.D stands in the same probabilistic relationship to A and B that C does
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reichenbach's own Common Cause Principle requires that the common cause genuinely explain the correlation, but a formally constructed D = U_t'(C) may be a gerrymandered set with no causal-explanatory unity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Salmon's mark-transmission account of causation and Woodward's interventionist framework both require that causal relata be natural, stable processes—not arbitrary mathematical images of prior states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A closed fork ABCD in which D is merely a formal projection carries no independent predictive or interventionist content, rendering the 'closure' explanatorily vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The forward-evolved set U_t'(C) need not screen off A and B if the dynamics are irreversible and information about C is thermodynamically degraded by t'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Boltzmannian statistical mechanics shows that macro-level correlations can be destroyed by entropy increase, so D may fail the probabilistic screening-off condition that defines a fork.
      ?

      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

    Causation

    Related

    A closed fork ABCD in which D is merely a formal projection carries no independe...Boltzmannian statistical mechanics shows that macro-level correlations can be de...C occurs at time 0 and A and B occur at later time t, forming a conjunctive fork...D stands in the same probabilistic relationship to A and B that C does
    +6 moreShow less
    Evolving the set of microstates in C forward to time t' > t yields D = U_t'(C), ...Reichenbach's own Common Cause Principle requires that the common cause genuinel...Salmon's mark-transmission account of causation and Woodward's interventionist f...The forward-evolved set U_t'(C) need not screen off A and B if the dynamics are ...Therefore ACBD forms a closed forkThis construction is perfectly general and applies to any such conjunctive fork

    Similar

    C occurs at time 0 and A and B occur at later time t, forming a conjun...84%This construction is perfectly general and applies to any such conjunc...78%Therefore ACBD forms a closed fork75%If something is prior to the First, the First would not truly be first66%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: physics-Rpcc
    View source passageHide passage
    Suppose that C occurs at time 0, and A and B occur at later time t. Suppose, moreover, that ACB forms a conjunctive fork. Then we can evolve the set of microstates in C forward to time \(t^\prime > t\). Then \(D = U_{t^\prime}(C)\) will occur after A and B, but stand in the same probabilistic relationship to A and B that C does (see Figure 8). Thus ACBD will form a closed fork. Since this recipe is perfectly general, it seems that every conjunctive fork ACB with C earlier than A and B must
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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