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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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