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 FUNC is plausible

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.STAT FUNC being derivable from FUNC tells us nothing about FUNC's plausibility unless we already have independent grounds for preferring hidden-variable completions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Kochen-Specker theorem demonstrates that any hidden-variable theory reproducing QM statistics must be contextual, making FUNC's applicability to non-commuting observables formally inconsistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Deriving a known truth from a hypothesis via a valid argument establishes only consistency, not plausibility — affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bohr's principle of complementarity entails that conjugate observables like position and momentum have no simultaneous definite values, making FUNC's domain of application physically empty for such pairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If FUNC presupposes that all observables possess simultaneous pre-measurement values, it conflicts with the Copenhagen interpretation's instrumentalist reading, which remains the dominant framework among practicing physicists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.STAT FUNC is true as a matter of the mathematics of QM
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If FUNC were true, STAT FUNC could be derived from FUNC
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Deriving STAT FUNC from FUNC would allow part of the mathematics of QM to be understood as a consequence of FUNC
      ?

      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.