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 If tossing the coin and preventing the toss are both treated as purely physical events, there is a high correlation between these physical events and Houdini's earlier behavior

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Correlation between physical events is insufficient for causation without an appropriate causal mechanism connecting them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In retrocausal cases, no forward-directed mechanism links Houdini's earlier behavior to the later coin toss, violating standard process theories of causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Salmon and Dowe's conserved quantity accounts require causal processes to transmit physical quantities continuously through time, which retrocausation cannot satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stripping semantic content from Houdini's prediction eliminates the very intentional structure that makes the correlation between prediction and outcome non-accidental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Davidson's anomalous monism establishes that mental events qua mental cannot be subsumed under strict physical laws, so a purely physical redescription loses the explanatory content that underwrites the correlation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Houdini's prediction or lack of prediction can be treated as purely physical events, independent of semantic content
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tossing the coin and preventing the toss can likewise be treated as purely physical events
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Physical events that are highly correlated may stand in causal relations
      ?

      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.