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 Imaginability is not a reliable test for possibility

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There are good arguments that time-travel is incoherent (i.e., impossible)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.One can imagine time-travel through fictional narratives such as Star Trek or Doctor Who
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore a scenario can be both imaginable and impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Conceivability arguments depend on imaginers correctly tracking metaphysical necessity, but Kripke's a posteriori necessities show our modal intuitions systematically fail at this.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Water's necessity of being H2O is not imaginable a priori, yet is necessarily true—proving imagination underdetermines metaphysical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If imagination tracked possibility reliably, no necessary a posteriori truths could exist, yet Kripke and Putnam have established that they do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chalmers' conceivability-possibility inference requires 'ideal conceivability,' meaning conceivability under perfect a priori reflection, which ordinary imagination almost never achieves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ordinary imagination operates under cognitive limitations, including incomplete conceptual mastery and implicit contradictions that escape phenomenal notice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the imaginability that generates apparent counterexamples to impossibility claims is systematically weaker than the idealized standard required to license possibility inferences.
      ?

      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.