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 In models that do not exclude violations of λ-independence, controllable probabilistic dependence is not a necessary condition for superluminal signaling.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Controllable probabilistic dependence remains a necessary condition for *operationally meaningful* superluminal signaling, since uncontrollable correlations cannot transmit information between agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Violations of λ-independence introduce hidden variable conspiracies that, by definition, remove the experimenter's ability to freely choose measurement settings, thereby undermining the signaling channel itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Maudlin's analysis in 'Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity' establishes that superluminal signaling requires a controllable cause, and λ-independence violations merely redescribe pre-existing correlations rather than generating new causal pathways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A model permitting λ-independence violations conflates epistemic inaccessibility of hidden variables with genuine causal influence, making the alleged 'signaling' explanatorily vacuous by Fine's criterion of causal relevance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling differ across models depending on whether λ-independence violations are excluded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In models that permit violation of λ-independence, superluminal signaling can occur through mechanisms other than controllable probabilistic dependence.
      ?

      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.