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 Mind could influence the physical world without violating conservation of energy

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any redistribution of energy by a non-physical mind requires a causal mechanism, and all known causal mechanisms involve energy transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Huxley's epiphenomenalist tradition shows that positing causally efficacious mental redirection without physical substrate generates an explanatory regress, not a solution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conservation laws in physics are closed-system principles: inserting a non-physical redirector reopens the system and effectively violates closure, not merely redistribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantum indeterminacy-based deflection arguments, like those Stapp advances, require that mental intervention select among outcomes, which alters probability distributions and constitutes measurable physical influence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental influence is genuinely undetectable and leaves energy distributions physically identical, it becomes empirically vacuous and explanatorily idle by the standards Occam's razor demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Conservation of energy requires that the total quantity of energy remain constant
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It may be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy without altering its total quantity
      ?

      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.