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
    Neither available answer is plausible: either v′(Q) impli... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The view that v(f(Q)) is an ontologically dependent property (depending on v(Q)) rather than self-sustained faces pressing difficulties as a defense of contextualist hidden variables.

    Neither available answer is plausible: either v′(Q) implies a distinct v′(f(Q)) ≠ v(f(Q)), or v′(Q) yields no value of f(Q) at all.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Both options allow one to switch v(f(Q)) in and out of existence, or switch betw...Questions about values of f(Q) in the P-measurement situation are therefore legi...The position must concede that the system has a value v(Q) in a Q-measurement si...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The view that v(f(Q)) is an ontologically dependent property (depending on v(Q))...
    +1 moreShow less
    This position does not reject questions about values of f(Q) in a P-measurement ...

    Similar

    We have no reason to assume that v(f(Q)) = v(g(P)).79%Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles implies that any...73%If f is constant, then one of U or V must be empty, contradicting the ...73%If two distinct objects are indiscernible, the Weak Principle of the I...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: kochen-specker
    View source passageHide passage
    (a) We might think that v(f(Q)) just is not a self-sustained physical property, but one which ontologically depends on the presence of another property v(Q). (Recall that in the proof of FUNC v(f(Q)) is constructed from v(Q).) But, since the position does not reject questions about values of f(Q) in a P-measurement situation as illegitimate (because it does not trade on a notion of an observable being well-defined in one context only!), this seems to lead to new and pressing questions, to say t

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective