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 Non-factorizability does not imply non-locality

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Correlations need not have causal explanations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If correlations require no causal explanation, then non-factorizability need not be explained by a non-local causal connection
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Common causes do not always screen off the correlation between their effects
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If common causes need not screen off correlations, then non-factorizability need not indicate a failure of locality
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Non-factorizability is a statistical property of probability distributions, not a direct indicator of causal structure between space-like separated events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fine (1982) demonstrated that non-factorizability can be reproduced by local deterministic hidden variable models when the marginal distributions are not assumed to be independent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, non-factorizability alone, absent additional assumptions like parameter independence, underdetermines whether any non-local causal connection exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cartwright's distinction between causal and phenomenological laws shows that joint probability distributions describe correlational patterns without entailing any particular causal topology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bell correlations can be embedded in relational frameworks, such as Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics, where non-factorizability reflects observer-relative states rather than non-local causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If non-factorizability is interpretable within a locally consistent relational ontology, it cannot be taken as unambiguous evidence for non-locality.
      ?

      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.