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 One cannot credibly defend the metaphysical possibility of a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents by drawing an analogy with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Quantum entanglement implies that there exist pairs of entangled micro-particles such that it is causally necessary that one member of the pair is spin up if and only if the other member is spin up.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.By analogy with entanglement, if a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents is possible, then there could be 'entangled' omnipotent agents A1 and A2 such that it is metaphysically necessary that A1 endeavors to bring about a certain state of affairs if and only if A2 endeavors to bring about the same state of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quantum mechanics further implies that there are entangled pairs of micro-particles such that it is causally necessary that one member of the pair is spin up if and only if the other member is spin down, and the properties of being spin up and being spin down are contraries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantum entanglement is a causal-nomological relation governed by contingent physical laws, not a metaphysically necessary structural feature of agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Omnipotence, as analyzed by Wierenga and Flint, is defined over logically possible actions, making it governed by modal necessity rather than physical law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Analogical inference from contingent physical structure to metaphysically necessary agentive structure commits a category error that invalidates the analogy before the reductio can gain traction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Entangled particles lack intentionality; their correlated states are not the product of rational deliberation or will directed toward states of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's account of omnipotence requires that an omnipotent agent's actions flow from rational volition, which cannot be externally constrained by nomological necessity without undermining the agent's omnipotence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, any 'entangled omnipotent agent' whose endeavors are necessitated by another agent's endeavors is self-refuting, collapsing the analogy rather than supporting coexistent omnipotence.
      ?

      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.