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 The relation between objects in space and experiences whose temporal order we correctly determine need not be causal; objects in space need only provide a frame of reference.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.An enduring, perceivable object provides a temporal backdrop against which the succession, coexistence, and duration of appearances in a common time can be determined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An object can serve as a temporal reference without its states causing the experiences being ordered — for example, the states of the sun need not cause one's experiences for the sun's states to serve as a temporal reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reichenbach's analysis of time order shows that temporal relations among events can be grounded in signal connectibility without requiring causal production between object-states and observer experiences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A spatial object functions as a clock-analog when its states are publicly readable as a sequence, and public readability requires only lawful regularity, not causal efficacy directed at the perceiver.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's own Analogies require that substance persists as the substrate of time-determination, not that it causally generates the appearances whose order is determined — persistence and causation are distinct categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evans and Campbell's work on demonstrative thought shows that objects anchor egocentric spatial frameworks through their role as reference points, a purely relational function that carries no commitment to causal production of experience.
      ?

      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.