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 There is something (some proposition q) that explains the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (BCCF) of the actual world.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from W1's containing p to W1 being identical to the actual world illicitly assumes that shared contingent facts exhaust world-individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two distinct possible worlds can share all the same contingent facts while differing in which explanatory relations obtain between propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore P4 fails: W1 could contain q and the explaining relation without being numerically identical to the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Weak PSR licenses only that explanation is possible for the BCCF, not that the same explainer q exists across all worlds where p obtains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.David Lewis's modal realism and Hume's denial of necessary connections between distinct existences jointly entail that explanatory relations are not modally transferable via world-identity arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the modal collapse from 'possibly explained' to 'actually explained' requires a stronger PSR than Gale and Pruss's weak version can legitimately supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.It is possible that the BCCF of the actual world (p) has an explanation; that is, there is a possible world W1 that contains p, q, and the proposition that q explains p.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since W1 contains p, every conjunct of p in the actual world W is also a conjunct of the BCCF of W1, so no property of p is absent from W1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If r is a conjunct of p in W, then not-r cannot be a conjunct of p1 (the BCCF of W1) in W1.
      ?

      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.