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 What is possible is limited to what either is or will be true at some point in the future

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A sea-battle tomorrow is genuinely possible regardless of which outcome will actually obtain, as Aristotle argues in De Interpretatione 9.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The truth-value of future contingent propositions is not yet determined, so possibility cannot be derived from future actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Diodorus's Master Argument illicitly treats the openness of the future as equivalent to the necessity of the past, conflating two distinct modal categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.David Hume's conceivability criterion establishes that whatever is distinctly imaginable without contradiction is genuinely possible, independently of what occurs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A gemstone that is never cut remains intrinsically capable of being cut even if no future event actualizes that capacity, as Leibniz's notion of individual substance entails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Limiting possibility to actual or future occurrences eliminates the explanatory distinction between latent causal powers and their manifestations, which is required for any adequate natural science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Truths about the past are necessary — they cannot be other than they are, since nothing has the power to change the past
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nothing impossible follows from what is possible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The proposition that there is something which is possible but does not happen is incompatible with the above two theses
      ?

      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.