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 When focusing on a limited class of constants C, background evidence used to motivate the prior P(D) may include initial conditions of the universe, laws of physics, and values of all constants other than C

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The values of constants outside class C are not epistemically independent of C, as many constants are linked by underlying symmetry relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating non-C constants as background evidence while varying C presupposes a separability that actual physics does not license, smuggling in a false modularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Humean supervenience, laws of physics and constants form an integrated mosaic such that no proper subset can be held fixed as 'background' without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ur-probability restriction on background evidence entailing life is insufficient if the selected background evidence already constrains the probability space in ways that prejudge fine-tuning conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The ur-probability framework only restricts background evidence from entailing the existence of life
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Initial conditions, laws of physics, and values of other constants do not by themselves entail the existence of life when class C constants are excluded
      ?

      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.