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 the physical substrate that causally sustains a phenomenon is destroyed, the burden of proof lies with those who claim the phenomenon persists.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Multiple realizability shows phenomena can transfer to different substrates, making substrate destruction insufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Information or patterns may persist independently of physical implementation (abstract structures, records, copies).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Burden assignment is pragmatic, not ontological; it shouldn't determine what actually exists after destruction occurs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Causal dependence is empirically verifiable; absence of substrate removes the mechanism for phenomenon generation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Default assumption should follow parsimony: entities cease when their sufficient conditions are destroyed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Burden of proof on persistence claims prevents unfalsifiable claims from evading scrutiny.
      ?

      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.