Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:51 pm
They have a bearing on who has the burden of proof.
Why would they? Logical possibility isn't about what's actually instantiated empirically.
Well, "burden of proof" is decided based on which side has the default believability; and that's manifestly the side that supposes "acausal event" to be a nonsense term; for causal events are available on every side; but nobody's got even one example of the other. When something has never been seen, we are perfectly in court to ask what evidence the speaker has. And it's his burden to show he's got something; because we certainly do.
However, "logical possibility" is another issue. It's about "possibility," which means that if what you're suggesting is
impossible, then what you're suggesting is simply irrelevant and absurd.
Now, even you have to admit that on the face of it, the term "acausal event"
looks impossible. In fact, for a Physicalist especially, it has to be suspected of being a flat contradiction, as if it said "unphysical physical-thing." Likewise, I suspect it of being just that.
Show it's not. Show it's not impossible. Then we can entertain it. But otherwise, like Biden says, "C'mon, man."