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 A = B (the two spheres are identical), which is absurd given that one has a scratch and the other does not — therefore the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles fails

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Suppose two objects A and B are distinguished only by accidental features: A has a scratch, B does not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is possible that A has no scratch, so it is possible that A and B are indiscernible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles holds of necessity, then the possibility of indiscernibility entails the possibility that A = B
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Haecceities (primitive thisnesses) are not genuine qualitative properties and thus cannot ground numerical diversity in a purely qualitative world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Black's two-sphere universe contains no relational or qualitative asymmetry; any apparent distinction collapses into bare numerical difference, which presupposes rather than explains non-identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If non-identity must be explained by a non-qualitative primitive, the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles is not refuted but rather shown to govern all genuinely qualitative description, vindicating the claim that qualitatively identical spheres are identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's necessity of identity entails that if A and B are numerically distinct, this is so necessarily, meaning the scratch scenario merely reveals a contingent difference insufficient to ground metaphysical distinctness independently of haecceitism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Adams's anti-haecceitist position holds that all genuine modal facts supervene on qualitative facts, so two spheres indiscernible in all qualitative respects occupy the same modal profile and therefore the same identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supposed absurdity of A=B dissolves once we reject haecceitism: within a purely qualitative ontology, 'two' indiscernible spheres is not a coherent description of one possible world but a notational artifact of an illegitimately enriched modal framework.
      ?

      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.