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
    A material simple, by definition, has no proper parts, ye... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Extended material simples are possible.

    A material simple, by definition, has no proper parts, yet extension requires distinct spatial sub-regions that ground numerically distinct intrinsic properties.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Extension in space logically requires divisibility into distinct regions; a truly simple thing cannot be spatially divided.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Different spatial locations instantiate different intrinsic properties (e.g., color at left vs. right), requiring distinct sub-parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mereological simplicity and spatial extension are metaphysically incompatible; denying this leads to vague or contradictory ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Spatial extension need not entail parthood; a simple can be wholly located at multiple regions without having spatial parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Properties can vary across spatial regions without grounding numerically distinct intrinsic properties in distinct parts themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quantum entities and fundamental fields may be extended yet non-composite, showing the argument conflates mereological and spatial structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Different spatial locations instantiate different intrinsic properties (e.g., co...Extended material simples are possible.Extension in space logically requires divisibility into distinct regions; a trul...Mereological simplicity and spatial extension are metaphysically incompatible; d...
    +3 moreShow less
    Properties can vary across spatial regions without grounding numerically distinc...Quantum entities and fundamental fields may be extended yet non-composite, showi...Spatial extension need not entail parthood; a simple can be wholly located at mu...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit