Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A powers-based account satisfies Asymmetry, Irreflexivity, and Transitivity
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Powers individuated by their manifestations face a circularity problem: two distinct determinates can share identical power sets if manifestations overlap.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If distinct determinates share identical power sets, the proper subset relation fails to distinguish them, violating the asymmetry requirement for determination.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Bird and Molnar's mutual manifestation problem shows powers are individuated relationally, making subset relations between power sets unstable across possible contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Transitivity of determination requires that power subset relations compose determinately across determinable levels, but relational individuation undermines stable composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Asymmetry, Irreflexivity, and Transitivity are features of the proper subset relation between powers
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A powers-based account defines determination in terms of proper subset relations between powers
?
How convincing is this?
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.