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 system whose behavior cannot be computed from parts independently may still be fully constituted by those parts and their intrinsic properties.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If a system's behavior diverges from part-level computation, either parts are misdescribed or non-physical causes exist. Constitution requires computation-match.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Claims about 'full constitution' are empirically empty if behavior remains unpredictable from parts. What does constitution mean without determination?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Emergence from parts is consistent with physicalism: water's liquidity isn't computable from H2O alone, yet water is fully physical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Computational tractability is epistemically limited, not ontologically fundamental. Unpredictability needn't entail non-constitution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Relations between parts are intrinsic properties too. A system's relational structure can be constituted by parts without being decomposable.
?
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.