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 Cambridge-change is compatible with full actuality, so immutability in the strong sense does not follow from the absence of unrealized potentialities.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If Cambridge-changes are genuine changes (not merely conceptual), then entities undergoing them do acquire new modal or relational properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Acquiring new properties—even relational ones—constitutes a real change incompatible with strong immutability as traditionally conceived.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates metaphysical change with epistemic relativity, obscuring rather than resolving the immutability question.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Cambridge-changes (like ceasing to be seen) involve no intrinsic alteration, only relational shifts external to the entity itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An entity with no unrealized potentialities can still undergo Cambridge-changes without acquiring new intrinsic properties or powers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Strong immutability requires absence of all change, not just absence of potentiality; these are logically distinct conditions.
?
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.