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 Coincident entities like Lumpl and Goliath share all the same parts yet are numerically distinct objects with different modal properties.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If two objects share all parts and spatiotemporal location, Leibniz's Law (indiscernibles are identical) entails they are one object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modal properties allegedly differing between Lumpl and Goliath reflect only different concepts applied to one thing, not distinct entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing coincident entities multiplies objects beyond necessity without empirical or logical grounds, violating parsimony principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Objects can have different modal properties (Lumpl could survive flattening; Goliath couldn't) without differing in intrinsic physical composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Identity conditions can depend on sortal concepts (lump vs. statue) even when material composition is identical at any given time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our practices of counting distinct kinds in ontology suggest material coincidence without identity reflects genuine metaphysical structure.
      ?

      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.