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 Complex universals — and the complex facts in which they are exemplified — are ultimately grounded in simple facts and cannot be infinitely decomposed

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.David Armstrong's own account of structural universals generates infinite regress: methane requires a universal BONDED-TO that is itself structural.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If BONDED-TO is itself complex and requires constituent universals, the decomposition of structural universals never terminates at simples.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Lewis's 'Against Structural Universals' demonstrates that no mereological framework can coherently represent structural universals without vicious regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ontic structural realism (Ladyman, Ross) holds that relations are primitive and objects are derivative, inverting the grounding direction the claim assumes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If relational structure is ontologically fundamental, there are no 'simple facts' about individual property-bearers in which complex facts could be grounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The constituency relation is well-founded
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A structural universal is exemplified by a complex object whose simple parts exemplify the constituent universals
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A well-founded constituency relation entails that decomposition of complex universals must terminate
      ?

      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.