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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Extended material simples are possible.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A material simple, by definition, has no proper parts, yet extension requires distinct spatial sub-regions that ground numerically distinct intrinsic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a region R is extended, any object exactly occupying R must have parts corresponding to R's sub-regions, given that spatial location is the basis for material individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, an entity occupying an extended region without having proper parts violates the principle that spatial distinctness grounds material distinctness, making extended simples incoherent rather than merely impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The No Necessary Connections principle applies to distinct entities, but the relationship between an object and the region it exactly occupies is not a relation between distinct entities—it is a constitutive tie that grounds the object's spatial properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Because exact occupation is a constitutive rather than a contingent external relation, the mereological structure of an object and the structure of its occupied region cannot vary independently, undermining premise P3 of the Humean argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There are no necessary connections between the accidental, intrinsic properties of distinct contingently existing non-overlapping entities related by a fundamental relation (the No Necessary Connections principle).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Humean premise holds that there are no necessary connections between the accidental, intrinsic properties of regions of space and the accidental, intrinsic properties of material objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, there are no necessary connections between the mereological structure of a material object and the mereological structure of the region that material object occupies.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42