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 Global supervenience and strong supervenience are not equivalent

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Global supervenience entails strong supervenience when the B-properties include all relational and world-indexed properties, not just intrinsic ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The counterexample worlds exploit an artificially restricted base of B-properties that no serious physicalist would actually endorse as complete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kim's own formulation of strong supervenience already accommodates relational properties, collapsing the alleged gap when the base is properly specified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Paull and Sider (1992) demonstrated that under standard mereological assumptions, global supervenience and strong supervenience are provably equivalent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The isolation principle generates genuine counterexamples to strong supervenience only by presupposing haecceitism, which independently undermines the modal framework required for the distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The pair of worlds shows that A does not strongly supervene on B
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The principle of isolation cannot be applied to generate a counterexample to global supervenience
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An isolated duplicate of a would be both A-indiscernible and B-indiscernible from c
      ?

      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.