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 fails to entail strong individual supervenience

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Petrie's example relies on a non-standard possible worlds semantics that privileges world-level holism over property instantiation at individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If supervenience relations are evaluated under Lewisian modal realism, the distinction between global and strong supervenience collapses for natural properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the alleged counterexample exploits a framework-dependent artifact rather than a genuine modal gap between global and strong supervenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McLaughlin argued that global supervenience, properly formulated with indiscernibility conditions, does entail strong supervenience for physically closed domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kim's concession was directed at a weaker formulation of global supervenience that does not require preservation of all relational properties across worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kim conceded that global supervenience fails to entail strong supervenience
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Petrie's example demonstrates a case where global supervenience holds but strong supervenience does not
      ?

      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.