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 weak 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 individuation of properties that most physicalists would reject as gerrymandered.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If A-properties in Petrie's world are defined by their relational or holistic features, weak supervenience's indiscernibility condition cannot be violated without also violating global supervenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A counterexample that presupposes a contested property-individuation scheme does not establish a genuine logical gap between global and weak supervenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Global supervenience quantifies over entire possible worlds, and any world-wide B-duplicate is thereby an individual-level B-duplicate across all its constituents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two worlds are B-indiscernible globally, then every object in one world has a B-indiscernible counterpart in the other, satisfying weak supervenience's individual-level condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This entailment holds under standard possible-worlds semantics as defended by Lewis, making the purported failure a result of non-standard assumptions rather than a genuine logical independence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Petrie's example contains a world (w1) that violates weak supervenience of A on B
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That same world (w1) fails to be a counterexample to global supervenience of A on B
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A failure of weak supervenience that is compatible with global supervenience shows global supervenience does not entail weak supervenience
      ?

      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.