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 Hudson and Sider's work on extended simples and multilocation demonstrates that Functionality is a substantive metaphysical commitment, not a logical truth, and cannot serve as a premise in a general proof.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Extended simples may be logically incoherent even if their incoherence requires substantive metaphysical argumentation, not just formal logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Showing Functionality is substantive doesn't establish it can't serve as a proof premise—many substantive truths legitimately ground general arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hudson-Sider work assumes Functionality is contingent, but this assumption itself requires independent justification beyond merely proposing counterexamples.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Extended simples and multilocation are metaphysically possible, showing that Functionality can be violated without logical contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Functionality were logically true, denying it would be self-contradictory; yet Hudson-Sider scenarios are merely substantively controversial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.General proofs require premises that hold across all possible worlds; Functionality fails in some coherent metaphysical models.
      ?

      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.