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 If an object is exactly located at two regions, those regions mereologically coincide

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An object can be exactly located at two distinct regions if it persists through time by enduring, occupying different regions at different times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Temporally distinct exact locations need not mereologically coincide, since overlap relations are time-indexed and vary across moments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, mereological coincidence of all exact locations holds only under a tenseless, four-dimensionalist ontology, not universally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Weak location facts can be grounded in causal or dispositional relations, not purely in mereological overlap of regions (Parsons 2007).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If weak location is not definitionally equivalent to overlapping the exact location region, premises 4 and 5 beg the question against rival location theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference to mereological coincidence thus inherits a substantive theoretical commitment that cannot be treated as a neutral logical consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If an object o is exactly located at region r, then o is weakly located at all and only the entities that overlap r (premise 17)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Object o is exactly located at region ra
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Object o is exactly located at region rb
      ?

      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.