Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If space and time ground the possibility of motion, they cannot derive their existence or distinguishability from motion without vicious circularity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Grounding can be mutual or co-constitutive; A grounds B and B grounds A without viciousness if their mutual dependence is explanatorily basic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Space, time, and motion might all be grounded in a deeper reality (e.g., fields, events), avoiding circularity between them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishability of space and time need not require explanation by motion; topological or metric structure suffices independently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Grounding relations require asymmetric dependence: the ground cannot depend on what it grounds without circular explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Space and time appear to be necessary conditions for motion's intelligibility, suggesting they are foundational rather than derivative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If motion individuates space and time, then space and time's identity depends on motion, making them not truly fundamental.
?
How convincing is this?
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.