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 has no genuine parts, then 'contact with a nearer part of space' is an explanatory fiction that cannot ground real distinctions in proximity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Space can lack intrinsic parts yet admit real structural relations; proximity could be fundamental and non-reducible to mereological composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many successful scientific explanations rely on theoretically useful distinctions that don't require ontological commitment to all posited entities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument conflates 'having no genuine parts' with 'having no real geometric structure'—these are distinct metaphysical claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If space is fundamental and indivisible, appeals to 'parts of space' invoke non-existent entities that cannot do explanatory work.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proximity distinctions require a basis in real structure; fictional parts lack the ontological weight to ground genuine physical differences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Explanatory fictions are useful heuristics but cannot constitute the truthmakers for claims about which objects are actually closer.
?
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.