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 the universe is the fundamental entity and parts are ontologically derivative, the universe's necessity is not emergent but primitive.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Calling necessity 'primitive' merely relabels the explanatory gap rather than resolving why necessity exists at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Parts can be ontologically derivative while their necessity-conferring structural relationships are still emergent properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Holism doesn't entail that the whole's modal properties bypass explanation—only that parts don't ground the whole.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If parts depend on the whole for their existence, the whole's existence cannot depend on parts without circular dependency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Primitive necessity (not requiring explanation) is more parsimonious than emergent necessity (requiring prior conditions).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The universe has no external cause, so its necessity must be intrinsic rather than derived from something prior.
?
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.