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
    Immanent realism faces a problem because distinct univers... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Immanent realism faces a problem because distinct universals (such as a mass universal and a charge universal) would have overlapping exact locations, yet the universals themselves do not overlap.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Armstrong's immanent realism, universals are wholly present wherever instantiated, making co-location of distinct universals at a single region unavoidable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Spatial overlap of location regions is a weaker relation than mereological overlap of the universals themselves, so co-location does not entail that um and uc share parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinct simple universals can be co-located without overlapping because location is an external relation that does not constitute or decompose the intrinsic structure of a universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lewis's argument that universals must be wholly present at each instance commits immanent realism to exact co-location whenever one object instantiates multiple properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Premise P4 conflates mereological overlap with locational coincidence: two entities can share an exact location while remaining wholly distinct, as Sider and Hawthorne argue for co-located material objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An electron e instantiates two distinct universals: a mass universal (um) and a charge universal (uc).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If e is exactly located at region r, it is natural for the immanent realist to hold that um and uc are each exactly located at r or at overlapping subregions of r.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If um and uc are non-structural, non-conjunctive, and perfectly natural, they are plausibly simple.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Key Terms

    Exact locations(physics and metaphysics)
    Precise, specific positions in space—for example, the exact spot where an object sits.
    Overlapping(spatial reasoning)
    Two things taking up the same space at the same time, like two colors mixed together in one spot.
    immanent realism(Philosophy of mathematics; contrasted with standard platonism)
    The view, associated with the early Maddy (1990), that sets of physical objects are located in spacetime exactly where their members are, such that sets exist in the physical world rather than in an abstract realm.
    universals(Debated in Lefèvre's Disceptatio de universali between two students of Chrysippus's academy)
    Either what particular classes of things share, or what those who reason say they share (decided by convention)

    Related

    An electron e instantiates two distinct universals: a mass universal (um) and a ...Distinct simple universals can be co-located without overlapping because locatio...If e is exactly located at region r, it is natural for the immanent realist to h...If um and uc are non-structural, non-conjunctive, and perfectly natural, they ar...
    +6 moreShow less
    Lewis's argument that universals must be wholly present at each instance commits...On Armstrong's immanent realism, universals are wholly present wherever instanti...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: location-mereology
    View source passageHide passage
    To see why, let e be an electron, and suppose that it instantiates two different universals: a mass universal, um, and a charge universal, uc. Suppose that e is exactly located at region r. Then it will be natural for the immanent realist to say that (i) um is exactly located at r as well, or at least at some region rm that has r as a part, and (ii) uc is exactly located at r or at some region rc that has r as a part. (If these universals are also instantiated elsewhere, then it will be debatabl
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Premise P4 conflates mereological overlap with locational coincidence: two entit...
    Simple universals overlap only if they are identical.
    Spatial overlap of location regions is a weaker relation than mereological overl...
    um and uc are not identical.

    Similar

    Without exact locations, universals cannot have overlapping exact loca...83%Simple universals overlap only if they are identical.81%If a universal is located simultaneously at many places, it must have ...78%Defenders of universals can escape the problem by accepting that some ...78%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit