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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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