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 Intermediate global supervenience entails weak global supervenience.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Intermediate global supervenience requires only that *some* B-preserving isomorphism is A-preserving, leaving open worlds where *no* B-preserving isomorphism is A-preserving.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Weak global supervenience requires that B-indiscernible worlds are A-indiscernible, a condition that cannot be secured by a merely existential claim about some isomorphisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P2 illicitly slides from 'at least one isomorphism is A-preserving' to 'an A-preserving isomorphism exists whenever a B-preserving one does,' conflating existential and universal quantification over isomorphisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The entailment from intermediate to weak global supervenience assumes that isomorphism-based indiscernibility tracks the same modal structure as property-by-property indiscernibility, but Hazen and Parsons show these can come apart in modal logics with non-rigid domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the domains of worlds vary, a B-preserving isomorphism can exist between worlds that differ in which A-properties are instantiated, undermining P3's identification of the two conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Intermediate global supervenience holds that at least one of any existing B-preserving isomorphisms between two worlds must itself be A-preserving.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If at least one B-preserving isomorphism between two worlds is A-preserving, then there exists an A-preserving isomorphism between those worlds whenever a B-preserving isomorphism exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The condition that a B-preserving isomorphism between two worlds guarantees the existence of an A-preserving isomorphism is exactly the condition required by weak global supervenience.
      ?

      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.