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 Jaegwon Kim's 1984 formal reconstruction shows that under any mereologically closed property space, global supervenience and strong supervenience are provably co-extensional.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The assumption of mereological closure may itself be question-begging—actual physical systems may resist complete part-whole compositional description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kim's 1984 result has faced subsequent criticism regarding hidden assumptions about property individuation that later work suggests cannot be taken for granted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Co-extensionality under idealized conditions doesn't guarantee practical equivalence for explaining mental causation or resolving the exclusion problem in real scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kim's formal proof rigorously demonstrates logical equivalence under specified constraints, establishing robust theoretical foundations for supervenience relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mereological closure ensures no hidden compositional gaps, making the property space complete enough for global and strong supervenience to align necessarily.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This result elegantly resolves longstanding ambiguities about whether global supervenience provides sufficient physicalist foundations comparable to stronger variants.
      ?

      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.