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 Nothingness cannot possess any extension.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relational space can be defined by the possible distances between bodies without requiring any substance to currently occupy it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's relational account shows spatial extension is a structural feature of possible arrangements, not a property requiring actual substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If possible spatial relations are real, nothingness can instantiate extension as a framework of potentiality rather than actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Modern physics treats the quantum vacuum as a genuine physical state possessing geometric and field-theoretic properties despite containing no classical matter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If extension is properly characterized as a geometric or metric property, it can be grounded in field structure rather than Cartesian corporeal substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes' inference from 'no substance' to 'no extension' presupposes his own substance-mode ontology rather than establishing it independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All distance is a mode of extension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A mode of extension cannot exist without an extended substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nothingness is the absence of any extended substance.
      ?

      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.