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 NXS (the thesis that no simple entity is exactly located at a complex region) follows from Supersubstantivalism+.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism+ requires exact location, but a simple entity can be exactly located at a region without being numerically identical to it if location is a primitive external relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philosophers like Parsons (2007) defend location as a fundamental relation irreducible to identity, so Supersubstantivalism+ cannot derive NXS without begging the question against relational accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If location is a primitive external relation, a simple entity and its complex region remain numerically distinct, blocking the identity step in P2.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gunky or atomless space allows regions to be complex without having simple sub-regions, meaning 'simple entity' and 'simple region' come apart as concepts entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If simplicity for entities is defined mereologically while simplicity for regions is defined topologically, NXS conflates two distinct notions of simplicity across different domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hudson (2005) and others argue that material simples can occupy extended regions, making it metaphysically coherent for a mereologically simple object to be exactly located at a complex region.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism+ holds that it is a necessary truth that each entity is identical to anything at which it is exactly located.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an entity x is exactly located at a complex region y, then by Supersubstantivalism+ x is identical to y, hence x is complex.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, no simple entity can be exactly located at a complex region.
      ?

      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.