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 O and S are not the same ship in the actual world

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Necessity of Distinctness (P5) presupposes rigid designation across worlds, but 'O' and 'S' may be world-bound descriptions, not rigid designators.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ship-names are non-rigid, S' in w need not be identical to S in the actual world, breaking the transitivity step in P4.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without rigid designation, Chisholm-style cases show cross-world identity is conventional, not metaphysically necessary, undermining the modal inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.David Lewis's counterpart theory denies strict trans-world identity; 'same ship' relations are similarity-based and context-sensitive, not absolute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under counterpart theory, P3's claim that S' and O are 'clearly distinct' in w does not license a conclusion about numerical identity in the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument illicitly imports a Kripkean essentialist framework that Lewis and Geach-style relativists explicitly reject as question-begging against four-dimensionalist alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Let w be a possible world just like the actual world in that O is manufactured exactly as it is in the actual world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In w, another ship S', exactly similar to O, is simultaneously built out of precisely the same parts that S is built out of in the actual world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.S' and O are clearly different ships in w
      ?

      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.