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 Paull and Sider (1992) demonstrated that under standard mereological assumptions, global supervenience and strong supervenience are provably equivalent.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The equivalence proof relies on controversial mereological axioms (unrestricted composition) that many contemporary metaphysicians reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Strong supervenience requires necessity de re, whose modal status differs from global supervenience's de dicto necessity across possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The proof may conflate metaphysical grounding with logical supervenience, obscuring whether the result has substantive metaphysical implications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Standard mereology provides determinate identity conditions for wholes based on parts, enabling rigorous proof of supervenience equivalence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Global supervenience (same worlds → same properties) and strong supervenience (necessity + same intrinsic properties → same) are formally related under compositional constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Paull and Sider's proof demonstrates that denying equivalence leads to contradictions within standard mereological frameworks.
      ?

      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.