Since extension is fixed by causal-historical baptism of samples rather than descriptions, possible instances sharing all of D but lacking actual microstructure fall outside the kind's extension.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Microstructure(in philosophy of causation): The smallest, most basic physical components or building blocks of something—like atoms and molecules that make up a larger object.
Possible instances(as the different cases across which terms are being considered): Different scenarios, situations, or ways things could potentially be or could have been (even if they're not actually happening now).
causal-historical baptism(in philosophy of language, developed by Saul Kripke): The idea that we fix what a word means by pointing to actual things and naming them, rather than by describing what they're like. When we first point to water and call it 'water,' we're baptizing that substance with a name.
extension(Semantics and philosophy of language): Another term for reference, i.e., the object or set of objects a term picks out

Based on where you are in your exploration