Structural coherence arguments (Lewis 1972, Hawthorne 2001) establish that purely qualitative quiddities are causally and nomologically inert by definition, since causal roles are fully captured by structural-dispositional properties.

?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.

Causally and nomologically inert(in discussions of causation and properties): Unable to cause anything to happen and unable to play a role in the laws of nature; essentially powerless and inactive.
Hawthorne (John Hawthorne)(as a modern metaphysicist): A contemporary philosopher who works on metaphysics and epistemology, building on and challenging ideas from earlier philosophers like Lewis.
Lewis (David Lewis)(His work on conditional probability is being referenced here): An influential 20th-century philosopher who developed important theories about possibility, probability, and how we talk about hypothetical situations.
Qualitative quiddities(in metaphysics when discussing the nature of properties): The idea that properties might have an inner essence (quiddity) that is purely about 'what it's like' rather than what it does or how it relates to other things.

Based on where you are in your exploration