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 The argument from supersubstantivalism supports No Interpenetration only for material objects, not for entities of any kind

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism entails that disjoint material objects cannot have overlapping exact locations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Supersubstantivalism leaves open the possibility that universals or tropes are exactly located at regions without being identical to them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Disjoint entities that are not material objects might have overlapping exact locations under supersubstantivalism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism, as defended by Sider, identifies material objects with spacetime regions via exact location, exploiting the unique persistence conditions of matter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-material entities like universals lack the persistence conditions that ground the region-identity thesis, so supersubstantivalism's ontological commitments do not extend to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without the identity claim, the mereological structure of regions cannot generate No Interpenetration constraints for non-material entities, leaving interpenetration open.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's immanent universals can be wholly present at multiple spatially discontinuous locations simultaneously, a feature incompatible with the region-identity central to supersubstantivalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any entity whose location conditions resist the region-identity thesis falls outside the scope of the supersubstantivalist argument, and universals paradigmatically resist it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the argument from supersubstantivalism has restricted scope by its own structural presuppositions, applying only where region-identity is defensible, i.e., for material objects.
      ?

      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.