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
    The best explanation of spatial separation (A being neare... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The best explanation of spatial separation (A being nearer to D than F) is that D is in contact with a nearer part of space than F

    CausationPerception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A is nearer to D than F
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is nothing between A and D
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is nothing between A and F
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's relational theory of space holds that spatial relations are grounded in relations among substances, not in relations between substances and void spatial parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An explanation that appeals to contact with spatial parts illicitly reifies space into a substance with intrinsic metric structure, begging the question against relational accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's premise that 'nothing is between A and D' already invokes relational betweenness, making the contact-with-spatial-parts gloss redundant and ontologically inflationary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Spatial contact with 'parts of space' presupposes that space has discrete, individuable parts—a claim the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika tradition explicitly rejects by treating space (ākāśa) as a single, partless substance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space has no genuine parts, then 'contact with a nearer part of space' is an explanatory fiction that cannot ground real distinctions in proximity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    PerceptionCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility4 linked

    Related

    A is nearer to D than FAn explanation that appeals to contact with spatial parts illicitly reifies spac...If space has no genuine parts, then 'contact with a nearer part of space' is an ...Leibniz's relational theory of space holds that spatial relations are grounded i...
    +5 moreShow less
    Spatial contact with 'parts of space' presupposes that space has discrete, indiv...Spatial separation can be explained without postulating a series of mediating bo...The supporting argument's premise that 'nothing is between A and D' already invo...There is nothing between A and DThere is nothing between A and F

    Similar

    When there are no intervening material objects between two spatial loc...83%To represent A and B as being some distance apart, one must represent ...78%Representing a distance relation between two objects already presuppos...77%Representing two objects as bearing a spatial relation to one another ...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: early-modern-india
    View source passageHide passage
    Perhaps the best way to construe the argument is as offering an explanation of spatial separation without having to postulate a series of mediating bodies. Thus, if A is nearer to D than F, and there is nothing either between A and D or between A and F, the best explanation is that D is in contact with a nearer part of space than F.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit