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 bundle theory cannot account for the truth of 'Bush is not sitting' at time t if the bundle contains neither of the contrary properties sitting nor not sitting.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The bundle theorist's theory of predication requires that a property be in the bundle for a predication to be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If neither sitting nor not sitting is in the bundle, the proposition is not true even at t.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's bundle theory requires every genuine predication to be grounded in a constituent universal actually present in the bundle at the relevant time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A bundle lacking both F and not-F at t provides no ontological ground for either 'x is F' or 'x is not F' being determinately true at t.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a truth-maker in the bundle, the law of excluded middle becomes a logical artifact unsupported by the theory's own metaphysics, exposing an internal inconsistency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's truthmaker principle holds that every true proposition must have an ontological ground that necessitates its truth in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a bundle at t contains neither sitting nor not-sitting, there exists no state of affairs within that bundle sufficient to necessitate the truth of 'Bush is not sitting' at t.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The bundle theory therefore cannot satisfy Armstrong's truthmaker constraint for negative predications when the relevant contrary properties are wholly absent from the bundle.
      ?

      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.