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 There are no irreducible determinable properties; all universals must be maximally determinate.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reality itself is maximally determinate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reality is maximally determinate, then all universals must be determinate rather than irreducibly determinable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's truthmaker theory requires that for every true proposition, there exists a specific, fully determinate entity in the world that makes it true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A universal like 'red' without a maximally determinate shade (scarlet, crimson) cannot serve as a distinct truthmaker, as it would make identical what physics distinguishes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If determinable universals cannot function as independent truthmakers, they lack the ontological standing required to count as irreducible universals in a sparse theory of properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lewis's Humean supervenience holds that all facts supervene on the distribution of perfectly natural, intrinsic properties across spacetime points.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Perfectly natural properties, as Lewis defines them, are those that 'carve nature at its joints'—a role only maximally determinate quantities like exact charge or mass can fill.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Determinable properties like 'having some mass' are merely abundant, class-defined properties reducible to sets of possibilia sharing determinate values, not irreducible universals.
      ?

      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.