Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doepke, F.C. | Simons Vs Doepke, F.C. | I 228 Composition/mereology/Doepke: e.g. the Ship of Theseus, but not the wood of the ship is composed of planks. Although each part of the collection of atoms of you is part you and each part of the wood is a part of the ship, you and the ship have additional parts that are not shared by the collection of atoms and of the wood. SimonsVsDoepke: if Cesar (C) and the collection of atoms or matter m to t coincide, that means that C t m then Cesar's heart h is part of m to t. ((s) that means that for every single moment it is no problem). Doepke: relies on intuition to deny it. Simons: we need good reasons to claim that the heart is not part of the matter. Pro CP: CP stands for simplicity but only at first glance. If coincidence is both necessary and sufficient for superposition,... I 229 ...then the relationship between mereological and spatial considerations are very direct. One can, for example, show that spatial extension is part of another, if one finds a continuant that occupied each one, so that the one continuant is part of the other (sic). Conversely, if s1 and s2 are regions, so that s1 < s2, then for every x, y, and t, so that s1 = rtx and s2 = rty: resulting sum x) does not tolerate the loss of a single part. It was a plural sum in the sense of SUM (see above). Problem: then it looks like that the wall may think in particular type changes, and therefore the wall would have to constitute the stones. This applies to everything that can lose parts without dying, e.g. snowball. Problem: then concepts such as "the stones that form the walls (compose) or "the snow that constituted the snowball" (sic) are time-variable designators. Constitution: we want to exclude reciprocal constitution. Solution: Def constitution/SimonsVsDoepke: :x constitutes y to t iff. x could be a substrate of y’s complete destruction. Complete destruction: what this means, however, varies with the context. I 240 Not every part has to be destroyed completely. Constitution/Simons: a constituted object can be destroyed completely by destroying a few components. This ensures the asymmetry of the constitution. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| Extensionality | Simons Vs Extensionality | I 116 Extensionality/Simons: we leave extensionality with the rejection of ≤. I 117 ≤: the relation ≤ is not antisymmetric, it is a partial order, that means it is reflexive and transitive. In terms of it one can define a symmetric predicate: Def coincidence of parts/mereology/spelling/Simons: SD16 x ≤≥ y ≡ x ≤ y u y ≤ x. Coinciding individuals are perceptually indistinguishable for their period of coincidence. They are in superposition. Def superposition/mereology/Simons: they occupy the same place at the same time. Question: (see below): do all superposed objects coincide mereologically? By rejecting the proper parts principle we receive an abundance of descriptions and explanatory power. SimonsVsExtensionality: extensionality is too ascetic for mereology. I 251 Part/SimonsVsExtensionality/VsCEM/VsExtensional Mereology/Simons: we see which abundance we have to give up if we want to remain extensional, because now we have three concepts of part instead of one, which throws together the SSP and there may be even more. CEM/Extensional Mereology/Simons: extensional mereology is actually a substantive thesis: individuals who are of the same material are identified. coincidence-Principle/Simons: 1. For the two more powerful coincidence concepts of identity and the strong coincidence we refuse it. 2. For weak coincidence we allow it, provided we consider only superimposed material individuals. Strictly weak inclusion: e.g. there is no reason to deny that Caesar's heart is weakly included in the matter of Caesar. |
Peter Simons I P. Simons Parts Oxford New York 1987 |
| Simons, P. | Wiggins Vs Simons, P. | Simons I 216 Superposition/Simons: it is not just a pragmatic resistance that lets us assume that two objects cannot be superposed and yet have no common part. Simons: nevertheless pro, WigginsVsSuperposition/WigginsVsSimons: he makes this clear in the following principle: Principle/Wiggins: A and a real part or component B of a third thing C, where A unequal C and A ≠ B and where no part or component of A is a part or component of B or of C, cannot completely occupy the same space at the same time. Simons: where does this lead? rta: be the container from a to t. This means that space can become the object of timeless operators and predicates of extensional mereology. Frame of Reference: we assume it as fixed, so that identity of spaces can be determined. Then we can apply all axioms of CEM (Extensional Mereology), also the Sum-Axiom and the SSP are not contradictory. (…+…) I 217 SimonsVsWiggins: that does not seem particularly frightening. It even seems to be able to be amplified. For example, we can assume a Strong Supplement Principle (SSP) that is relativized to times: (…+…) SimonsVscoincidence Principle: if it were correct, it would establish a very close conceptual link between mereological relations and spatial relations between continuants. Simons pro Wiggins: in any case we can agree that "space" can only be mapped by reference to its occupants. ((s) >no "empty space"). Thus, the conceptual utility of the part-whole relations between continuants will consist in their necessity for the formation of spatial concepts. coincidence Principle/Simons: it is neat and it provides a seductive simplification. SimonsVscoincidence Principle/SimonsVsWiggins: one pays too high a price. I 218 But with his rejection we must also reject one of the premises, WP, PP or SSP. Which one? I would reject SSP (see below). But first we want to test WP against a hypothetical counter-example from Sharvy. I 220 WigginsVsSuperposition/Simons: his argument for WP goes like this: Suppose A and B were distinct and at the same place at the same time. Then they cannot be distinguished by location. Then they have to be distinguished by their properties. Problem: no space region (volume) can be described simultaneously by different predicates (be it color, form, texture etc.). (s) It cannot be spherical and cube-shaped at the same time). I 221 Simons: the latter may be true, but that does not speak against the possibility of a perfect mixture, because its qualities do not have to be those of its ingredients in isolation, which is proved by the imperfect mixtures every day. ((s) Contradiction to above I 218: there mixture of compound is distinguished by the fact that the properties of the ingredients are largely preserved in the mixture.) Superposition/Simons: Assuming that it would be possible that the occupation of space by a mass would be a gradual matter, then it would be possible that different masses occupy the same region Simons: although the occupation would have different intensity distributions. Simons: if this were the case, Wiggins' principle would be wrong and then we would have to doubt its necessity. |
Wiggins I D. Wiggins Essays on Identity and Substance Oxford 2016 Wiggins II David Wiggins "The De Re ’Must’: A Note on the Logical Form of Essentialist Claims" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Pro/Versus |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| mereol. Essentialism | Pro | Simons I 208 mereological essentialism: Pro: Chisholm - Vs: Simons: e.g. Ship of Theseus: initial coincidence of matter-constancy and functional constancy. I 275 mereological essentialism / Chisholm: all parts necessary - SimonsVsChisholm: some essential, others not. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superposition | Simons, P. | I 225 .... Superposition/Conclusion: but this does not yet show that Locke's Principle or the stronger thesis is correct, that no two things of the same species can coincide. Maybe piles are just not suitable. We need to address the problem more generally. Locke's Principle/LP: no two things of the same kind (i.e. that fulfill the same sortal term or substance term) can be in the same place at the same time. I 250 Superposition/Doepke: Thesis: Individuals are superposed iff they are both fully composed by the same third party (whatever). Weak coincidence/Simons: in our simple case we say that individuals coincide weakly if there are some building blocks of which both are composed in the just defined sense. |
|
| Tibbles | Wiggins, D. | Simons I 191 Example Tibbles / Wiggins: Tibbles the cat is not the same as the sum of Tib + Tail. Despite the permanent coincidence, because only Tibbles and not the sum has the model property to continue to exist, when the tail is lost. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| |||