|
17292
|
Avoid 'in virtue of' for grounding, since it might imply a reflexive relation such as identity [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
We should not use 'in virtue of' where it might express a reflexive relation, such as identity. Since grounding is a relation of determination, and closely linked to the concept of explanation, it is irreflexive and asymmetric.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
E.g. he says someone isn't a bachelor in virtue of being an unmarried man, since a bachelor just is an unmarried man. I can't disagree. 'Determination' looks like the magic word, even if we don't know how it cashes out.
|
|
17302
|
Ground is irreflexive, asymmetric, transitive, non-monotonic etc. [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The logical principles about grounding include irreflexivity, asymmetry, transitivity, non-monotonicity, and so forth.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.8)
|
|
A reaction:
[It can't ground itself, there is no mutual grounding, grounds of grounds ground, and grounding judgements are not fixed]
|
|
17294
|
Grounding is a singular relation between worldly facts [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
On my view, grounding is a singular relation between facts. ...Facts, on this view, are obtaining states of affairs.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
He rest this claim on his 'worldly' view of facts, Idea 17293. I seem to be agreeing with him. Note that it is not between types of fact, even if there are such general truths, such as in chemistry.
|
|
17300
|
If grounding relates facts, properties must be included, as well as objects [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Taking facts to be the relata of grounding has the interesting consequence that it does not relate ordinary particulars, objects, considered apart from their properties.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.4)
|
|
A reaction:
It will depend on what you mean by properties, and it seems to me that something like 'powers' must be invoked, to get the active character that seems to be involved in grounding.
|
|
17301
|
Reduction is just identity, so the two things are the same fact, so reduction isn't grounding [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
I deny that when p grounds q, q thereby reduces to p, and I deny that if q reduces to p, then p grounds q. ...On my view, reduction is nothing other than identity, so p is the same fact as q.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.5)
|
|
A reaction:
Very good. I can't disagree with any of it, and it is crystal clear. Philosophical heaven.
|
|
10198
|
If only two indiscernible electrons exist, future differences must still be possible [Zimmerman,DW]
|
|
Full Idea:
If nothing existed except two electrons, which are indiscernible, it remains possible that differences will emerge later. Even if this universe has eternal symmetry, such differences are still logically, metaphysically, physically and causally possible.
|
|
From:
Dean W. Zimmerman (Distinct Indiscernibles and the Bundle Theory [1997], p.306)
|
|
A reaction:
The question then is whether the two electrons have hidden properties that make differences possible. Zimmerman assumes that 'laws' of an indeterministic kind will do the job. I doubt that. Can differences be discerned after the event?
|
|
10199
|
Discernible differences at different times may just be in counterparts [Zimmerman,DW]
|
|
Full Idea:
Possible differences which may later become discernible could be treated as differences in a counterpart, which is similar to, but not identical with, the original object.
|
|
From:
Dean W. Zimmerman (Distinct Indiscernibles and the Bundle Theory [1997], p.307)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This is a reply to Idea 10198, which implies that two things could never be indiscernible over time, because of their different possibilities. One must then decide issues about rigid designation and counterparts.
|
|
17299
|
There are plenty of examples of non-causal explanation [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are a number of explanations where it seems clear that causation is not involved at all: normative grounded in non-normative, disposition grounded in categorical, aesthetic grounded in non-aesthetic, semantic in social and psychological.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Apart from dispositions, perhaps, these all seem to be experienced phenomena grounded in the physical world. 'Determination' is the preferred term for non-causal grounding.
|
|
14608
|
A-theorists, unlike B-theorists, believe some sort of objective distinction between past, present and future [Zimmerman,DW]
|
|
Full Idea:
To be an A-theorist is to believe in some sort of objective distinction between what is present and past and future. ..To be a B-theorist is to deny the objectivity of our talk about past, present and future.
|
|
From:
Dean W. Zimmerman (The Privileged Present: A-Theory [2008], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
The A/B distinction originates with McTaggart. All my intuitions side with the A-theory, certainly to the extent that the present seems to be objectively privileged in some way (despite special relativity).
|