more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Everyone agrees that reduction requires supervenience, …but the more interesting issue is whether supervenience suffices for reduction.
Gist of Idea
Reduction requires supervenience, but does supervenience suffice for reduction?
Source
Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], §3.3)
Book Ref
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.8
A Reaction
I think we should assume that there is a reason for every genuine case of supervenience (i.e. there are no cases of eternal or ubiquitious coincidence). One-way causation seems to give supervenience without reduction.
| 16040 | Aesthetics, morality and mind supervene on the physical? Modal on non-modal? General on particular? [Bennett,K] |
| 16039 | Supervenience: No A-difference without a B-difference [Bennett,K] |
| 16042 | The metaphysically and logically possible worlds are the same, so they are the same strength [Bennett,K] |
| 16043 | Supervenience is non-symmetric - sometimes it's symmetric, and sometimes it's one-way [Bennett,K] |
| 16044 | Some entailments do not involve supervenience, as when brotherhood entails siblinghood [Bennett,K] |
| 16046 | Reduction requires supervenience, but does supervenience suffice for reduction? [Bennett,K] |
| 16047 | Weak supervenience is in one world, strong supervenience in all possible worlds [Bennett,K] |
| 16049 | Definitions of physicalism are compatible with a necessary God [Bennett,K] |