more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 9502
[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 3. Types of Properties
]
Full Idea
The thought that there might be just one fundamental natural property is not that strange.
Gist of Idea
There might be just one fundamental natural property
Source
Alexander Bird (Nature's Metaphysics [2007], 6.3)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Nature's Metaphysics' [OUP 2007], p.141
A Reaction
A nice variation on the Parmenides idea that only the One exists. Bird's point would refer to a possible unification of modern physics. We see, for example, the forces of electricity and of magnetism turning out to be the same force.
The
34 ideas
from 'Nature's Metaphysics'
14540
|
Only real powers are fundamental
[Bird, by Mumford/Anjum]
|
23713
|
Most laws supervene on fundamental laws, which are explained by basic powers
[Bird, by Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
|
9450
|
If all properties are potencies, and stimuli and manifestation characterise them, there is a regress
[Bird]
|
9449
|
The plausible Barcan formula implies modality in the actual world
[Bird]
|
9507
|
Laws are explanatory relationships of things, which supervene on their essences
[Bird]
|
9473
|
Laws cannot offer unified explanations if they don't involve universals
[Bird]
|
9472
|
Resemblance itself needs explanation, presumably in terms of something held in common
[Bird]
|
9474
|
A disposition is finkish if a time delay might mean the manifestation fizzles out
[Bird]
|
9475
|
A robust pot attached to a sensitive bomb is not fragile, but if struck it will easily break
[Bird]
|
9477
|
Categorical properties are not modally fixed, but change across possible worlds
[Bird]
|
9482
|
If the laws necessarily imply p, that doesn't give a new 'nomological' necessity
[Bird]
|
9481
|
Logical necessitation is not a kind of necessity; George Orwell not being Eric Blair is not a real possibility
[Bird]
|
9479
|
Dispositional essentialism says laws (and laws about laws) are guaranteed regularities
[Bird]
|
9484
|
If the universals for laws must be instantiated, a vanishing particular could destroy a law
[Bird]
|
9486
|
Why should a universal's existence depend on instantiation in an existing particular?
[Bird]
|
9487
|
We can't reject all explanations because of a regress; inexplicable A can still explain B
[Bird]
|
9488
|
Laws are either disposition regularities, or relations between properties
[Bird]
|
9489
|
Essentialism can't use conditionals to explain regularities, because of possible interventions
[Bird]
|
9490
|
The categoricalist idea is that a property is only individuated by being itself
[Bird]
|
9491
|
Haecceitism says identity is independent of qualities and without essence
[Bird]
|
9493
|
We should explain causation by powers, not powers by causation
[Bird]
|
9494
|
Singularism about causes is wrong, as the universals involved imply laws
[Bird]
|
9495
|
If we abstractly define a property, that doesn't mean some object could possess it
[Bird]
|
9496
|
That other diamonds are hard does not explain why this one is
[Bird]
|
9492
|
Categoricalists take properties to be quiddities, with no essential difference between them
[Bird]
|
9498
|
The essence of a potency involves relations, e.g. mass, to impressed force and acceleration
[Bird]
|
9499
|
Megarian actualists deny unmanifested dispositions
[Bird]
|
9501
|
If all existents are causally active, that excludes abstracta and causally isolated objects
[Bird]
|
9500
|
If naturalism refers to supervenience, that leaves necessary entities untouched
[Bird]
|
9502
|
There might be just one fundamental natural property
[Bird]
|
9503
|
To name an abundant property is either a Fregean concept, or a simple predicate
[Bird]
|
9504
|
The relational view of space-time doesn't cover times and places where things could be
[Bird]
|
9505
|
Empiricist saw imaginability and possibility as close, but now they seem remote
[Bird]
|
9506
|
Salt necessarily dissolves in water, because of the law which makes the existence of salt possible
[Bird]
|