John commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Hi Bill, First, in the interests of full disclosure, let me say that I haven't read this particular PVI article. That said, here are some thoughts. Premise 2 of PVI's argument is false. Simples are...
View ArticleBill Vallicella commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Thanks John, but I think you need to read the paper to see what PvI is up to. I linked to an online version (2) is not a premise but a conclusion from (1). Intuitively, if everything is a part of...
View ArticleJohn commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
I'll try to take a look at the paper, but I've got quite a bit of reading and writing for class going on this coming week, so it's unlikely that I'll be able to take a look at it. Which is a shame,...
View ArticleBoram Lee commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Bill, John's response to your discernibility arguments (as I shall call them) seems promising. It is the line that Varzi takes and develops in defending uniqueness of composition (or as he calls it,...
View ArticleBill Vallicella commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
John, Thanks for the discussion. PvI's paper is tedious as hell, and I appreciate that you don't have time to read it. But you can skim through it quickly. If you do so, you will notice that the first...
View ArticleJohn commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Bill, I'll refrain from saying any more about PVI's paper since I haven't read it, except to say this: I'm not sure that I understand, or agree with, his claim that everything is a mereological sum,...
View ArticleBill Vallicella commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
John, This is a good discussion. I'm grateful for your comments. You write, >> Uniqueness of Composition says that arrangement of parts is irrelevant; if two objects have the same parts (as Brick...
View ArticleBill Vallicella commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Boram, You makes some interesting suggestions, e.g. >>One could also take "Brick Sum" to be like a substance sortal, and "Brick House" to be like a phase sortal. Then Brick Sum and Brick House...
View ArticlePeter Bruin commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Why should it be the case that if a house is built from the Tuesday Bricks and nothing else, the bricks themselves are the only parts of the house? It appears that building the house does not only make...
View ArticleJohn commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Hi Bill, I agree that this is a good discussion. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss mereology with someone. Here is my assessment of the situation. On Tuesday, we have some xxs lying about. By...
View ArticleBill Vallicella commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Thanks for that, John. I will try to respond tomorrow. But now, to bed!
View ArticleBill Vallicella commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
Hi David, >>And 'x is an AMS of parts p1, p2,...' just means 'x has exactly the parts p1, p2,...' . << As you know, parthood, unlike elementhood in set theory, is transitive, so I wonder if...
View ArticleDavid Brightly commented on 'Can a Mereological Sum Change its Parts?'
I'd like to concentrate on PVI's apparent contention that there are (at least) two concepts of mereological sum in currency. The first, simpler, concept we might call an 'abstract mereological sum'...
View Article
