Element contents
Series: Elements in Metaphysics
Parts and Wholes
Spatial to Modal
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 June 2023
Summary
The Odd Universe Argument aims to show that from four intuitive assumptions about parts and wholes, we can conclude a priori that there is an odd number of things in the universe. This Element investigates how this is so and where things might have gone awry. Section 1 gives an overview of general methodology, basic mereology, and plural logic. Section 2 explores questions about the nature of composition and decomposition. Does composition always occur? Never? Sometimes? Is the universe, at rock bottom, just many partless bits (simples)? Or do the parts have parts all the way down (gunk)? Section 3 looks at arguments for and against the thesis that composition is identity, with a healthy bias in its favor. In the wake of this discussion, we reconsider our methods of counting. We conclude with a return to the odd universe argument and suggestions on how best to resist it.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in MetaphysicsOnline ISBN: 9781009086561Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 29 June 2023
References
Armstrong, D. M. (1978) Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1997) A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagaria, J. (2021) “Set Theory” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/set-theory.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. (2007) “Vagueness and Arbitrariness: Merricks on Composition” Mind 116(461): 105–113.Google Scholar
Baxter, D. (2014) “Identity, Discernibility, and Composition” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 244–253.Google Scholar
Bennett, K. (2009) “Composition, Colocation, and Metaontology” in Chalmers, D. J., Manley, R., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K. (2015) “Perfectly Understood, Unproblematic, and Certain: Lewis on Mereology” in Loewer, B., and Schaffer, J. (eds.), A Companion to David Lewis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 250–261.Google Scholar
Benovsky, J. (2006b) “Four-Dimensionalism and Modal Perdurants” in Valore, P. (ed.), Topics on General and Formal Ontology. Milan, Italy: Polimetrica, 137–159.Google Scholar
Benovsky, J. (2006c) Persistence through Time and across Possible Worlds. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, E. (2009a) “An Argument against the Necessity of Unrestricted Composition” Analysis 69(1): 27–31.Google Scholar
Bohn, E. (2009b) “Must There Be a Top Level?” Philosophical Quarterly 59(235): 193–201.Google Scholar
Bohn, E. (2014) “Unrestricted Composition as Identity” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 143–165.Google Scholar
Bohn, E. (2016) “Composition as Identity and Plural Cantor’s Theorem” in Logic and Logical Philosophy 25(3): 411–428.Google Scholar
Bohn, E. (2021) “Composition as Identity: Pushing Forward” Synthese 198 (Suppl. 18): 4595–4607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, G. (1984) “To Be Is to Be a Value of a Variable (or to Be Some Values of Some Variables)” Journal of Philosophy 81(8): 430–450. Reprinted in Boolos, G. (1998) Logic, Logic, and Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boolos, G. (1985) “Nominalist Platonism” Philosophical Review 94(3): 327–344. Reprinted in Boolos, G. (1998) Logic, Logic, and Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bricker, P. (2016) “Composition as a Kind of Identity” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 59(3): 264–294.Google Scholar
Bricker, P. (2019) “Composition as Identity, Leibniz’s Law, and Slice-Sensitive Emergent Properties” Synthese 198: 4389–4409.Google Scholar
Brzozowski, J. (2016) “Monism and Gunk” in Jago, M. (ed.), Reality Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–74.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. (2022) Set Theory, Elements in Philosophy and Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calosi, C. (2016) “Composition as Identity and Mereological Nihilism” Philosophical Quarterly 66(263): 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calosi, C. (2018) “Failure or Boredom: The Pendulum of Composition as Identity” American Philosophical Quarterly 55(3): 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, R. (2007) “The Contingency of Composition” Philosophical Studies 136(1): 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, R. (2012) “Composition as Identity Does Not Settle the Special Composition Question” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(3): 531–554.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. (2014) “Parts Generate the Whole but They Are Not Identical to It” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D., Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 90–107.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950) “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4: 20–40.Google Scholar
Casati, R., and Varzi, A. C. (1999) Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Casati, R., and Varzi, A. (2008) Insurmountable Simplicities: Thirty-Nine Philosophical Conundrums. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J., Manley, R., and Wasserman, R. (eds.) (2009) Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cotnoir, A. (2013) “Composition as General Identity” in Bennett, K., and Zimmerman, D. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–322.Google Scholar
Cotnoir, A. (2014a) “Universalism and Junk” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 4(92): 649–664.Google Scholar
Cotnoir, A. (2014b) “Composition as Identity: Framing the Debate” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (2014) Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowling, S. (2014) “No Simples, No Gunk, No Nothing” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95(1): 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. J. (2010) “Predicate Wormism: A Quinean Account of De Re Modality” Logique et Analyse 53(212): 449–464.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S. (2009) “Individuals: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics” Philosophical Studies 145: 35–67.Google Scholar
De, M. (2018) “On the Humphrey Objection to Modal Realism” Grazer Philosopische Studien 95:159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, C., and Rosen, G. (2002) “Composition as a Fiction” in Gale, R. (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell, 151–174.Google Scholar
Effingham, N. (2011) “Sider, Hawley, Sider and the Vagueness Argument” Philosophical Studies 154: 241–250.Google Scholar
Fairchild, M., and Hawthorne, J. (2018) “Against Conservativism in Metaphysics” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 82: 45–75.Google Scholar
Fairchild, M. (2021) “Arbitrariness and the Long Road to Permissivism” Noûs 56(3): 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12376.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1951) The Structure of Appearances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1977) The Structure of Appearances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, S. (1991) “Modal Realism without Counterparts” Southwest Philosophy Review 7: 77–86.Google Scholar
Harte, V. (2002) Plato on Parts and Wholes: The Metaphysics of Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. (2014) “Ontological Innocence” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 70–89.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. (2011) Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofweber, T. (2009) “Ambitious, yet Modest, Metaphysics” in Chalmers, D. J., Manley, R., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 260–289.Google Scholar
Hovda, P. (2009) “What Is Classical Mereology?” Journal of Philosophical Logic 38: 55–82.Google Scholar
Huggett, N. (2019) “Zeno’s Paradoxes” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/paradox-zeno/.Google Scholar
Hyde, D., and Raffman, D. (2018) “Sorites Paradox” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/sorites-paradox/.Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, S. (ed.) (2014) Mereology and Location. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korman, D. (2015) Objects: Nothing Out of the Ordinary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korman, D. (2020a) “Conservatism, Counterexamples, and Debunking” Analysis 80(3): 558–574.Google Scholar
Korman, D. (2020b) “Ordinary Objects” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/ordinary-objects/.Google Scholar
Lando, G. (2017) Mereology: A Philosophical Introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Leonard, H. S., and Goodman, N. (1940) “The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2): 45–55.Google Scholar
Leśniewski, S. (1927–31) “O podstawach matematyki” Przeglad Filozoficzny 30: 164–206; 31: 261–291; 32: 60–101; 33: 77–105; 34: 142–170. Translated by V. F. Sinisi as “Leśniewski’s Foundations of Mathematics” Topoi 2 (1983): 3–52. Translated by D. I. Barnett as “On the Foundations of Mathematics” in S. Leśniewski, Collected Works, vol. 1, ed. by S. J. Surma et al. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992, 174–382.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1994) “Reduction of Mind” in Guttenplan, S. (ed.), Companion to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 412–431.Google Scholar
Linnebo, Ø. (2022) “Plural Quantification” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/plural-quant/.Google Scholar
Loss, R. (2018) “A Sudden Collapse to Nihilism” Philosophical Quarterly 68(271): 370–375.Google Scholar
Loss, R. (2021a) “Composition, Identity, and Plural Ontology” Synthese 198: 9193–9210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loss, R. (2021b) “On Atomic Composition as Identity” Synthese 198 (Suppl. 18): 4519–4542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loss, R. (2022) “Composition as Identity and the Innocence of Mereology” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 105: 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markosian, N. (2005) “Against Ontological Fundamentalism” Facta Philosophica 7: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markosian, N. (2015) “The Right Stuff” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93: 665-668.Google Scholar
McDaniel, K. (2010b) “Composition as identity Does Not Entail Universalism” Erkenntnis 73(1): 97–100.Google Scholar
McDaniel, K. (2014) “Parthood Is Identity” in Kleinshmidt, S. (ed.), Mereology and Location. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (2006) “Wholes and Parts: The Limits of Composition” South African Journal of Philosophy 25(2): 138–145.Google Scholar
Merricks, T. (1999) “Composition as Identity, Mereological Essentialism, and Counterpart Theory” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77: 192–195.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1959) “Proof of an External World” in Moore, G. E. (ed.), Philosophical Papers. London: Allen and Unwin, 144–148.Google Scholar
Oliver, A., and Smiley, T. (2016) Plural Logic. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. (2014) “The Many Primitives of Mereology” in Kleinschmidt, S. (ed.), Mereology and Location. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Payton, J. (2021a) “How to Identify Wholes with Their Parts” Synthese 198 (Suppl. 18): 4571–4593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payton, J. (2021b) “Composition as Identity, Now with All the Pluralities You Could Want” Synthese 199: 8047–8068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payton, J. (2022b) “Counting Composites” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 100(4): 695–710.Google Scholar
Rini, A. A., and Cresswell, M. J. (2012) The World-Time Parallel: Tense and Modality in Logic and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (ed.) (2001) Zeno’s Paradoxes. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Sattig, T. (2021) Material Objects, Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2010) “Monism: The Priority of the Whole” Philosophical Review 119: 31–76.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, G. N. (1985) “Spatial, Temporal, and Cosmic Parts” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 23: 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S., and Kissel, T. (2022) Classical First-Order Logic, Elements in Philosophy and Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sider, T. (2013) “Against Parthood” in Bennett, K., and Zimmerman, D. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 237–293.Google Scholar
Sider, T. (2014) “Consequences of Collapse” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 211–221.Google Scholar
Sorenson, R. (2003) A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. (2017) “Counting on Strong Composition as Identity to Settle the Special Composition Question” Erkenntnis 82(4): 857–872.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. (2017) “Metaphysical Disputes and Metalinguistic Negotiation” Analytic Philosophy 58(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Turner, J. (2014) “Donald Baxter‘s Composition as Identity” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 225–243.Google Scholar
Unger, P. (1979b) “I Do Not Exist” in Macdonald, G. F. (ed.), Perception and Identity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 235–251.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. (2008) “The Moon and Sixpence: A Defense of Mereological Universalism” in Sider, T., Hawthorne, J., and Zimmerman, D. W. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Metaphsyics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 321–340.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (1981) “The Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62: 123–137.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (1994) “Composition as Identity” Philosophical Perspectives 8: 207–220.Google Scholar
Varzi, A. (2014) “Counting and Countenancing” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–69.Google Scholar
Varzi, A. (2019) “Mereology” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (2011a) “Composition as Identity: Part 1” Philosophy Compass 6(11): 804–816.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (2011b) “Composition as Identity: Part 2” Philosophy Compass 6(11): 817–827.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (2014a) “Composition as Identity, Modal Parts, and Mereological Essentialism” in Cotnoir, A., and Baxter, D. (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 211–221.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (2014b) “The Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts” dialectica 68(3): 355–373.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (2019) “The Lump Sum: A Theory of Modal Parts” Philosophical Papers 48(3): 403–435.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R. (2021) “Material Constitution” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/material-constitution/.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1987) “Identity, Essence, and Indiscernibility” Journal of Philosophy 84(6): 293–314.Google Scholar
Yagisawa, T. (2010) Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yi, B.-U. (1999) “Is Mereology Ontologically Innocent?” Philosophical Studies 93(2): 141–160.Google Scholar
Yi, B.-U. (2005) “The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part 1” Journal of Philosophical Logic 34: 459–506.Google Scholar
Yi, B.-U. (2006) “The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part 2” Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 239–288.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by