Thursday, October 01, 2009

MaxCon and Gunk

Greg Fowler has recently shown that the Maximally Continuous View of Simples is consistent with the possibility of Gunk (AJP 2008). The idea is that an extended MaxCon simple might have lots of complex objects that occupy the proper subregions of a simple. In fact, as Fowler notes, if MaxCon is true and there is some gunk, then that gunk must be in subregions of some extended simple.

Here is a view that I'd like to consider:

(MaxCon+G): MaxCon is true and for every proper subregion of the region occupied by a simple, there is a complex material object that occupies that subregion.

I think this view is false. Here is how to show that it is false. Let S be an extended simple. There are point sized subregions of the region occupied by that simple. By MaxCon+G, there must be a complex object in that region, call that object 'C'. No, suppose that for any object x, there is an intrinsic duplicate of x that that exists in a world without any objects other than x's parts. So, there is an intrinsic duplicate of C, C*, that exists in a world that has no objects other than the parts of C. Moreover, C* must have parts. Here is why. The mereological structure of an object is an intrinsic feature of objects. C is complex. So, any intrinsic duplicate of C is complex as well. Hence C* is complex. But, the shape of an object is intrinsic as well. So, since C is point sized, C* is point sized as well. Since, there are no objects other than C* and C* is point sized, it must be that C* is maximally continuous. So, by MaxCon, C* is a simple. So, C* is a simple and it is complex. Contradiction! Hence MaxCon+G is false.

I think there are a lot of moves that can be made to save MaxCon+G. One might deny that the mereological structure of an object is intrinsic (MaxCon itself certainly seems to suggest otherwise). One might deny that shapes are intrinsic (there is a precedent in the literature). One might also deny that C* is maximally continuous. Perhaps its parts occupy super-regions of the region it occupies. That is a pretty weird view.

1 Comments:

Blogger Greg Fowler said...

Hi Joshua,

This is interesting. I may have further thoughts later.

Right now, though, I just want to note that, strictly speaking, what I show is that if MaxCon is true and there is some gunk, then either that gunk occupies a subregion of an extended simple or it occupies a discontinuous region.

~Greg

2:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home