more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 15445

[filed under theme 9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 1. Structure of an Object ]

Full Idea

The stuctural universal 'isobutane' consists of the universal carbon four times over, hydrogen ten times over, and the universal 'bonded' thirteen times over - just like the universal 'butane'.

Gist of Idea

Butane and Isobutane have the same atoms, but different structures

Source

David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Variants')

Book Ref

Lewis,David: 'Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology' [CUP 1999], p.96


A Reaction

The point is that isobutane and butane have the same components in different structures. At least this is Lewis facing up to the problem of the 'flatness' of mereological wholes.


The 17 ideas from 'Against Structural Universals'

Tropes are particular properties, which cannot recur, but can be exact duplicates [Lewis]
The 'magical' view of structural universals says they are atoms, even though they have parts [Lewis]
If 'methane' is an atomic structural universal, it has nothing to connect it to its carbon universals [Lewis]
The 'pictorial' view of structural universals says they are wholes made of universals as parts [Lewis]
The structural universal 'methane' needs the universal 'hydrogen' four times over [Lewis]
A whole is distinct from its parts, but is not a further addition in ontology [Lewis]
Mathematicians abstract by equivalence classes, but that doesn't turn a many into one [Lewis]
Maybe abstraction is just mereological subtraction [Lewis]
I assume there could be natural properties that are not instantiated in our world [Lewis]
Butane and Isobutane have the same atoms, but different structures [Lewis]
Composition is not just making new things from old; there are too many counterexamples [Lewis]
Different things (a toy house and toy car) can be made of the same parts at different times [Lewis]
Structural universals have a necessary connection to the universals forming its parts [Lewis]
We can't get rid of structural universals if there are no simple universals [Lewis]
If you think universals are immanent, you must believe them to be sparse, and not every related predicate [Lewis]
Universals are meant to give an account of resemblance [Lewis]
We can add a primitive natural/unnatural distinction to class nominalism [Lewis]