Abelian mereology

• Authors: Cotnoir A. J.
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In classical extensional mereology, composition is idempotent: if x is part of y, then the sum of x and y is identical to y. In this paper, I provide a systematic and coherent formal mereology for which idempotence fails. I first discuss a number of purported counterexamples to idempotence that have been put forward in the literature. I then discuss two recent attempts at sketching non-idempotent formal mereology due to Karen Bennett and Kit Fine. I argue that these attempts are incomplete, however, and there are many open issues left unresolved. I then construct a class of models of a non-idempotent mereology using multiset theory, consider their algebraic structure, and show how these models can shed light on the open issues left from the previous approaches.

Keywords

EN

universalism; extensionality; supplementation; antisymmetry; mereology; parthood; composition

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)
• Journal: Logic and Logical Philosophy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 4 Mereology and Beyond
• Pages: 429-447

Dates

online

2015-03-05

Contributors

author

Cotnoir A. J.

• University of St Andrews, Departments of Philosophy, St Andrews, United Kingdom

References

• Armstrong, D.M., “In defense of structural universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64 (1986): 85–88.
• Bennett, K., “Having a part twice over”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91 (2013): 83–103. DOI: 10.1080/00048402.2011.637936
• Bigelow, J., and R. Pargetter, “A theory of structural universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67 (1989): 1–11. DOI: 10.1080/00048408912343641
• Blizard, W., “Multiset theory”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 30, 1 (1989): 36–66. DOI: 10.1305/ndjfl/1093634995
• Brink, C., “Some background on multisets”, Tech. rep., Australian National University, July 1987. Automated Reasoning Project TR-ARP-2/87.
• Cotnoir, A. J., and A. Bacon, “Non-wellfounded mereology”, Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 2 (2012): 187–204. DOI: 10.1017/S1755020311000293
• Singh, D., A.M. Ibrahim, T. Yohanna, and J. N. Singh, “An overview of the applications of multisets”, Novi Sad Journal of Mathematics, 37, 2 (2007): 73–92.
• Donnelly, M., “Parthood and multi-location”, pp. 203–243 in D. Zimmerman, (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 5, Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Eagle, A., “Location and perdurance”, pp. 53–94 in D. Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 5, Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Effingham, N., “Mereological explanation and time travel”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 2 (2010): 333–345. DOI: 10.1080/00048400903018972
• Effingham, N., and J. Robson, “A mereological challenge to endurantism”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85 (2007): 633–640.
• Fine, K., “Towards a theory of part”, Journal of Philosophy, 107, 11 (2010): 559–589.
• Fisher, A.R. J., “Bennett on parts twice over”, Philosophia, 41, 3 (2013): 757–761. DOI: 10.1007/s11406-012-9396-z
• Forrest, P., “Exemplification and parthood”, Axiomathes, 23 (2013): 323–341. DOI: 10.1007/s10516-013-9215-6
• Gilmore, C., “Time travel, coinciding objects, and persistence”, pp. 177–198 in D. Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Gilmore, C., “Coinciding objects and duration properties: Reply to Eagle”, pp. 95–111 in D. Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 5, Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Hawley, K., “Mereology, modality, and magic”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 1 (2010): 117–133. DOI: 10.1080/00048400802587341
• Kleinschmidt, S., “Multilocation and mereology”, Philosophical Perspectives, 25 (2011): 253–276. DOI: 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2011.00215.x
• Lewis, D., “Against structural universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64, (1986): 25–46. DOI: 10.1080/00048408612342211
• Lewis, D., Parts of Classes, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1991.
• Mormann, T., “Structural universals as structural parts: Towards a general theory of parthood and composition”, Axiomathes, 20 (2010): 229–253.
• Smith, D., “Mereology without weak supplementation”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87 (2009): 505–511. DOI: 10.1080/00048400802215703
• Varzi, A., “The extensionality of parthood and composition”, The Philosophical Quarterly, 58 (2008): 108–133. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.542.x
• Varzi, A., “Mereology”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology

Identifiers

DOI

10.12775/LLP.2015.006