MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608710398

Does Metaphysical Nihilism Pose a Threat to Genuine Modal Realism

2014· article· en· W2608710398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steffen Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrima facieArgument (complex analysis)PhilosophyMetaphysicsRealismMereologyNihilismEpistemologyPossible world
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genuine modal realism (GMR) holds that whatever is possibile is the case at some possible world and that possible worlds are maximal mereological sums of things that are spatiotemporally interrelated. Metaphysical nihilism (MN) holds that there is a world empty of concrete entities. GMR and MN contradict. A particularly strong argument for MN is the substraction argument (SA). This paper examines to what extent this argument poses a threat to GMR and by which means GMR can possibily be defended. I will lay out two basic strategies to do this and show that both of them face severe problems. Nevertheless, I will point to a prima facie possible way to defend GMR, namely by adopting a claim recently made by E. J. Lowe (2002): some abstract entities exist necessarily and concrete entities are a necessary condition for their existence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207