Timothy Pickavance

Causal connectionists need to provide an account of causal linkage and of causal direction. This chapter distinguishes between two kinds of causal connection, namely, discrete and continuous. Causal connectionists have a number of options for explaining the linkage between causes and effects in the case of discrete causation. The chapter provides some popular options. If some causation is discrete, and the exercise of causal powers provides a direction to discrete causation, then the causal direction of processes can be derived from the causal direction of discrete interaction. David Hume famously made the claim about the knowledge of causation in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume offers, in defense of his principle, a set of thought‐experiments that seem to show that we can always imagine any event's having a different result from the one we in fact observe. Causal processes like locomotion may provide counterexamples to Hume's Epistemic Principle.

Substratism and Replacementism are the two major contending accounts of intrinsic change. This chapter discusses the interaction between composition and persistence, as the persistence of composite objects provides a critical test case for evaluating these two accounts. The chapter covers important puzzles and paradoxes for those who believe that mereological inconstancy and mereological coincidence are possible. There are actually two somewhat different conceptions of coincidence. One involves the sharing of a time‐slice or instantaneous temporal part. This is Temporal Coincidence. A second kind of coincidence involves having exactly the same parts (whether spatially or temporally extended or both) at the same time. On some views, Temporal Coincidence and Temporary Mereological Coincidence are exactly the same things. The most compelling case of temporary mereological coincidence is that of composite things and their matter.

This chapter examines whether space and extended bodies are ultimately composed of points (and point‐masses) or spatial regions (and voluminous bodies). It focuses on three positions: Pointillism, according to which only points and point‐sized bodies are fundamental; Voluminism, according to which the only fundamental things are regions and voluminous bodies; and Volume‐Boundary Dualism, according to which both points and regions really exist and are equally fundamental. The first prima facie problem for Voluminism concerns continuous variation. The chapter looks at the idea of constructing points from regions and concerns whether points or regions are fundamental. It lays out three arguments against Pointillism, the thesis that points are the only fundamental entities, namely, the arguments from Finitism, from mathematical paradoxes, and from the nature of contact. Aristotelian Finitists can explain why some sets of points have measurable volume and why some do not.

This chapter examines four special problems involving properties whether universals or tropes. It looks at various accounts of relational facts, facts that involve properties relating two or more particulars. The chapter examines an important special case of relational facts: those that involve nonsymmetric or ordering relations. It focuses on structural properties, those relational properties that enable many things to form a single structure, like a group or a team. Finally, it considers the problem of measurable quantities. Monadism is the view that all relational truths are grounded in the intrinsic character of substances taken individually. The most difficult problem for Leibniz's version of Monadism is giving a full and adequate theory of monadic representation. A monad's representing the world as being a certain way must consist of a set of intrinsic mental acts. The chapter surveys the various metaphysical options for Anti‐Monadism, and considers the most difficult test case: that of non‐symmetric relations.

This introduction provides an overview of the key concepts discussed in the following chapters of this book. The book begins with a short history of metaphysics, and discusses some reasons why metaphysics matters. The practice of metaphysics is controversial within philosophy itself. This controversy stems from two primary sources: skepticism and pragmatism. The book introduces the two notions of truthmaking and of grounding, ideas that lie at the heart of a significant number of metaphysical projects. It develops an account of dispositions: conditionals, laws of nature, and intrinsic powers. Th book examines the alternative view of Nominalism, according to which everything real is particular and unshareable, including the form of Nominalism that posits individualized properties or tropes. It also considers whether space is a thing in its own right or whether it consists merely in the holding of spatial relations between bodies.

This chapter looks at six arguments against Tensism. They are, equivalently, arguments for Anti‐Tensism. The arguments are of three basic kinds: those that argue that Tensism is incoherent or mysterious, those that argue that it is in irresolvable conflict with modern science, and those that fault Tensism for its unexplainable or brute necessities. The chapter considers the objection that Tensism cannot sensibly account for the rate of the flow of time. It shows in which a variety of objections based on Truthmaker Theory are lodged against various versions of Tensism. The chapter looks at science, especially Einstein's theory of relativity, as the basis for an argument against Tensism. It concerns additional philosophical objections to Tensism and then considers epistemological problems for Tensism; and McTaggart's argument that Tensism is self‐contradictory. The chapter explores the number of brute necessities for which Tensism can provide no simple explanation.

This chapter considers three substantivalist theories, namely, the theory of spatial qualities, spatial monism, and body‐space dualism, and two relationist theories, namely, Aristotelian relationism and modern relationism. Spatial Substantivalism comes in two forms, depending on whether places are properties or not. Assuming that places are properties amounts to the theory of spatial qualities; the alternative version of substantivalism is spatial particularism. Spatial particularism in turn comes in two forms, body‐space dualism and spatial monism. Spatial relationists also come in two forms, Aristotelian and modern. modern relationists believe that the fundamental spatial relation is the distance between dimensionless point‐masses. Aristotelian Relationists take the fundamental spatial properties to be volume and shape, and the only fundamental spatial relation to be contiguity. A critical difference between spatial substantivalists and spatial relationists concerns their treatments of empty space.

This chapter explores whether causation is a relation between things, like being next to or being taller than, or it is something else entirely. It considers two ways of thinking about causation. The chapter considers it as a real relation, the relation of causal connection, between things or events, or as a logical relation, the relation of causal explanation, among truths. For metaphysicians, the crucial question is whether causal connection or causal explanation is more fundamental. There are two major objections to all three versions of Causal Explanationism: the problem of causal linkage and the problem of the direction or asymmetry of causation. Causal Connectionists posit a category of thing, events (or states or conditions), members of which stand in the fundamental relation of causation. The weightiest objection to Causal Connectionism concerns the phenomenon of negative causation. Causal Connectionism entails that causation is always a matter of some real relation between things.

This chapter discusses four packages, including Ludovician, Aristotelian, Fortibracchian, and Quietist. There are two quite coherent packages of answers to the some issues: a neo‐Humeist or Ludovician package, and a neo‐Aristotelian package. Ludovicians put little weight on common sense beliefs, especially when they are embedded in ethical and legal practices, and they do not rely heavily on the "manifest image of the world". Aristotelians rely more heavily on the semantic intuition about what could possibly be the truthmakers for familiar kinds of claims, including those involving tense and modality. This chapter lists the Aristotelian package as including Meinongianism, ontological vagueness, and Tensism on the passage of time. Fortibracchians are very similar in methodology to Ludovicains. In practice, Fortibracchians give more weight to a kind of naive realism with respect to scientific theory than do Ludovicians.

This chapter examines some issues concerning the structure of time. It considers arguments for and against Temporal Finitism. Temporal Discretism is a kind of Finitism: any finitely extended interval is made up of only finitely many indivisible units of time. In the chapter, the authors assume for the sake of argument that Intervalism is true, that is, that some temporally extended intervals and processes are among the world's fundamental entities. The main argument for Intervalism is that it follows from the metaphysical impossibility of certain infinitary scenarios involving super‐tasks. Strong Intervalism denies that instants are fundamental, while Moderate Intervalism, or Interval‐Boundary Dualism, embraces the fundamentality of both instants and intervals. Infinitary Intervalism is relative to the three competing theories of Aristotelian Temporal Finitism, Temporal Discretism, and Instantism. In the chapter, the authors also assume that all Intervalists are either Discretists or Aristotelian Finitists, and that all Instantists are Temporal Infinitists.