I characterize two different senses in which a formal theory of location can be said to be neutral: neutrality with respect to some locational principles, and neutrality with respect to some controversial cases that have been presented as counterexamples to some principles. Theories neutral in the second sense are often weaker than theories neutral in the first. To illustrate this, I consider some popular principles and some of the counterexamples that have been used to argue against them in the…
Read moreI characterize two different senses in which a formal theory of location can be said to be neutral: neutrality with respect to some locational principles, and neutrality with respect to some controversial cases that have been presented as counterexamples to some principles. Theories neutral in the second sense are often weaker than theories neutral in the first. To illustrate this, I consider some popular principles and some of the counterexamples that have been used to argue against them in the literature, including inexact objects, cases of Nested Multilocation, and failures of Additivity. I then show that no currently existing theory of location built on just one primitive is able to account for all the cases that I have discussed. Lastly, I present a theory of location based on just one primitive which can account for all the discussed cases.
