Asymmetry cannot solve the circularity/regress problem of property structuralism

Abstract

Strong dispositional monism (SDM), the position that all fundamental physical properties consist in dispositional relations to other properties, is naturally construed as property structuralism. J. Lowe’s circularity/regress objection (CRO) constitutes a serious challenge to SDM that questions the possibility of a purely relational determination of all property essences. The supervenience thesis of A. Bird’s graph-theoretic asymmetry reply to CRO can be rigorously proved. Yet the reply fails metaphysically, because it reveals neither a metaphysical determination of identities on a purely relational basis nor a determination specifically of identities in the sense of essences. Asymmetry is thus not by itself sufficient for a solution to CRO. But it cannot even help to answer CRO when a model for the determination of essences is taken as a basis. Nor is asymmetry necessary for a reply, as property structures may well be symmetric. A metaphysics of dispositional properties as grounded in a purely relational structure faces serious obstacles, and the properties would not be fundamental. Since essence and grounding are notions of metaphysical priority, there can be no essentially dispositional metaphysically fundamental properties, and the prospects of a “coherentist” metaphysics of basic properties are dim. A modal retreat that refrains from a post-modal conception of essence and simply claims that fundamental properties play dispositional roles by metaphysical necessity is unsatisfactory.

No foundations for metaphysical coherentism

“…Cf. Wang (2019), Busse (2021). 31 For Humean approaches see Miller (2014), Bhogal and Perry (2017), Dorst (2023).…”

“…This is the view that the essences of all natural properties consist in nothing more than dispositions regarding other such properties. See Busse (2021) for a critique of A. Bird's (2007: ch.…”

Relational Troubles Structuralist Worries for an Epistemology of Powers-Based Modality

“…The mixed view holds that some chains of powers terminate in categorical properties that act as dead-ends and anchors. This dispels worries about identity regresses of powers (Lowe, 2010) without having to appeal to controversial structuralist considerations (Bird, 2006;Oderberg, 2011Oderberg, , 2012Busse, 2020Busse, , 2021. However, it is not obvious how helpful this view is from an epistemological point of view, at least in most cases.…”

Individuating Powers: On the Regress/Circularity Individuation Arguments against Bird’s Dispositional Monism

“…The Bird-Lowe debate has recently enjoyed a small but intense surge of interest, and while someone was satisfied by Bird's strategy (Barker 2009: 243), the majority agreed that the so-called "identity regress argument" was too coarsely characterized to be properly resolved; most importantly, a crucial ambiguity in the use of "identity" was noted. 2 Busse (2021) has successfully shown that, given a model-theoretic reconstruction of Bird's claim, the numerical distinctnesses of the objects in a structure are indeed entailed by its asymmetric relational pattern; however, as Busse notices, it is unclear whether the identity of a powerin the non-relational sense of its nature or essence-might be so relationally or structurally determined, as Bird (2007b: 524) has claimed. A power's nature may be determined by its manifestation, in turn another power, which itself needs another power to have its nature determined-eventually leading to a "nature regress", as in Ingthorsson (2015); alternatively, first-order powers may have their natures determined holistically by second-order structures which they themselves are part of.…”