tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6844454610561725961..comments2017-05-24T14:50:15.143-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Grounding accidents in substancesAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-42100317282890931292017-05-04T12:19:22.067-05:002017-05-04T12:19:22.067-05:00I guess what we would need is something like an &q...I guess what we would need is something like an "x is F modulo x's existence" fact. :-) I suppose in a free logic you could say "x is F or x doesn't exist". But that disjunction surely doesn't even partly ground x's being F.Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-88242876644961071822017-05-04T11:53:51.644-05:002017-05-04T11:53:51.644-05:00Nice. Another problem-case for principle (1) comes...Nice. Another problem-case for principle (1) comes from the following plausible principle:<br /><br />(A) if x is F (where F is any property other than existence), then the fact that x is F is partially grounded in the fact that x exists.<br /><br />But now take a case where some basic entity, like an electron, e, instantiates some basic property, like negative charge. Principle (A) says that the fact that e has negative charge is partially grounded in the fact that e exists. That seems plausible enough, but in this case it looks like there won't be any other (collection of) fact(s) X such that e's having negative charge is fully grounded in X + the fact that e exists.Brian Cutterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17059155559949747916noreply@blogger.com