Talk:Bundle theory

message: It would be nice if someone could give some details as to how bundle theory has developed through the history of ideas. What thinkers are associated with bundle theory? I see some has started doing this with the conception of Eastern philosophical understandings of the self, but it needs much more detail and should be more global, covering all major philosophical traditions (as much as possible). Does bundle theory relate at all to Empiricism or Phenomenalism? --chemica 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of Bundle Theory 

message: This article does not reference David Hume.  This is like an article on relativity that doesn't mention Einstein.
As an aside, one has to wonder whether Pluto as a bundle of properties includes the property of being a planet.  In 2006 the International Astronomical Union voted that it was not.  One implication of this vote is that any entity in orbit around Pluto would suddenly find itself no longer orbiting around a planet.  A paroled Klingon ship restricted to a planetary orbit might suddenly become a parole violator if its chosen planet had been Pluto.  Would nearby guard ships notice the violation right away?  And if they did, and if the IAU yielded to public pressure a few months later to rescind the vote, would the parole violation be stricken from the record?  With these sorts of possibilities I have a hard time conceiving of Pluto as the bundle of its properties.  Why should Pluto, or anyone near it, care what the IAU thinks?  Vaughan Pratt 07:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Hume reference 

message: This article really should have a section on the Identity of Indiscernibles, which is surely amongst the most favoured of anti-bundle theory arguments. The argument runs something like this:
1. Two objects might be qualitatively identical, sharing exactly all properties except relational ones (eg "x is five mile away from y").
2. Relational properties of this kind are not properties in the sense of qualities, because they apply equally to both - they are symmetric (ie if x is five miles away from y, y is also five miles away from x)
3. Therefore the two objects would have identical properties
4. Thus it would seem that the bundle theorist would have to say that these two objects are identical (by Leibniz's Law)
5. This would seem to entail an intolerably strong version of the identity of indiscernibles (ruled out, eg, by Max Black's two metal spheres)
Or something like that. Anyway, it is an important objection and should be included. Batmanand | Talk 07:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of Indiscernibles 

message: After reading the article on Mereological Nihilism, it seems that it is related to Bundle Theory, however I'm not an expert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekappen (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mereological  Nihilism 

message: Here [ http://analytical.wikia.com ] is a work that couples both substance theory and bundle theory. May be you can add the essence of it in this page, if you are interested in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does not have the properties of a thing?