| |
| | [No title] |
 | | The problem with this is that some philosophers believe that overdeterminers are never causes; rather, these philosophers believe that, in a case of overdetermination, the cause is a collective entity—something like the mereological sum of the overdeterminers or their disjunction—but not the individual overdeterminers. |
 | | In essence, what the proponent of the overdetermination argument is trying to argue is that, if ordinary objects were causally efficacious, they would give rise to a type of phenomenon that would have to be widespread, whereas we have reason to believe that such phenomenon is not, as a matter of fact, widespread. |
 | | In that case, the overdeterminers in Rock would probably be an event involving the rock and an event involving several atoms acting in concert (or many events, each of which describes the trajectory of a single atom). |
| philosophy.wisc.edu /sartorio/oa.doc (9450 words) |
|