So I am reading this section on the problem of individuation from Koon's Metaphysics Fundamentals and I came across this text which confused me. Could someone help me understand this material? Here is the following text:

"Classical Bundle Theorists are here faced with what philosophers have called the problem of individuation. The problem of individuation consists in a challenge to identify a constituent of substances in virtue of which two substances are distinct, rather than identical. Since Classical Bundle Theory identifies substances with co-instantiated sets of universals, and since universals are natural properties and natural properties seem to all be shareable, the Classical Bundle Theorist seems to have no way to account for the distinctness of indiscernible substances. However, the problem of individuation is not unique to Classical Bundle Theory. Any Constituent Ontology committed to both PCI and Realism must respond to it. The problem of individuation is related to the Hochberg–Armstrong objection to Extreme Resemblance Nominalism. The reader might recall that the Hochberg–Armstrong objection pressed the Extreme Resemblance Nominalist to find distinct truthmakers for facts of similarity and facts of distinctness. The Extreme Resemblance Nominalist conflates the truthmakers for these types of fact in a problematic way, according to the objection. What we now see is that Classical Bundle Theory is up against a similar problem because they are using the same constituents of substances to account both for similarity and distinctness. The problem of individuation is a challenge to separate the metaphysical ground for similarity facts and distinctness facts."


Well a Singularity is a Point until you get a little closer right? then maybe its a line or a hole...

You can't define individual or single without first assuming some bias to remove for that which you intuit you do not require.

Whats the individual energy required for you to think about this distinctness?

Given all things considered equal is there anything which is separate from anything else? Cause and Effect require observation to tell them apart and even then we are bias to what we observe to a degree and choose what we take from such anomalies.

I find it easier to think of how things are the same and why they can fit into the same group and then make different type of problems to conjugate that which I must model.

The bundle theory construes objects as collections of properties (tropes or universals) tied together by a bundling relation, often called "compresence". ... A classical objection against the bundle theory is the objection from change advocated by Van Cleve.

So therein lies the problem, it seems its rooted in some deficiency of the formulation of its constructions.

Were cave men realists, if not why?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.