The literature on grounding has been a blast to read through, but I'm again confronted by armadas of formal systems too powerful for a lonely mortal like myself to easily withstand. For example, [this treatment](https://philpapers.org/archive/LITGG.pdf) makes use of vast formalization, [huge blocks/streams of symbols eventually show up here](https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/philosophy/documents/faculty-documents/fine/accessible_fine/Fine_Guide-Ground.pdf), [this has a bunch of partly-mathematical musings going on](https://philpapers.org/archive/BILARF-2.pdf),<sup>⛓</sup> etc.

A creeping concern seems to be over the fundamental viability of the "project" or "research program" of grounding theory. One reason for us to raise such a concern is the divergence of so much of the formalization. This can be dealt with to some extent (or in some way) via pluralism, then, **but I am also roughly familiar with what is called "[set-theoretic geology](https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4776)" (also "archeology": see the fn. on pg. 34), which seems like a well-grounded way to use the grounding analogy.** Assuming that proper mathematicians count as scientists, and assuming a certain "deference thesis," is it per this thesis to defer to set-theoretic geologists in formulating a formalization of metaphysical grounding talk? The hope would be that the greater perspicuity of the mathematical treatment could be adapted to the philosophical case.


----------
<sup>⛓</sup>That one includes propositions like "the degree of reality at level *i* is zero" or "Consider a world that contains and [*sic*] infinity of levels" or (quoting someone else in the paper) "The 'transmission model' of being, whereby the being of an entity at a given level of reality *L*<sub>*n*</sub> is fully obtained, in a yes/no, all-or-nothing fashion, from the entity or entities at the immediately prior level *L*<sub>*n*−1</sub>." These descriptive options seem to suggest having levels-of-reality as themselves some sort of grounding *relata*, though whether they would be the primary such bearers is a question that seems to have a standard negative answer available to it (using the determinables-determinates analogy, it would be the more specific grounders and groundees that would anchor the grounding talk for their encompassing levels).