Eubulides wrote:
>
>
>
> "Is Supervenience Asymmetric?" to appear in L. C. Pereira and M. Wrigley,
I followed up to the following paragraphs, where it lost me:
**** Suppose determination has an asymmetry that derives from an implied in-virtue-of or explanation relation. That is, if F determines G, it is asymmetrically in virtue of, hence explained by, having F that something has G (for any F and G in the field of the determination relation). It can be proved that for any relation R, if (i) R implies relation Q (in the sense that for any F and G, if RFG then QFG) and (ii) there are F, G and H such that RFG and RGH but not QFH, then R is not transitive.(17) In particular, if (i) the relation D of determination implies an in-virtue-of relation V, in the sense that for any F and G, if DFG then VFG, and (ii) there are cases in which DFG and DGH but not VFH, then D is not transitive, a result that is inconsistent with the transitivity Kim assumes and physicalists require.
Since there are cases in which DFG and DGH but not VFH, the supposition of an asymmetry of D that derives from an implied in-virtue-of or explanation relation V is incompatible with the transitivity of determination.(18) The likely place to look for such cases is where the implied relation V is non-transitive and DFG and DGH; indeed it can be shown that if V is non-transitive for F,G,H when DFG and DGH, then D is non-transitive, inconsistent with the transitivity of determination. ****
Can you paraphrase & illustrate with an example?
Carrol