I describe three extant attempts to identify global external symmetries within a Humean framework with theorems of some or other deductive systematization of the world: the best system, a best meta-system, and a maximally simple system. Each has merits, but also serious flaws. Instead, I propose a view of global external symmetries as consequences of the structure of Humean-consistent world-making relations.

As we understand them, dispositions are relatively uncontroversial 'predicatory' properties had by objects disposed in certain ways. By contrast, powers are hypothetical 'ontic' properties posited in order to explain dispositional behaviour. Chapter 1 outlines this distinction in more detail. Chapter 2 offers a summary of the issues surrounding analysis of dispositions and various strategies in contemporary literature to address them, including one of our own. Chapter 3 describes some of the important questions facing the metaphysics of powers including why they're (...) worth positing, and how they might metaphysically explain laws of nature and modality. (shrink)

Many Humeans are persuaded by an argument (separately) from Roberts, Lange and Woodward that strength ought not to be sacrificed in the competition for best system because scientific practice does not exhibit such a sacrifice. I here show that Humeans should not be so persuaded. The argument from Roberts, Lange and Woodward misses the fact that scientists can only systematise their experience, whereas the best system must systematise the entire world. However, while my demonstration shows that the argument against sacrificing (...) strength should not have been persuasive in the way it has been, it does raise new and difficult questions for the Humean. (shrink)