The positive account of [§3.2](<3.2 Triconditional Necessity Positive Account.md>) tested the Triconditions from below. This section tests the opposite direction. Suppose a reader does not build from facthood, determinacy, or modal vocabulary, but tries instead to remove the Conditions outright: deny them, negate them, fictionalize them away, conceive them absent, or foreclose them as impossible. Can any of those attempts give a coherent alternative to □(T ∧ S ∧ Φ)?

The test uses only the Chapter 1 definitions of Change ([§1.3](<1.3 Change.md>)) and the Temporality/Spatiality/Physicality triad ([§1.4](<1.4 Three Conditions.md>)), plus the shared ∅-floor that [§3.2](<3.2 Triconditional Necessity Positive Account.md>) grounds ([§3.2.1](<3. Convergence.md>), [§3.2.6](<3. Convergence.md>)). The sequence is organized by the escape it tests: denial as propositional act ([§3.3.1](<3. Convergence.md>), The Self-Refutation), one-by-one negation ([§3.3.2](<3. Convergence.md>), The Negation Trap), modal fictionalism ([§3.3.3](<3. Convergence.md>), Against Fictionalism), conceivability ([§3.3.4](<3. Convergence.md>), The Conceivability Trap), substantial impossibility ([§3.3.5](<3. Convergence.md>), From impossibility), and the final audit of where the overdetermination actually lives ([§3.3.6](<3. Convergence.md>), Uneven Overdetermination).


- [3.3.1 Denial Runs on Nature](<3.3.1 Denial Runs on Nature.md>)
- [3.3.2 The Negation Trap](<3.3.2 The Negation Trap.md>)
- [3.3.3 Against Fictionalism](<3.3.3 Against Fictionalism.md>)
- [3.3.4 The Conceivability Trap](<3.3.4 The Conceivability Trap.md>)
- [3.3.5 Not Even the Impossible](<3.3.5 Not Even the Impossible.md>)
- [3.3.6 Uneven Overdetermination](<3.3.6 Uneven Overdetermination.md>)


---

← [3.2.6 The Null-State Reductio](<3.2.6 The Null-State Reductio.md>) | [3.3.1 Denial Runs on Nature](<3.3.1 Denial Runs on Nature.md>) →
