 As a rejoinder, dispositionalists can point to laws of composition. As a consequence, it is not the disposition on its own that can explain the actual pattern in such cases but rather the dispositions plus the law of composition. For example, Newton’s second law with (i) the gravitational force and (ii) the Coulomb-force describe two dispositions that explain the actual behavior of a particle relying on the law for the superposition of forces. The law for the superposition of forces describes how the two forces contribute to the actual behavior. (Note that the dispositions the laws of nature attribute to systems need not in general be taken to be macroscopic dispositions like fragility or solubility.) To the extent that such laws are available (as for example for physical forces) the contribution of the various tendencies or dispositions can be determined even if they fail to be (completely) manifest. It can, however, be disputed whether such laws of superposition/composition are available in general, especially if one holds like Bird (2007) that every law needs to be grounded in potencies. But even if composition laws are taken to be underpinned by dispositions, a further law seems to be needed that tells us what happens if the disposition for the law of composition fails to be manifest. We need a meta-law that tells what the law of composition contributes to the actual behavior. So, the assumption that laws of composition are grounded in dispositions attributed to physical systems threatens to lead to an infinite regress.