display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
8 ideas
14942 | Only admit into ontology what is explanatory and predictive [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We reject any grounds other than explanatory and predictive utility for admitting something into our ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.3) | |
A reaction: Now you are talking. This is something like my thesis (which I take to be Aristotelian) - that without the drive for explanation we wouldn't even think of metaphysics, and so metaphysics should be understood in that light. |
14948 | To be is to be a real pattern [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: To be is to be a real pattern. ....Real patterns carry information about other real patterns. ...It's patterns all the way down. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.4) | |
A reaction: I've plucked these bleeding from context, but they are obviously intended as slogans. Is there pattern 'inside' an electron? Are electrons all exterior? |
14947 | Any process can be described as transfer of measurable information [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Reference to transfer of some (in principle) quantitatively measurable information is a highly general way of describing any process. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.3) | |
A reaction: That does not, of course, mean that that is what a process is. A waterfall is an archetypal process, but it is a bit more than a bunch of information. Actually its complexity may place its information beyond measurement. |
14941 | We say there is no fundamental level to ontology, and reality is just patterns [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The tentative metaphysical hypothesis of this book, which is open to empirical falsification, is that there is no fundamental level, that the real patterns criterion of reality is the last word in ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.3) | |
A reaction: I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the empirical falsification to arrive (or vanish). Their commitment to real patterns (or structures) leaves me a bit baffled. |
10493 | If concrete is spatio-temporal and causal, and abstract isn't, the distinction doesn't suit physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is said that concrete objects have causal powers while abstract ones do not, or that concrete objects exist in space and time while abstract ones do not, but these categories seem crude and inappropriate for modern physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.6) | |
A reaction: I don't find this convincing. He gives example of peculiar causation, but I don't believe modern physics proposes any entities which are totally acausal and non-spatiotemporal. Maybe the distinction needs a defence. |
14934 | Concrete and abstract are too crude for modern physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The categories of concrete and abstract seem crude and inappropriate for modern physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.6) | |
A reaction: They don't persuade me of this idea. At some point physicists need to decide the ontological status of the basic stuffs they are investigating. I'll give them a thousand years, and then I want an answer. Do they only deal in 'ideal' entities? |
14909 | Physicalism is 'part-whole' (all parts are physical), or 'supervenience/levels' (dependence on physical) [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is part-whole physicalism, that everything is exhausted by basic constituents that are themselves physical, or supervenience or levels physicalism, that the putatively non-physical is dependent on the physical. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: The cite Hüttemann and Papineau 2005. I am not convinced by this distinction. Ladyman and Ross oppose the first one. I'm thinking the second one either collapses into the first one, or it isn't physicalism. Higher levels are abstractions. |
10668 | We are committed to a 'group' of children, if they are sitting in a circle [Hossack] |
Full Idea: By Quine's test of ontological commitment, if some children are sitting in a circle, no individual child can sit in a circle, so a singular paraphrase will have us committed to a 'group' of children. | |
From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 2) | |
A reaction: Nice of why Quine is committed to the existence of sets. Hossack offers plural quantification as a way of avoiding commitment to sets. But is 'sitting in a circle' a real property (in the Shoemaker sense)? I can sit in a circle without realising it. |