47 ideas
| 15833 | Tell cleverness from answers, but wisdom from questions [Mahfouz] |
| Full Idea: You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. | |
| From: Naguib Mahfouz (works [1998]) | |
| A reaction: [Popped up on Twitter. I am adjusting to the 21st century] The observation is simplistic, of course, but very nice indeed. |
| 14273 | Conditional Proof is only valid if we accept the truth-functional reading of 'if' [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Conditional Proof seems sound: 'From X and Y, it follows that Z. So from X it follows that if Y,Z'. Yet for no reading of 'if' which is stronger that the truth-functional reading is CP valid, at least if we accept ¬(A&¬B);A; therefore B. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: See the section of ideas on Conditionals (filed under 'Modality') for a fuller picture of this issue. Edgington offers it as one of the main arguments in favour of the truth-functional reading of 'if' (though she rejects that reading). |
| 12205 | There are two families of modal notions, metaphysical and epistemic, of equal strength [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: In my view, there are two independent families of modal notions, metaphysical and epistemic, neither stronger than the other. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Two Kinds of Possibility [2004], Abs) | |
| A reaction: My immediate reaction is that epistemic necessity is not necessity at all. 'For all I know' 2 plus 2 might really be 95, and squares may also be circular. |
| 12207 | Metaphysical possibility is discovered empirically, and is contrained by nature [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Metaphysical necessity derives from distinguishing things which can happen and things which can't, in virtue of their nature, which we discover empirically: the metaphysically possible, I claim, is constrained by the laws of nature. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Two Kinds of Possibility [2004], §I) | |
| A reaction: She claims that Kripke is sympathetic to this. Personally I like the idea that natural necessity is metaphysically necessary (see 'Scientific Essentialism'), but the other way round comes as a bit of a surprise. I will think about it. |
| 12206 | Broadly logical necessity (i.e. not necessarily formal logical necessity) is an epistemic notion [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: So-called broadly logical necessity (by which I mean, not necessarily formal logical necessity) is an epistemic notion. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Two Kinds of Possibility [2004], §I) | |
| A reaction: This is controversial, and is criticised by McFetridge and Rumfitt. Fine argues that 'narrow' (formal) logical necessity is metaphysical. Between them they have got rid of logical necessity completely. |
| 12185 | Logical necessity is epistemic necessity, which is the old notion of a priori [Edgington, by McFetridge] |
| Full Idea: Edgington's position is that logical necessity is an epistemic notion: epistemic necessity which, she claims, is the old notion of the a priori. Like Kripke, she thinks this is two-way independent of metaphysical necessity. | |
| From: report of Dorothy Edgington (Epistemic and Metaphysical Possibility [1985]) by Ian McFetridge - Logical Necessity: Some Issues §1 | |
| A reaction: [her paper was unpublished] She hence thinks an argument can be logically valid, while metaphysically its conclusion may not follow. Dubious, though I think I favour the view that logical necessity is underwritten by metaphysical necessity. |
| 12208 | An argument is only valid if it is epistemically (a priori) necessary [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Validity is governed by epistemic necessity, i.e. an argument is valid if and only if there is an a priori route from premises to conclusion. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Two Kinds of Possibility [2004], §V) | |
| A reaction: Controversial, and criticised by McFetridge and Rumfitt. I don't think I agree with her. I don't see validity as depending on dim little human beings. |
| 13857 | Truth-functional possibilities include the irrelevant, which is a mistake [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: How likely is a fair die landing on an even number to land six? My approach is, assume an even number, so three possibilities, one a six, so 'one third'; the truth-functional approach is it's true if it is not-even or six, so 'two-thirds'. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 3) | |
| A reaction: The point is that in the truth-functional approach, if the die lands not-even, then the conditional comes out as true, when she says it should be irrelevant. She seems to be right about this. |
| 14281 | A thing works like formal probability if all the options sum to 100% [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: One's degrees of belief in the members of an idealised partition should sum to 100%. That is all there is to the claim that degrees of belief should have the structure of probabilities. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 3.1) |
| 14284 | Conclusion improbability can't exceed summed premise improbability in valid arguments [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: If (and only if) an argument is valid, then in no probability distribution does the improbability of its conclusion exceed the sum of the improbabilities of its premises. We can call this the Probability Preservation Principle. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: [Ernest Adams is credited with this] This means that classical logic is in some way probability-preserving as well as truth-preserving. |
| 13768 | Validity can preserve certainty in mathematics, but conditionals about contingents are another matter [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: If your interest in logic is confined to applications to mathematics or other a priori matters, it is fine for validity to preserve certainty, ..but if you use conditionals when arguing about contingent matters, then great caution will be required. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals [2001], 17.2.1) |
| 13853 | It is a mistake to think that conditionals are statements about how the world is [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: The mistake philosophers have made, in trying to understand the conditional, is to assume that its function is to make a statement about how the world is (or how other possible worlds are related to it), true or false, as the case may be. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1) | |
| A reaction: 'If pigs could fly we would never catch them' may not be about the world, but 'if you press this switch the light comes on' seems to be. Actually even the first one is about the world. I've an inkling that Edgington is wrong about this. Powers! |
| 14270 | Simple indicatives about past, present or future do seem to form a single semantic kind [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Straightforward statements about the past, present or future, to which a conditional clause is attached - the traditional class of indicative conditionals - do (in my view) constitute a single semantic kind. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 1) | |
| A reaction: This contrasts with Idea 14269, where the future indicatives are group instead with the counterfactuals. |
| 14269 | Maybe forward-looking indicatives are best classed with the subjunctives [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: According to some theorists, the forward-looking 'indicatives' (those with a 'will' in the main clause) belong with the 'subjunctives' (those with a 'would' in the main clause), and not with the other 'indicatives'. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 1) | |
| A reaction: [She cites Gibbard, Dudman and 1988 Bennett; Jackson defends the indicative/subjunctive division, and recent Bennett defends it too] It is plausible to say that 'If you will do x' is counterfactual, since it hasn't actually happened. |
| 13770 | There are many different conditional mental states, and different conditional speech acts [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: As well as conditional beliefs, there are conditional desires, hopes, fears etc. As well as conditional statements, there are conditional commands, questions, offers, promises, bets etc. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals [2001], 17.3.4) |
| 14275 | Truth-function problems don't show up in mathematics [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: The main defects of the truth-functional account of conditionals don't show up in mathematics. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: These problems are the paradoxes associated with the material conditional ⊃. Too often mathematical logic has been the tail that wagged the dog in modern philosophy. |
| 13764 | Are conditionals truth-functional - do the truth values of A and B determine the truth value of 'If A, B'? [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Are conditionals truth-functional - do the truth values of A and B determine the truth value of 'If A, B'? Are they non-truth-functional, like 'because' or 'before'? Do the values of A and B, in some cases, leave open the value of 'If A,B'? | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals [2001], 17.1) | |
| A reaction: I would say they are not truth-functional, because the 'if' asserts some further dependency relation that goes beyond the truth or falsity of A and B. Logical ifs, causal ifs, psychological ifs... The material conditional ⊃ is truth-functional. |
| 13765 | 'If A,B' must entail ¬(A & ¬B); otherwise we could have A true, B false, and If A,B true, invalidating modus ponens [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: If it were possible to have A true, B false, and If A,B true, it would be unsafe to infer B from A and If A,B: modus ponens would thus be invalid. Hence 'If A,B' must entail ¬(A & ¬B). | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals [2001], 17.1) | |
| A reaction: This is a firm defence of part of the truth-functional view of conditionals, and seems unassailable. The other parts of the truth table are open to question, though, if A is false, or they are both true. |
| 14274 | Inferring conditionals from disjunctions or negated conjunctions gives support to truth-functionalism [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: If either A or B is true, then you are intuitively justified in believe that If ¬A, B. If you know that ¬(A&B), then you may justifiably infer that if A, ¬B. The truth-functionalist gets both of these cases (disjunction and negated conjunction) correct. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: [compressed version] This summarises two of Edgington's three main arguments in favour of the truth-functional account of conditions (along with the existence of Conditional Proof). It is elementary classical logic which supports truth-functionalism. |
| 14276 | The truth-functional view makes conditionals with unlikely antecedents likely to be true [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: The truth-functional view of conditionals has the unhappy consequence that all conditionals with unlikely antecedents are likely to be true. To think it likely that ¬A is to think it likely that a sufficient condition for the truth of A⊃B obtains. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: This is Edgington's main reason for rejecting the truth-functional account of conditionals. She says it removes our power to discriminate between believable and unbelievable conditionals, which is basic to practical reasoning. |
| 14290 | Doctor:'If patient still alive, change dressing'; Nurse:'Either dead patient, or change dressing'; kills patient! [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: The doctor says "If the patient is still alive in the morning, change the dressing". As a truth-functional command this says "Make it that either the patient is dead in the morning, or change the dressing", so the nurse kills the patient. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 5) | |
| A reaction: Isn't philosophy wonderful? |
| 13855 | A conditional does not have truth conditions [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: A conditional does not have truth conditions. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1) |
| 13859 | X believes 'if A, B' to the extent that A & B is more likely than A & ¬B [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: X believes that if A, B, to the extent that he judges that A & B is nearly as likely as A, or (roughly equivalently) to the extent that he judges A & B to be more likely than A & ¬B. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 5) | |
| A reaction: This is a formal statement of her theory of conditionals. |
| 14271 | Non-truth-functionalist say 'If A,B' is false if A is T and B is F, but deny that is always true for TT,FT and FF [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Non-truth-functional accounts agree that 'If A,B' is false when A is true and B is false; and that it is sometimes true for the other three combinations of truth-values; but they deny that the conditional is always true in each of these three cases. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: Truth-functional connectives like 'and' and 'or' don't add any truth-conditions to the values of the propositions, but 'If...then' seems to assert a relationship that goes beyond its component propositions, so non-truth-functionalists are right. |
| 14272 | I say "If you touch that wire you'll get a shock"; you don't touch it. How can that make the conditional true? [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Non-truth-functionalists agree that when A is false, 'If A,B' may be either true or false. I say "If you touch that wire, you will get an electric shock". You don't touch it. Was my remark true or false? They say it depends on the wire etc. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: This example seems to me to be a pretty conclusive refutation of the truth-functional view. How can the conditional be implied simply by my failure to touch the wire (which is what benighted truth-functionalists seem to believe)? |
| 13854 | Conditionals express what would be the outcome, given some supposition [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: It is often necessary to suppose (or assume) that some epistemic possibility is true, and to consider what else would be the case, or would be likely to be the case, given this supposition. The conditional expresses the outcome of such thought processes. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1) | |
| A reaction: This is the basic Edgington view. It seems to involve an active thought process, and imagination, rather than being the static semantic relations offered by possible worlds analyses. True conditionals state relationships in the world. |
| 14282 | On the supposition view, believe if A,B to the extent that A&B is nearly as likely as A [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Accepting Ramsey's suggestion that 'if' and 'on the supposition that' come to the same thing, we get an equation which says ...you believe if A,B to the extent that you think that A&B is nearly as likely as A. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 3.1) |
| 14278 | Truth-functionalists support some conditionals which we assert, but should not actually believe [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: There are compounds of conditionals which we confidently assert and accept which, by the lights of the truth-functionalist, we do not have reason to believe true, such as 'If it broke if it was dropped, it was fragile', when it is NOT dropped. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [The example is from Gibbard 1981] The fact that it wasn't dropped only negates the nested antecedent, not the whole antecedent. I suppose it also wasn't broken, and both negations seem to be required. |
| 14287 | Does 'If A,B' say something different in each context, because of the possibiites there? [Edgington] |
| Full Idea: A pragmatic constraint might say that as different possibilities are live in different conversational settings, a different proposition may be expressed by 'If A,B' in different conversational settings. | |
| From: Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: Edgington says that it is only the truth of the proposition, not its content, which changes with context. I'm not so sure. 'If Hitler finds out, we are in trouble' says different things in 1914 and 1944. |
| 20624 | Work degrades into heat, but not vice versa [Close] |
| Full Idea: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, declared (in 1865) the second law of thermodynamics: mechanical work inevitably tends to degrade into heat, but not vice versa. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Perpetual') | |
| A reaction: The basis of entropy, which makes time an essential part of physics. Might this be the single most important fact about the physical world? |
| 20623 | First Law: energy can change form, but is conserved overall [Close] |
| Full Idea: The first law of thermodynamics : energy can be changed from one form to another, but is always conserved overall. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Perpetual') | |
| A reaction: So we have no idea what energy is, but we know it's conserved. (Daniel Bernoulli showed the greater the mean energy, the higher the temperature. James Joule showed the quantitative equivalence of heat and work p.26-7) |
| 20625 | Third Law: total order and minimum entropy only occurs at absolute zero [Close] |
| Full Idea: The third law of thermodynamics says that a hypothetical state of total order and minimum entropy can be attained only at the absolute zero temperature, minus 273 degrees Celsius. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Arrow') | |
| A reaction: If temperature is energetic movement of atoms (or whatever), then obviously zero movement is the coldest it can get. So is absolute zero an energy state, or an absence of energy? I have no idea what 'total order' means. |
| 20622 | All motions are relative and ambiguous, but acceleration is the same in all inertial frames [Close] |
| Full Idea: There is no absolute state of rest; only relative motions are unambiguous. Contrast this with acceleration, however, which has the same magnitude in all inertial frames. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Newton's') | |
| A reaction: It seems important to remember this, before we start trumpeting about the whole of physics being relative. ....But see Idea 20634! |
| 20628 | The electric and magnetic are tightly linked, and viewed according to your own motion [Close] |
| Full Idea: Electric and magnetic phenomena are profoundly intertwined; what you interpret as electric or magnetic thus depends on your own motion. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Light!') | |
| A reaction: This sounds like an earlier version of special relativity. |
| 20635 | The general relativity equations relate curvature in space-time to density of energy-momentum [Close] |
| Full Idea: The essence of general relativity relates 'curvature in space-time' on one side of the equation to the 'density of momentum and energy' on the other. ...In full, Einstein required ten equations of this type. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 5 'Gravity') | |
| A reaction: Momentum involves mass, and energy is equivalent to mass (e=mc^2). |
| 20642 | Photon exchange drives the electro-magnetic force [Close] |
| Full Idea: The exchange of photons drives the electro-magnetic force. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 6 'Superstrings') | |
| A reaction: So light, which we just think of as what is visible, is a mere side-effect of the engine room of nature - the core mechanism of the whole electro-magnetic field. |
| 20627 | Electric fields have four basic laws (two by Gauss, one by Ampère, one by Faraday) [Close] |
| Full Idea: Four basic laws of electric and magnetic fields: Gauss's Law (about the flux produced by a field), Gauss's law of magnets (there can be no monopoles), Ampère's Law (fields on surfaces), and Farday's Law (accelerated magnets produce fields). | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Light!') | |
| A reaction: [Highly compressed, for an overview. Close explains them] |
| 20630 | Light isn't just emitted in quanta called photons - light is photons [Close] |
| Full Idea: Planck had assumed that light is emitted in quanta called photons. Einstein went further - light is photons. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Light!') | |
| A reaction: The point is that light travels as entities which are photons, rather than the emissions being quantized packets of some other stuff. |
| 20637 | In general relativity the energy and momentum of photons subjects them to gravity [Close] |
| Full Idea: In Einstein's general theory, gravity acts also on energy and momentum, not simply on mass. For example, massless photons of light feel the gravitational attraction of the Sun and can be deflected. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 5 'Planck') | |
| A reaction: Ah, a puzzle solved. How come massless photons are bent by gravity? |
| 20629 | Electro-magnetic waves travel at light speed - so light is electromagnetism! [Close] |
| Full Idea: Faradays' measurements predicted the speed of electro-magnetic waves, which happened to be the speed of light, so Maxwell made an inspired leap: light is an electromagnetic wave! | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Light!') | |
| A reaction: Put that way, it doesn't sound like an 'inspired' leap, because travelling at exactly the same speed seems a pretty good indication that they are the same sort of thing. (But I'm not denying that Maxwell was a special guy!) |
| 20632 | In QED, electro-magnetism exists in quantum states, emitting and absorbing electrons [Close] |
| Full Idea: Dirac created quantum electrodynamics (QED): the universal electro-magnetic field can exist in discreet states of energy (with photons appearing and disappearing by energy excitations. This combined classical ideas, quantum theory and special relativity. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Light!') | |
| A reaction: Close says this is the theory of everything in atomic structure, but not in nuclei (which needs QCD and QFD). So if there are lots of other 'fields' (e.g. gravitational, weak, strong, Higgs), how do they all fit together? Do they talk to one another? |
| 20639 | Quantum fields contain continual rapid creation and disappearance [Close] |
| Full Idea: Quantum field theory implies that the vacuum of space is filled with particles and antiparticles which bubble in and out of existence on faster and faster timescales over shorter and shorter distances. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 6 'Intro') | |
| A reaction: Ponder this sentence until you head aches. Existence, but not as we know it, Jim. Close says calculations in QED about the electron confirm this. |
| 20641 | Electrons get their mass by interaction with the Higgs field [Close] |
| Full Idea: The electron gets its mass by interaction with the ubiquitous Higgs field. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 6 'Hierarchy') | |
| A reaction: I thought I understood mass until I read this. Is it just wrong to say the mass of a table is the 'amount of stuff' in it? |
| 20631 | Dirac showed how electrons conform to special relativity [Close] |
| Full Idea: In 1928 Paul Dirac discovered the quantum equation that describes the electron and conforms to the requirements special relativity theory. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Light!') | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a major step in the unification of physics. Quantum theory and General relativity remain irreconcilable. |
| 20626 | Modern theories of matter are grounded in heat, work and energy [Close] |
| Full Idea: The link between temperature, heat, work and energy is at the root of our historical ability to construct theories of matter, such as Newton's dynamics, while ignoring, and indeed being ignorant of - atomic dimensions. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 3 'Arrow') | |
| A reaction: That is, presumably, that even when you fill in the atoms, and the standard model of physics, these aspects of matter do the main explaiining (of the behaviour, rather than of the structure). |
| 20633 | The Higgs field is an electroweak plasma - but we don't know what stuff it consists of [Close] |
| Full Idea: In 2012 it was confirmed that we are immersed in an electroweak plasma - the Higgs field. We curently have no knowledge of what this stuff might consist of. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 4 'Higgs') | |
| A reaction: The second sentence has my full attention. So we don't understand a field properly until we understand the 'stuff' it is made of? So what are all the familiar fields made of? Tell me more! |
| 20640 | Space-time is indeterminate foam over short distances [Close] |
| Full Idea: At very short distances, space-time itself becomes some indeterminate foam. | |
| From: Frank Close (Theories of Everything [2017], 6 'Intro') | |
| A reaction: [see Close for a bit more detail of this weird idea] |