|
8921
|
Structuralism is now common, studying relations, with no regard for what the objects might be [Hellman]
|
|
Full Idea:
With developments in modern mathematics, structuralist ideas have become commonplace. We study 'abstract structures', having relations without regard to the objects. As Hilbert famously said, items of furniture would do.
|
|
From:
Geoffrey Hellman (Structuralism [2007], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Hilbert is known as a Formalist, which suggests that modern Structuralism is a refined and more naturalist version of the rather austere formalist view. Presumably the sofa can't stand for six, so a structural definition of numbers is needed.
|
|
8698
|
Modal structuralism says mathematics studies possible structures, which may or may not be actualised [Hellman, by Friend]
|
|
Full Idea:
The modal structuralist thinks of mathematical structures as possibilities. The application of mathematics is just the realisation that a possible structure is actualised. As structures are possibilities, realist ontological problems are avoided.
|
|
From:
report of Geoffrey Hellman (Mathematics without Numbers [1989]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 4.3
|
|
A reaction:
Friend criticises this and rejects it, but it is appealing. Mathematics should aim to be applicable to any possible world, and not just the actual one. However, does the actual world 'actualise a mathematical structure'?
|
|
10263
|
Modal structuralism can only judge possibility by 'possible' models [Shapiro on Hellman]
|
|
Full Idea:
The usual way to show that a sentence is possible is to show that it has a model, but for Hellman presumably a sentence is possible if it might have a model (or if, possibly, it has a model). It is not clear what this move brings us.
|
|
From:
comment on Geoffrey Hellman (Mathematics without Numbers [1989]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 7.3
|
|
A reaction:
I can't assess this, but presumably the possibility of the model must be demonstrated in some way. Aren't all models merely possible, because they are based on axioms, which seem to be no more than possibilities?
|
|
16745
|
No one even knows the nature and properties of a fly - why it has that colour, or so many feet [Bacon,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
No one is so wise regarding the natural world as to know with certainty all the truths that concern the nature and properties of a single fly, or to know the proper causes of its color and why it has so many feet, neither more nor less.
|
|
From:
Roger Bacon (Opus Maius (major works) [1254], I.10), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 23.6
|
|
A reaction:
Pasnau quotes this in the context of 'occult' qualities. It is scientific essentialism, because Bacon clearly takes it that the explanation of these things would be found within the essence of the fly, if we could only get at it.
|