|
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?
|
|
16061
|
If some facts 'logically supervene' on some others, they just redescribe them, adding nothing [Lynch/Glasgow]
|
|
Full Idea:
Logical supervenience, restricted to individuals, seems to imply strong reduction. It is said that where the B-facts logically supervene on the A-facts, the B-facts simply re-describe what the A-facts describe, and the B-facts come along 'for free'.
|
|
From:
Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], C)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be taking 'logically' to mean 'analytically'. Presumably an entailment is logically supervenient on its premisses, and may therefore be very revealing, even if some people think such things are analytic.
|
|
22973
|
The present moment, time's direction, and time's dynamic quality seem to be objective facts [Price,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
The flow of time seems to be an objective feature of reality because of 1) the present moment can be objectively distinguished, 2) time has an objective direction, of earlier and later, and 3) there is something objectively dynamic about time.
|
|
From:
Huw Price (The Flow of Time [2011], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Price sets out to undermine all three of these claims, in implicit defence of a psychological view. I disagree with him.
|
|
22975
|
We must explain either the existence of a time direction, or our psychological sense of it [Price,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the world comes equipped with a time orientation, where does it come from? If it doesn't, what explains our psychological feeling of a direction for time?
|
|
From:
Huw Price (The Flow of Time [2011], 3.5)
|
|
A reaction:
The chances of 'explaining' either one look slim to me. That is, the fact would explain our experience, but the experience without the fact looks ridiculous, and I cannot conceive of any time-free entity which could explain the fact.
|