47 ideas
9123 | Someone standing in a doorway seems to be both in and not-in the room [Priest,G, by Sorensen] |
Full Idea: Priest says there is room for contradictions. He gives the example of someone in a doorway; is he in or out of the room. Given that in and out are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, and neither is the default, he seems to be both in and not in. | |
From: report of Graham Priest (What is so bad about Contradictions? [1998]) by Roy Sorensen - Vagueness and Contradiction 4.3 | |
A reaction: Priest is a clever lad, but I don't think I can go with this. It just seems to be an equivocation on the word 'in' when applied to rooms. First tell me the criteria for being 'in' a room. What is the proposition expressed in 'he is in the room'? |
8720 | A logic is 'relevant' if premise and conclusion are connected, and 'paraconsistent' allows contradictions [Priest,G, by Friend] |
Full Idea: Priest and Routley have developed paraconsistent relevant logic. 'Relevant' logics insist on there being some sort of connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument. 'Paraconsistent' logics allow contradictions. | |
From: report of Graham Priest (works [1998]) by Michčle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 6.8 | |
A reaction: Relevance blocks the move of saying that a falsehood implies everything, which sounds good. The offer of paraconsistency is very wicked indeed, and they are very naughty boys for even suggesting it. |
9672 | Free logic is one of the few first-order non-classical logics [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Free logic is an unusual example of a non-classical logic which is first-order. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], Pref) |
9697 | X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets, the set of all the n-tuples with its first member in X1, its second in X2, and so on. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.0) |
9685 | <a,b&62; is a set whose members occur in the order shown [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: <a,b> is a set whose members occur in the order shown; <x1,x2,x3, ..xn> is an 'n-tuple' ordered set. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
9675 | a ∈ X says a is an object in set X; a ∉ X says a is not in X [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: a ∈ X means that a is a member of the set X, that is, a is one of the objects in X. a ∉ X indicates that a is not in X. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
9674 | {x; A(x)} is a set of objects satisfying the condition A(x) [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: {x; A(x)} indicates a set of objects which satisfy the condition A(x). | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
9673 | {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that a set comprising just those objects [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that the set comprises of just those objects. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
9677 | Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
9676 | {a} is the 'singleton' set of a (not the object a itself) [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: {a} is the 'singleton' set of a, not to be confused with the object a itself. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
9679 | X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y (if and only if all of its members are members of Y, but some things in Y are not in X) | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
9678 | X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y (if and only if all of its members are members of Y). | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
9681 | X = Y means the set X equals the set Y [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: X = Y means the set X equals the set Y, which means they have the same members (i.e. X⊆Y and Y⊆X). | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
9683 | X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, the objects which are in both sets [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, which is a set containing just those things that are in both X and Y. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
9682 | X∪Y indicates the 'union' of all the things in sets X and Y [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: X ∪ Y indicates the 'union' of sets X and Y, which is a set containing just those things that are in X or Y (or both). | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
9684 | Y - X is the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y; the things in Y that are not in X [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Y - X indicates the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y, that is, all the things in Y that are not in X. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
9688 | A 'singleton' is a set with only one member [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A 'singleton' is a set with only one member. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
9689 | The 'empty set' or 'null set' has no members [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: The 'empty set' or 'null set' is a set with no members. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
9690 | A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
9691 | A 'proper subset' is smaller than the containing set [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A set is a 'proper subset' of another set if some things in the large set are not in the smaller set | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
9694 | The 'relative complement' is things in the second set not in the first [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: The 'relative complement' of one set with respect to another is the things in the second set that aren't in the first. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
9693 | The 'intersection' of two sets is a set of the things that are in both sets [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: The 'intersection' of two sets is a set containing the things that are in both sets. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
9692 | The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
9698 | The 'induction clause' says complex formulas retain the properties of their basic formulas [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: The 'induction clause' says that whenever one constructs more complex formulas out of formulas that have the property P, the resulting formulas will also have that property. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.2) |
9695 | An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
9696 | A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
9686 | A 'set' is a collection of objects [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A 'set' is a collection of objects. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
9687 | A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set. | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
9680 | The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself) [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself). | |
From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
13373 | Typically, paradoxes are dealt with by dividing them into two groups, but the division is wrong [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: A natural principle is the same kind of paradox will have the same kind of solution. Standardly Ramsey's first group are solved by denying the existence of some totality, and the second group are less clear. But denial of the groups sink both. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §5) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This sums up the argument of Priest's paper, which is that it is Ramsey's division into two kinds (see Idea 13334) which is preventing us from getting to grips with the paradoxes. Priest, notoriously, just lives with them. |
13368 | The 'least indefinable ordinal' is defined by that very phrase [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: König: there are indefinable ordinals, and the least indefinable ordinal has just been defined in that very phrase. (Recall that something is definable iff there is a (non-indexical) noun-phrase that refers to it). | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3) | |
A reaction: Priest makes great subsequent use of this one, but it feels like a card trick. 'Everything indefinable has now been defined' (by the subject of this sentence)? König, of course, does manage to pick out one particular object. |
13370 | 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words' leads to contradiction [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Berry: if we take 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words', we can generate a number which is and is not one of these numbers. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3) | |
A reaction: [not enough space to spell this one out in full] |
13369 | By diagonalization we can define a real number that isn't in the definable set of reals [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Richard: φ(x) is 'x is a definable real number between 0 and 1' and ψ(x) is 'x is definable'. We can define a real by diagonalization so that it is not in x. It is and isn't in the set of reals. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3) | |
A reaction: [this isn't fully clear here because it is compressed] |
13366 | The least ordinal greater than the set of all ordinals is both one of them and not one of them [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Burali-Forti: φ(x) is 'x is an ordinal', and so w is the set of all ordinals, On; δ(x) is the least ordinal greater than every member of x (abbreviation: log(x)). The contradiction is that log(On)∈On and log(On)∉On. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §2) |
13367 | The next set up in the hierarchy of sets seems to be both a member and not a member of it [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: Mirimanoff: φ(x) is 'x is well founded', so that w is the cumulative hierarchy of sets, V; &delta(x) is just the power set of x, P(x). If x⊆V, then V∈V and V∉V, since δ(V) is just V itself. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §2) |
13371 | If you know that a sentence is not one of the known sentences, you know its truth [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: In the family of the Liar is the Knower Paradox, where φ(x) is 'x is known to be true', and there is a set of known things, Kn. By knowing a sentence is not in the known sentences, you know its truth. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §4) | |
A reaction: [mostly my wording] |
13372 | There are Liar Pairs, and Liar Chains, which fit the same pattern as the basic Liar [Priest,G] |
Full Idea: There are liar chains which fit the pattern of Transcendence and Closure, as can be seen with the simplest case of the Liar Pair. | |
From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §4) | |
A reaction: [Priest gives full details] Priest's idea is that Closure is when a set is announced as complete, and Transcendence is when the set is forced to expand. He claims that the two keep coming into conflict. |
16062 | A necessary relation between fact-levels seems to be a further irreducible fact [Lynch/Glasgow] |
Full Idea: It seems unavoidable that the facts about logically necessary relations between levels of facts are themselves logically distinct further facts, irreducible to the microphysical facts. | |
From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], C) | |
A reaction: I'm beginning to think that rejecting every theory of reality that is proposed by carefully exposing some infinite regress hidden in it is a rather lazy way to do philosophy. Almost as bad as rejecting anything if it can't be defined. |
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. |
16060 | Nonreductive materialism says upper 'levels' depend on lower, but don't 'reduce' [Lynch/Glasgow] |
Full Idea: The root intuition behind nonreductive materialism is that reality is composed of ontologically distinct layers or levels. …The upper levels depend on the physical without reducing to it. | |
From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], B) | |
A reaction: A nice clear statement of a view which I take to be false. This relationship is the sort of thing that drives people fishing for an account of it to use the word 'supervenience', which just says two things seem to hang out together. Fluffy materialism. |
16064 | The hallmark of physicalism is that each causal power has a base causal power under it [Lynch/Glasgow] |
Full Idea: Jessica Wilson (1999) says what makes physicalist accounts different from emergentism etc. is that each individual causal power associated with a supervenient property is numerically identical with a causal power associated with its base property. | |
From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], n 11) | |
A reaction: Hence the key thought in so-called (serious, rather than self-evident) 'emergentism' is so-called 'downward causation', which I take to be an idle daydream. |
16668 | Modes of things exist in some way, without being full-blown substances [Gassendi] |
Full Idea: Modes are not nothing but something more than mere nothing; they are therefore 'res' of some kind, not substantial of course, but at least modal. | |
From: Pierre Gassendi (Disquisitions [1644], II.3.4), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 260 | |
A reaction: This is the great modern atomist talking pure scholastic metaphysics. He's been reading Suárez. Gassendi seems to accept more than one type of existence. |
16730 | If matter is entirely atoms, anything else we notice in it can only be modes [Gassendi] |
Full Idea: Since these atoms are the whole of the corporeal matter or substance that exists in bodies, if we conceive or notice anything else to exist in these bodies, that is not a substance but only some kind of mode of the substance. | |
From: Pierre Gassendi (Syntagma [1658], II.1.6.1), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 22.4 | |
A reaction: If the atoms have a few qualities of their own, are they just modes? If they are genuine powers, then there can be emergent powers, which are rather more than mere 'modes'. |
16619 | We observe qualities, and use 'induction' to refer to the substances lying under them [Gassendi] |
Full Idea: Nothing beyond qualities is perceived by the senses. …When we refer to the substance in which the qualities inhere, we do this through induction, by which we reason that some subject lies under the quality. | |
From: Pierre Gassendi (Syntagma [1658], II.1.6.1), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 07.1 | |
A reaction: He talks of 'induction' (in an older usage), but he seems to mean abduction, since he never makes any observations of the substances being proposed. |
3400 | Things must have parts to intermingle [Gassendi] |
Full Idea: If you are no larger than a point, how are you joined to the whole body, which is so large? …and there can be no intermingling between things unless the parts of them can be intermingled. | |
From: Pierre Gassendi (Objections to 'Meditations' (Fifth) [1641]), quoted by Jaegwon Kim - Philosophy of Mind p.131 | |
A reaction: As Descartes says that mind is distinct from body because it is non-spatial, it doesn't seem quite right to describe it as a 'point', but the second half is a real problem. Being non-spatial is a real impediment to intermingling with spatial objects. |
16593 | Atoms are not points, but hard indivisible things, which no force in nature can divide [Gassendi] |
Full Idea: The vulgar think atoms lack parts and are free of all magnitude, and hence nothing other than a mathematical point, but it is something solid and hard and compact, as to leave no room for division, separation and cutting. No force in nature can divide it. | |
From: Pierre Gassendi (Syntagma [1658], II.1.3.5), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 03.2 | |
A reaction: If you gloatingly think the atom has now been split, ask whether electrons and quarks now fit his description. Pasnau notes that though atoms are indivisible, they are not incorruptible, and could go out of existence, or be squashed. |
16729 | How do mere atoms produce qualities like colour, flavour and odour? [Gassendi] |
Full Idea: If the only material principles of things are atoms, having only size, shape, and weight, or motion, then why are so many additional qualities created and existing within the things: color, heat, flavor, odor, and innumerable others? | |
From: Pierre Gassendi (Syntagma [1658], II.1.5.7), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 22.4 | |
A reaction: This is pretty much the 'hard question' about the mind-body relation. Bacon said that heat was just motion of matter. I would say that this problem is gradually being solved in my lifetime. |