57 ideas
| 14025 | The weaker version of Truthmaker: 'truth supervenes on being' [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: The weaker version of Truthmaker is that 'truth supervenes on being'. | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Lewis 2001 and Bigelow 1988] This still leaves the difficulty of truths about non-existent things, and truths about possibilities (esp. those that are possible, but are never actualised). What being do mathematical truths supervene on? |
| 14023 | The Truthmaker thesis spells trouble for presentists [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: The Truthmaker thesis (that 'for every truth there is a truthmaker, that is, something whose very existence entails the truth' - Fox 1987) spells trouble for the presentist about time. | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: The point is that presentists can no longer express truths about the past (never mind the future), because the truthmakers for them don't exist. This seems to neglect the power of tense - the truth of the claim that 'p was true'. |
| 14024 | Truthmaker has problems with generalisation, non-existence claims, and property instantiations [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: Truthmaker is controversial: what of truths like 'all ravens are black', or 'there are no unicorns'. And 'John is tall' is not made true by John or the property of being tall, but by the fusion of the two, but what could this non-mereological fusion be? | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: A first move is to include modal facts (or possible worlds) among the truthmakers. The unicorns are tricky, and seem to need all of actuality as their truthmaker. I don't see the tallness difficulty. Predication is odd, but so what? |
| 10073 | There cannot be a set theory which is complete [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: By Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, there cannot be a negation-complete set theory. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 01.3) | |
| A reaction: This means that we can never prove all the truths of a system of set theory. |
| 10616 | Second-order arithmetic can prove new sentences of first-order [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Going second-order in arithmetic enables us to prove new first-order arithmetical sentences that we couldn't prove before. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 23.4) | |
| A reaction: The wages of Satan, perhaps. We can prove things about objects by proving things about their properties and sets and functions. Smith says this fact goes all the way up the hierarchy. |
| 10075 | A 'partial function' maps only some elements to another set [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A 'partial function' is one which maps only some elements of a domain to elements in another set. For example, the reciprocal function 1/x is not defined for x=0. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.1 n1) |
| 10074 | A 'total function' maps every element to one element in another set [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A 'total function' is one which maps every element of a domain to exactly one corresponding value in another set. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.1) |
| 10612 | An argument is a 'fixed point' for a function if it is mapped back to itself [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: If a function f maps the argument a back to a itself, so that f(a) = a, then a is said to be a 'fixed point' for f. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 20.5) |
| 10076 | The 'range' of a function is the set of elements in the output set created by the function [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The 'range' of a function is the set of elements in the output set that are values of the function for elements in the original set. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.1) | |
| A reaction: In other words, the range is the set of values that were created by the function. |
| 10605 | Two functions are the same if they have the same extension [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: We count two functions as being the same if they have the same extension, i.e. if they pair up arguments with values in the same way. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 11.3) | |
| A reaction: So there's only one way to skin a cat in mathematical logic. |
| 10615 | The Comprehension Schema says there is a property only had by things satisfying a condition [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The so-called Comprehension Schema ∃X∀x(Xx ↔ φ(x)) says that there is a property which is had by just those things which satisfy the condition φ. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 22.3) |
| 10595 | A 'theorem' of a theory is a sentence derived from the axioms using the proof system [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: 'Theorem': given a derivation of the sentence φ from the axioms of the theory T using the background logical proof system, we will say that φ is a 'theorem' of the theory. Standard abbreviation is T |- φ. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4) |
| 10602 | A 'natural deduction system' has no axioms but many rules [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A 'natural deduction system' will have no logical axioms but may rules of inference. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 09.1) | |
| A reaction: He contrasts this with 'Hilbert-style systems', which have many axioms but few rules. Natural deduction uses many assumptions which are then discharged, and so tree-systems are good for representing it. |
| 10613 | No nice theory can define truth for its own language [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: No nice theory can define truth for its own language. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 21.5) | |
| A reaction: This leads on to Tarski's account of truth. |
| 10078 | An 'injective' ('one-to-one') function creates a distinct output element from each original [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: An 'injective' function is 'one-to-one' - each element of the output set results from a different element of the original set. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.1) | |
| A reaction: That is, two different original elements cannot lead to the same output element. |
| 10077 | A 'surjective' ('onto') function creates every element of the output set [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A 'surjective' function is 'onto' - the whole of the output set results from the function being applied to elements of the original set. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.1) |
| 10079 | A 'bijective' function has one-to-one correspondence in both directions [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A 'bijective' function has 'one-to-one correspondence' - it is both surjective and injective, so that every element in each of the original and the output sets has a matching element in the other. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.1) | |
| A reaction: Note that 'injective' is also one-to-one, but only in the one direction. |
| 10070 | If everything that a theory proves is true, then it is 'sound' [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: If everything that a theory proves must be true, then it is a 'sound' theory. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 01.1) |
| 10086 | Soundness is true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Soundness is normally a matter of having true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4) | |
| A reaction: The only exception I can think of is if a theory consisted of nothing but the axioms. |
| 10596 | A theory is 'sound' iff every theorem is true (usually from true axioms and truth-preservation) [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A theory is 'sound' iff every theorem of it is true (i.e. true on the interpretation built into its language). Soundness is normally a matter of having true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4) |
| 10598 | A theory is 'negation complete' if it proves all sentences or their negation [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A theory is 'negation complete' if it decides every sentence of its language (either the sentence, or its negation). | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4) |
| 10597 | 'Complete' applies both to whole logics, and to theories within them [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: There is an annoying double-use of 'complete': a logic may be semantically complete, but there may be an incomplete theory expressed in it. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4) |
| 10069 | A theory is 'negation complete' if one of its sentences or its negation can always be proved [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Logicians say that a theory T is '(negation) complete' if, for every sentence φ in the language of the theory, either φ or ¬φ is deducible in T's proof system. If this were the case, then truth could be equated with provability. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 01.1) | |
| A reaction: The word 'negation' seems to be a recent addition to the concept. Presumable it might be the case that φ can always be proved, but not ¬φ. |
| 10609 | Two routes to Incompleteness: semantics of sound/expressible, or syntax of consistency/proof [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: There are two routes to Incompleteness results. One goes via the semantic assumption that we are dealing with sound theories, using a result about what they can express. The other uses the syntactic notion of consistency, with stronger notions of proof. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 18.1) |
| 10080 | 'Effective' means simple, unintuitive, independent, controlled, dumb, and terminating [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: An 'effectively decidable' (or 'computable') algorithm will be step-by-small-step, with no need for intuition, or for independent sources, with no random methods, possible for a dumb computer, and terminates in finite steps. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.2) | |
| A reaction: [a compressed paragraph] |
| 10087 | A theory is 'decidable' if all of its sentences could be mechanically proved [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A theory is 'decidable' iff there is a mechanical procedure for determining whether any sentence of its language can be proved. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4) | |
| A reaction: Note that it doesn't actually have to be proved. The theorems of the theory are all effectively decidable. |
| 10088 | Any consistent, axiomatized, negation-complete formal theory is decidable [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Any consistent, axiomatized, negation-complete formal theory is decidable. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.6) |
| 10081 | A set is 'enumerable' is all of its elements can result from a natural number function [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A set is 'enumerable' iff either the set is empty, or there is a surjective function to the set from the set of natural numbers, so that the set is in the range of that function. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.3) |
| 10083 | A set is 'effectively enumerable' if a computer could eventually list every member [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A set is 'effectively enumerable' if an (idealised) computer could be programmed to generate a list of its members such that any member will eventually be mentioned (even if the list is empty, or without end, or contains repetitions). | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.4) |
| 10084 | A finite set of finitely specifiable objects is always effectively enumerable (e.g. primes) [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: A finite set of finitely specifiable objects is always effectively enumerable (for example, the prime numbers). | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.4) |
| 10085 | The set of ordered pairs of natural numbers <i,j> is effectively enumerable [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The set of ordered pairs of natural numbers (i,j) is effectively enumerable, as proven by listing them in an array (across: <0,0>, <0,1>, <0,2> ..., and down: <0,0>, <1,0>, <2,0>...), and then zig-zagging. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 02.5) |
| 10601 | The thorems of a nice arithmetic can be enumerated, but not the truths (so they're diffferent) [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The theorems of any properly axiomatized theory can be effectively enumerated. However, the truths of any sufficiently expressive arithmetic can't be effectively enumerated. Hence the theorems and truths of arithmetic cannot be the same. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 05 Intro) |
| 10600 | Being 'expressible' depends on language; being 'capture/represented' depends on axioms and proof system [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Whether a property is 'expressible' in a given theory depends on the richness of the theory's language. Whether the property can be 'captured' (or 'represented') by the theory depends on the richness of the axioms and proof system. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 04.7) |
| 10599 | For primes we write (x not= 1 ∧ ∀u∀v(u x v = x → (u = 1 ∨ v = 1))) [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: For prime numbers we write (x not= 1 ∧ ∀u∀v(u x v = x → (u = 1 ∨ v = 1))). That is, the only way to multiply two numbers and a get a prime is if one of them is 1. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 04.5) |
| 10610 | The reals contain the naturals, but the theory of reals doesn't contain the theory of naturals [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: It has been proved (by Tarski) that the real numbers R is a complete theory. But this means that while the real numbers contain the natural numbers, the pure theory of real numbers doesn't contain the theory of natural numbers. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 18.2) |
| 10619 | The truths of arithmetic are just true equations and their universally quantified versions [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The truths of arithmetic are just the true equations involving particular numbers, and universally quantified versions of such equations. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 27.7) | |
| A reaction: Must each equation be universally quantified? Why can't we just universally quantify over the whole system? |
| 10618 | All numbers are related to zero by the ancestral of the successor relation [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: All numbers are related to zero by the ancestral of the successor relation. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 23.5) | |
| A reaction: The successor relation only ties a number to the previous one, not to the whole series. Ancestrals are a higher level of abstraction. |
| 10608 | The number of Fs is the 'successor' of the Gs if there is a single F that isn't G [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The number of Fs is the 'successor' of the number of Gs if there is an object which is an F, and the remaining things that are F but not identical to the object are equinumerous with the Gs. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 14.1) |
| 10849 | Baby arithmetic covers addition and multiplication, but no general facts about numbers [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Baby Arithmetic 'knows' the addition of particular numbers and multiplication, but can't express general facts about numbers, because it lacks quantification. It has a constant '0', a function 'S', and functions '+' and 'x', and identity and negation. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 08.1) |
| 10850 | Baby Arithmetic is complete, but not very expressive [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Baby Arithmetic is negation complete, so it can prove every claim (or its negation) that it can express, but it is expressively extremely impoverished. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 08.3) |
| 10852 | Robinson Arithmetic (Q) is not negation complete [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Robinson Arithmetic (Q) is not negation complete | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 08.4) |
| 10851 | Robinson Arithmetic 'Q' has basic axioms, quantifiers and first-order logic [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: We can beef up Baby Arithmetic into Robinson Arithmetic (referred to as 'Q'), by restoring quantifiers and variables. It has seven generalised axioms, plus standard first-order logic. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 08.3) |
| 10068 | Natural numbers have zero, unique successors, unending, no circling back, and no strays [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The sequence of natural numbers starts from zero, and each number has just one immediate successor; the sequence continues without end, never circling back on itself, and there are no 'stray' numbers, lurking outside the sequence. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 01.1) | |
| A reaction: These are the characteristics of the natural numbers which have to be pinned down by any axiom system, such as Peano's, or any more modern axiomatic structures. We are in the territory of Gödel's theorems. |
| 10603 | The logic of arithmetic must quantify over properties of numbers to handle induction [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: If the logic of arithmetic doesn't have second-order quantifiers to range over properties of numbers, how can it handle induction? | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 10.1) |
| 10848 | Multiplication only generates incompleteness if combined with addition and successor [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Multiplication in itself isn't is intractable. In 1929 Skolem showed a complete theory for a first-order language with multiplication but lacking addition (or successor). Multiplication together with addition and successor produces incompleteness. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 10.7 n8) |
| 10604 | Incompleteness results in arithmetic from combining addition and successor with multiplication [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: Putting multiplication together with addition and successor in the language of arithmetic produces incompleteness. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 10.7) | |
| A reaction: His 'Baby Arithmetic' has all three and is complete, but lacks quantification (p.51) |
| 10617 | The 'ancestral' of a relation is a new relation which creates a long chain of the original relation [Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The 'ancestral' of a relation is that relation which holds when there is an indefinitely long chain of things having the initial relation. | |
| From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 23.5) | |
| A reaction: The standard example is spotting the relation 'ancestor' from the receding relation 'parent'. This is a sort of abstraction derived from a relation which is not equivalent (parenthood being transitive but not reflexive). The idea originated with Frege. |
| 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'. |
| 14021 | Worm Perdurantism has a fusion of all the parts; Stage Perdurantism has one part at a time [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: Worm-theoretic Perdurantism says spatio-temporal continuants are mereological fusions of instantaneous temporal parts or stages located at different times; Stage-theoretic Perdurantism says they are instantaneous temporal stages of continuants. | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: [Armstrong, Lewis and Quine defend the first; Sider the second] The Stage view seems to be the common sense view. Sider suggests that the earlier stages are counterparts, not the thing as it currently is. |
| 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. |
| 14020 | 'Eternalism' is the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: I use the term Eternalism for the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities. (It is sometimes used for the view that all propositions have their truth-value eternally - it is always true or never true). | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], Intro n.1) | |
| A reaction: 'Eternalism' strikes me as an excellent word for the former meaning, so I shall promote that, and quietly forget the second one. The idea that the future exists has always stuck in my craw, and the belief that Napoleon still exists strikes me as a weird. |
| 14026 | Presentists can talk of 'times', with no more commitment than modalists have to possible worlds [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: We can talk of 'moments of time' as abstract objects. This will be attractive to the presentist. As possible worlds give an economical theory of modal talk, so 'times' gives us a theory for temporal talk. | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: Thus we can utilise 'times', while having no more commitment to them than to possible worlds. Nice. He cites Prior and Fine 1977 and Chisholm 1979. |
| 14022 | The only three theories are Presentism, Dynamic (A-series) Eternalism and Static (B-series) Eternalism [Crisp,TM] |
| Full Idea: Three theories exhaust the options on time: presentism, dynamic eternalism (eternalism with the tensed dynamic A-series view of time, and the totality of events changing over time), and static eternalism (eternalism with the B-series). | |
| From: Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 2.4) | |
| A reaction: I think the idea that reality is Static Eternalism is just a misunderstanding, arising from our imaginative ability to take a lofty objective overview of a very fluid reality. The other two are the serious candidates. Present, or Growing-block. |