81 ideas
| 9641 | Definitions should be replaceable by primitives, and should not be creative [Brown,JR] |
| 9634 | Set theory says that natural numbers are an actual infinity (to accommodate their powerset) [Brown,JR] |
| 9613 | Naïve set theory assumed that there is a set for every condition [Brown,JR] |
| 9615 | Nowadays conditions are only defined on existing sets [Brown,JR] |
| 9617 | The 'iterative' view says sets start with the empty set and build up [Brown,JR] |
| 9642 | A flock of birds is not a set, because a set cannot go anywhere [Brown,JR] |
| 9605 | If a proposition is false, then its negation is true [Brown,JR] |
| 9649 | Axioms are either self-evident, or stipulations, or fallible attempts [Brown,JR] |
| 9638 | Berry's Paradox finds a contradiction in the naming of huge numbers [Brown,JR] |
| 9604 | Mathematics is the only place where we are sure we are right [Brown,JR] |
| 9622 | 'There are two apples' can be expressed logically, with no mention of numbers [Brown,JR] |
| 9648 | π is a 'transcendental' number, because it is not the solution of an equation [Brown,JR] |
| 9621 | Mathematics represents the world through structurally similar models. [Brown,JR] |
| 9646 | There is no limit to how many ways something can be proved in mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9647 | Computers played an essential role in proving the four-colour theorem of maps [Brown,JR] |
| 9643 | Set theory may represent all of mathematics, without actually being mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9644 | When graphs are defined set-theoretically, that won't cover unlabelled graphs [Brown,JR] |
| 9625 | To see a structure in something, we must already have the idea of the structure [Brown,JR] |
| 9628 | Sets seem basic to mathematics, but they don't suit structuralism [Brown,JR] |
| 9606 | The irrationality of root-2 was achieved by intellect, not experience [Brown,JR] |
| 9612 | There is an infinity of mathematical objects, so they can't be physical [Brown,JR] |
| 9610 | Numbers are not abstracted from particulars, because each number is a particular [Brown,JR] |
| 9620 | Empiricists base numbers on objects, Platonists base them on properties [Brown,JR] |
| 9639 | Does some mathematics depend entirely on notation? [Brown,JR] |
| 9629 | For nomalists there are no numbers, only numerals [Brown,JR] |
| 9630 | The most brilliant formalist was Hilbert [Brown,JR] |
| 9608 | There are no constructions for many highly desirable results in mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9645 | Constructivists say p has no value, if the value depends on Goldbach's Conjecture [Brown,JR] |
| 14562 | A process is unified as an expression of a collection of causal powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14541 | Events are essentially changes; property exemplifications are just states of affairs [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 9619 | David's 'Napoleon' is about something concrete and something abstract [Brown,JR] |
| 14553 | Weak emergence is just unexpected, and strong emergence is beyond all deduction [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14538 | Powers explain properties, causes, modality, events, and perhaps even particulars [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14555 | Powers offer no more explanation of nature than laws do [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14557 | Powers are not just basic forces, since they combine to make new powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14583 | Dispositionality is a natural selection function, picking outcomes from the range of possibilities [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14536 | We say 'power' and 'disposition' are equivalent, but some say dispositions are manifestable [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14584 | The simple conditional analysis of dispositions doesn't allow for possible prevention [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14582 | Might dispositions be reduced to normativity, or to intentionality? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14542 | If statue and clay fall and crush someone, the event is not overdetermined [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14535 | Pandispositionalists say structures are clusters of causal powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14561 | Perdurantism imposes no order on temporal parts, so sequences of events are contingent [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 17535 | Dispositionality has its own distinctive type of modality [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14579 | Dispositionality is the core modality, with possibility and necessity as its extreme cases [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14580 | Dispositions may suggest modality to us - as what might not have been, and what could have been [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14552 | Relations are naturally necessary when they are generated by the essential mechanisms of the world [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14578 | Possibility might be non-contradiction, or recombinations of the actual, or truth in possible worlds [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14549 | Maybe truths are necessitated by the facts which are their truthmakers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14585 | We have more than five senses; balance and proprioception, for example [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 3061 | Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing [Anaxarchus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| 14576 | Smoking disposes towards cancer; smokers without cancer do not falsify this claim [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14551 | If causation were necessary, the past would fix the future, and induction would be simple [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14571 | The only full uniformities in nature occur from the essences of fundamental things [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14570 | Nature is not completely uniform, and some regular causes sometimes fail to produce their effects [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14569 | It is tempting to think that only entailment provides a full explanation [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14568 | A structure won't give a causal explanation unless we know the powers of the structure [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14556 | Strong emergence seems to imply top-down causation, originating in consciousness [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 9611 | 'Abstract' nowadays means outside space and time, not concrete, not physical [Brown,JR] |
| 9609 | The older sense of 'abstract' is where 'redness' or 'group' is abstracted from particulars [Brown,JR] |
| 9640 | A term can have not only a sense and a reference, but also a 'computational role' [Brown,JR] |
| 9635 | Given atomism at one end, and a finite universe at the other, there are no physical infinities [Brown,JR] |
| 14566 | Causation by absence is not real causation, but part of our explanatory practices [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14577 | Causation may not be transitive. Does a fire cause itself to be extinguished by the sprinklers? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14563 | Causation is the passing around of powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14587 | We take causation to be primitive, as it is hard to see how it could be further reduced [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14533 | Causation doesn't have two distinct relata; it is a single unfolding process [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14558 | A collision is a process, which involves simultaneous happenings, but not instantaneous ones [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14559 | Does causation need a third tying ingredient, or just two that meet, or might there be a single process? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14565 | Sugar dissolving is a process taking time, not one event and then another [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14567 | Privileging one cause is just an epistemic or pragmatic matter, not an ontological one [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14537 | Coincidence is conjunction without causation; smoking causing cancer is the reverse [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14573 | Occasionally a cause makes no difference (pre-emption, perhaps) so the counterfactual is false [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14572 | Is a cause because of counterfactual dependence, or is the dependence because there is a cause? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14574 | Cases of preventing a prevention may give counterfactual dependence without causation [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14539 | Nature can be interfered with, so a cause never necessitates its effects [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14550 | We assert causes without asserting that they necessitate their effects [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14546 | Necessary causation should survive antecedent strengthening, but no cause can always survive that [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14575 | A 'ceteris paribus' clause implies that a conditional only has dispositional force [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14548 | There may be necessitation in the world, but causation does not supply it [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14554 | Laws are nothing more than descriptions of the behaviour of powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14564 | If laws are equations, cause and effect must be simultaneous (or the law would be falsified)! [Mumford/Anjum] |