276 ideas
| 18390 | All metaphysical discussion should be guided by a quest for truthmakers [Armstrong] |
| 17663 | If you know what it is, investigation is pointless. If you don't, investigation is impossible [Armstrong] |
| 10237 | Coherence is a primitive, intuitive notion, not reduced to something formal [Shapiro] |
| 4036 | What matters is not how many entities we postulate, but how many kinds of entities [Armstrong, by Mellor/Oliver] |
| 10204 | An 'implicit definition' gives a direct description of the relations of an entity [Shapiro] |
| 18467 | Truth-making can't be entailment, because truthmakers are portions of reality [Armstrong] |
| 18468 | Armstrong says truthmakers necessitate their truth, where 'necessitate' is a primitive relation [Armstrong, by MacBride] |
| 15547 | Negative existentials have 'totality facts' as truthmakers [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 18377 | Negative truths have as truthmakers all states of affairs relevant to the truth [Armstrong] |
| 18382 | The nature of arctic animals is truthmaker for the absence of penguins there [Armstrong] |
| 18394 | In mathematics, truthmakers are possible instantiations of structures [Armstrong] |
| 18384 | One truthmaker will do for a contingent truth and for its contradictory [Armstrong] |
| 18387 | The truthmakers for possible unicorns are the elements in their combination [Armstrong] |
| 18386 | What is the truthmaker for 'it is possible that there could have been nothing'? [Armstrong] |
| 18381 | Necessitating general truthmakers must also specify their limits [Armstrong] |
| 4742 | Correspondence may be one-many or many one, as when either p or q make 'p or q' true [Armstrong] |
| 13634 | Satisfaction is 'truth in a model', which is a model of 'truth' [Shapiro] |
| 13643 | Aristotelian logic is complete [Shapiro] |
| 10206 | Modal operators are usually treated as quantifiers [Shapiro] |
| 15544 | If what is actual might have been impossible, we need S4 modal logic [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 18396 | The set theory brackets { } assert that the member is a unit [Armstrong] |
| 13651 | A set is 'transitive' if contains every member of each of its members [Shapiro] |
| 18393 | For 'there is a class with no members' we don't need the null set as truthmaker [Armstrong] |
| 13647 | Choice is essential for proving downward Löwenheim-Skolem [Shapiro] |
| 10208 | Axiom of Choice: some function has a value for every set in a given set [Shapiro] |
| 10252 | The Axiom of Choice seems to license an infinite amount of choosing [Shapiro] |
| 10301 | The axiom of choice is controversial, but it could be replaced [Shapiro] |
| 13631 | Are sets part of logic, or part of mathematics? [Shapiro] |
| 13654 | It is central to the iterative conception that membership is well-founded, with no infinite descending chains [Shapiro] |
| 13640 | Russell's paradox shows that there are classes which are not iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| 13666 | Iterative sets are not Boolean; the complement of an iterative set is not an iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| 13653 | 'Well-ordering' of a set is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation with a least element [Shapiro] |
| 10207 | Anti-realists reject set theory [Shapiro] |
| 13627 | There is no 'correct' logic for natural languages [Shapiro] |
| 13642 | Logic is the ideal for learning new propositions on the basis of others [Shapiro] |
| 13668 | Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic [Shapiro] |
| 13669 | Can one develop set theory first, then derive numbers, or are numbers more basic? [Shapiro] |
| 13667 | Skolem and Gödel championed first-order, and Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays championed higher-order [Shapiro] |
| 13662 | First-order logic was an afterthought in the development of modern logic [Shapiro] |
| 13624 | The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to logicism and the Hilbert programme, which failed [Shapiro] |
| 13660 | Maybe compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are desirable [Shapiro] |
| 13673 | The notion of finitude is actually built into first-order languages [Shapiro] |
| 10588 | First-order logic is Complete, and Compact, with the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems [Shapiro] |
| 15944 | Second-order logic is better than set theory, since it only adds relations and operations, and nothing else [Shapiro, by Lavine] |
| 13629 | Broad standard semantics, or Henkin semantics with a subclass, or many-sorted first-order semantics? [Shapiro] |
| 13650 | Henkin semantics has separate variables ranging over the relations and over the functions [Shapiro] |
| 10298 | Some say that second-order logic is mathematics, not logic [Shapiro] |
| 13645 | In standard semantics for second-order logic, a single domain fixes the ranges for the variables [Shapiro] |
| 13649 | Completeness, Compactness and Löwenheim-Skolem fail in second-order standard semantics [Shapiro] |
| 10299 | If the aim of logic is to codify inferences, second-order logic is useless [Shapiro] |
| 10300 | Logical consequence can be defined in terms of the logical terminology [Shapiro] |
| 10259 | The two standard explanations of consequence are semantic (in models) and deductive [Shapiro] |
| 13626 | Semantic consequence is ineffective in second-order logic [Shapiro] |
| 13637 | If a logic is incomplete, its semantic consequence relation is not effective [Shapiro] |
| 10257 | Intuitionism only sanctions modus ponens if all three components are proved [Shapiro] |
| 10253 | Either logic determines objects, or objects determine logic, or they are separate [Shapiro] |
| 10251 | The law of excluded middle might be seen as a principle of omniscience [Shapiro] |
| 8729 | Intuitionists deny excluded middle, because it is committed to transcendent truth or objects [Shapiro] |
| 13632 | Finding the logical form of a sentence is difficult, and there are no criteria of correctness [Shapiro] |
| 10212 | Classical connectives differ from their ordinary language counterparts; '∧' is timeless, unlike 'and' [Shapiro] |
| 10209 | A function is just an arbitrary correspondence between collections [Shapiro] |
| 13674 | We might reduce ontology by using truth of sentences and terms, instead of using objects satisfying models [Shapiro] |
| 10290 | Second-order variables also range over properties, sets, relations or functions [Shapiro] |
| 10268 | Maybe plural quantifiers should be understood in terms of classes or sets [Shapiro] |
| 10235 | A sentence is 'satisfiable' if it has a model [Shapiro] |
| 13633 | 'Satisfaction' is a function from models, assignments, and formulas to {true,false} [Shapiro] |
| 13644 | Semantics for models uses set-theory [Shapiro] |
| 10240 | Model theory deals with relations, reference and extensions [Shapiro] |
| 10239 | The central notion of model theory is the relation of 'satisfaction' [Shapiro] |
| 13636 | An axiomatization is 'categorical' if its models are isomorphic, so there is really only one interpretation [Shapiro] |
| 10214 | Theory ontology is never complete, but is only determined 'up to isomorphism' [Shapiro] |
| 10238 | The set-theoretical hierarchy contains as many isomorphism types as possible [Shapiro] |
| 13670 | Categoricity can't be reached in a first-order language [Shapiro] |
| 10234 | Any theory with an infinite model has a model of every infinite cardinality [Shapiro] |
| 13648 | The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems show an explosion of infinite models, so 1st-order is useless for infinity [Shapiro] |
| 13675 | Substitutional semantics only has countably many terms, so Upward Löwenheim-Skolem trivially fails [Shapiro] |
| 10292 | Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: if there's an infinite model, there is a countable model [Shapiro] |
| 10590 | Up Löwenheim-Skolem: if natural numbers satisfy wffs, then an infinite domain satisfies them [Shapiro] |
| 10296 | The Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems fail for second-order languages with standard semantics [Shapiro] |
| 13658 | Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: each satisfiable countable set always has countable models [Shapiro] |
| 13659 | Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: each infinite model has infinite models of all sizes [Shapiro] |
| 10297 | The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem seems to be a defect of first-order logic [Shapiro] |
| 13635 | 'Weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth; 'sound' if every deduction is a semantic consequence [Shapiro] |
| 13628 | We can live well without completeness in logic [Shapiro] |
| 13630 | Non-compactness is a strength of second-order logic, enabling characterisation of infinite structures [Shapiro] |
| 13646 | Compactness is derived from soundness and completeness [Shapiro] |
| 13661 | A language is 'semantically effective' if its logical truths are recursively enumerable [Shapiro] |
| 10201 | Virtually all of mathematics can be modeled in set theory [Shapiro] |
| 13641 | Complex numbers can be defined as reals, which are defined as rationals, then integers, then naturals [Shapiro] |
| 8763 | The number 3 is presumably identical as a natural, an integer, a rational, a real, and complex [Shapiro] |
| 13676 | Only higher-order languages can specify that 0,1,2,... are all the natural numbers that there are [Shapiro] |
| 13677 | Natural numbers are the finite ordinals, and integers are equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals [Shapiro] |
| 10213 | Real numbers are thought of as either Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts [Shapiro] |
| 18243 | Understanding the real-number structure is knowing usage of the axiomatic language of analysis [Shapiro] |
| 18249 | Cauchy gave a formal definition of a converging sequence. [Shapiro] |
| 18245 | Cuts are made by the smallest upper or largest lower number, some of them not rational [Shapiro] |
| 18392 | Classes have cardinalities, so their members must all be treated as units [Armstrong] |
| 13652 | The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set [Shapiro] |
| 10236 | There is no grounding for mathematics that is more secure than mathematics [Shapiro] |
| 8764 | Categories are the best foundation for mathematics [Shapiro] |
| 10256 | For intuitionists, proof is inherently informal [Shapiro] |
| 13657 | First-order arithmetic can't even represent basic number theory [Shapiro] |
| 10202 | Natural numbers just need an initial object, successors, and an induction principle [Shapiro] |
| 10294 | Second-order logic has the expressive power for mathematics, but an unworkable model theory [Shapiro] |
| 10205 | Mathematics originally concerned the continuous (geometry) and the discrete (arithmetic) [Shapiro] |
| 8762 | Two definitions of 3 in terms of sets disagree over whether 1 is a member of 3 [Shapiro] |
| 13656 | Some sets of natural numbers are definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic [Shapiro] |
| 10222 | Mathematical foundations may not be sets; categories are a popular rival [Shapiro] |
| 10218 | Baseball positions and chess pieces depend entirely on context [Shapiro] |
| 10224 | The even numbers have the natural-number structure, with 6 playing the role of 3 [Shapiro] |
| 10228 | Could infinite structures be apprehended by pattern recognition? [Shapiro] |
| 10230 | The 4-pattern is the structure common to all collections of four objects [Shapiro] |
| 10249 | The main mathematical structures are algebraic, ordered, and topological [Shapiro] |
| 10273 | Some structures are exemplified by both abstract and concrete [Shapiro] |
| 10276 | Mathematical structures are defined by axioms, or in set theory [Shapiro] |
| 8760 | Numbers do not exist independently; the essence of a number is its relations to other numbers [Shapiro] |
| 8761 | A 'system' is related objects; a 'pattern' or 'structure' abstracts the pure relations from them [Shapiro] |
| 10270 | The main versions of structuralism are all definitionally equivalent [Shapiro] |
| 10221 | Is there is no more to structures than the systems that exemplify them? [Shapiro] |
| 10248 | Number statements are generalizations about number sequences, and are bound variables [Shapiro] |
| 10220 | Because one structure exemplifies several systems, a structure is a one-over-many [Shapiro] |
| 10223 | There is no 'structure of all structures', just as there is no set of all sets [Shapiro] |
| 8703 | Shapiro's structuralism says model theory (comparing structures) is the essence of mathematics [Shapiro, by Friend] |
| 10274 | Does someone using small numbers really need to know the infinite structure of arithmetic? [Shapiro] |
| 10200 | We distinguish realism 'in ontology' (for objects), and 'in truth-value' (for being either true or false) [Shapiro] |
| 10210 | If mathematical objects are accepted, then a number of standard principles will follow [Shapiro] |
| 10215 | Platonists claim we can state the essence of a number without reference to the others [Shapiro] |
| 10233 | Platonism must accept that the Peano Axioms could all be false [Shapiro] |
| 10244 | Intuition is an outright hindrance to five-dimensional geometry [Shapiro] |
| 10280 | A stone is a position in some pattern, and can be viewed as an object, or as a location [Shapiro] |
| 13664 | Logicism is distinctive in seeking a universal language, and denying that logic is a series of abstractions [Shapiro] |
| 13625 | Mathematics and logic have no border, and logic must involve mathematics and its ontology [Shapiro] |
| 8744 | Logicism seems to be a non-starter if (as is widely held) logic has no ontology of its own [Shapiro] |
| 8749 | Term Formalism says mathematics is just about symbols - but real numbers have no names [Shapiro] |
| 8750 | Game Formalism is just a matter of rules, like chess - but then why is it useful in science? [Shapiro] |
| 8752 | Deductivism says mathematics is logical consequences of uninterpreted axioms [Shapiro] |
| 10254 | Can the ideal constructor also destroy objects? [Shapiro] |
| 10255 | Presumably nothing can block a possible dynamic operation? [Shapiro] |
| 8753 | Critics resent the way intuitionism cripples mathematics, but it allows new important distinctions [Shapiro] |
| 8731 | Conceptualist are just realists or idealist or nominalists, depending on their view of concepts [Shapiro] |
| 13663 | Some reject formal properties if they are not defined, or defined impredicatively [Shapiro] |
| 8730 | 'Impredicative' definitions refer to the thing being described [Shapiro] |
| 10279 | Can we discover whether a deck is fifty-two cards, or a person is time-slices or molecules? [Shapiro] |
| 18385 | Logical atomism builds on the simple properties, but are they the only possible properties? [Armstrong] |
| 10227 | The abstract/concrete boundary now seems blurred, and would need a defence [Shapiro] |
| 10226 | Mathematicians regard arithmetic as concrete, and group theory as abstract [Shapiro] |
| 8507 | Some think of reality as made of things; I prefer facts or states of affairs [Armstrong] |
| 18391 | 'Naturalism' says only the world of space-time exists [Armstrong] |
| 9497 | Without modality, Armstrong falls back on fictionalism to support counterfactual laws [Bird on Armstrong] |
| 10262 | Fictionalism eschews the abstract, but it still needs the possible (without model theory) [Shapiro] |
| 10277 | Structuralism blurs the distinction between mathematical and ordinary objects [Shapiro] |
| 17688 | Negative facts are supervenient on positive facts, suggesting they are positive facts [Armstrong] |
| 18374 | Truthmaking needs states of affairs, to unite particulars with tropes or universals. [Armstrong] |
| 17691 | Nothing is genuinely related to itself [Armstrong] |
| 7024 | Properties are universals, which are always instantiated [Armstrong, by Heil] |
| 17679 | All instances of some property are strictly identical [Armstrong] |
| 15550 | Properties are contingently existing beings with multiple locations in space and time [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 15754 | Without properties we would be unable to express the laws of nature [Armstrong] |
| 18372 | We need properties, as minimal truthmakers for the truths about objects [Armstrong] |
| 18379 | The determinates of a determinable must be incompatible with each other [Armstrong] |
| 18378 | Length is a 'determinable' property, and one mile is one its 'determinates' [Armstrong] |
| 9478 | Even if all properties are categorical, they may be denoted by dispositional predicates [Armstrong, by Bird] |
| 12677 | Armstrong holds that all basic properties are categorical [Armstrong, by Ellis] |
| 4034 | Whether we apply 'cold' or 'hot' to an object is quite separate from its change of temperature [Armstrong] |
| 8535 | To the claim that every predicate has a property, start by eliminating failure of application of predicate [Armstrong] |
| 13638 | Properties are often seen as intensional; equiangular and equilateral are different, despite identity of objects [Shapiro] |
| 10591 | Logicians use 'property' and 'set' interchangeably, with little hanging on it [Shapiro] |
| 8537 | Tropes fall into classes, because exact similarity is symmetrical and transitive [Armstrong] |
| 4444 | One moderate nominalist view says that properties and relations exist, but they are particulars [Armstrong] |
| 18373 | If tropes are non-transferable, then they necessarily belong to their particular substance [Armstrong] |
| 8538 | Trope theory needs extra commitments, to symmetry and non-transitivity, unless resemblance is exact [Armstrong] |
| 4445 | If properties and relations are particulars, there is still the problem of how to classify and group them [Armstrong] |
| 18400 | Properties are not powers - they just have powers [Armstrong] |
| 14330 | To be realists about dispositions, we can only discuss them through their categorical basis [Armstrong] |
| 17666 | Actualism means that ontology cannot contain what is merely physically possible [Armstrong] |
| 17667 | Dispositions exist, but their truth-makers are actual or categorical properties [Armstrong] |
| 17687 | If everything is powers there is a vicious regress, as powers are defined by more powers [Armstrong] |
| 18397 | Powers must result in some non-powers, or there would only be potential without result [Armstrong] |
| 18399 | How does the power of gravity know the distance it acts over? [Armstrong] |
| 17678 | Universals are just the repeatable features of a world [Armstrong] |
| 8506 | Particulars and properties are distinguishable, but too close to speak of a relation [Armstrong] |
| 4448 | Should we decide which universals exist a priori (through words), or a posteriori (through science)? [Armstrong] |
| 4032 | The problem of universals is how many particulars can all be of the same 'type' [Armstrong] |
| 17669 | Realist regularity theories of laws need universals, to pick out the same phenomena [Armstrong] |
| 8539 | Universals are required to give a satisfactory account of the laws of nature [Armstrong] |
| 10729 | Universals explain resemblance and causal power [Armstrong, by Oliver] |
| 17677 | Past, present and future must be equally real if universals are instantiated [Armstrong] |
| 15442 | Universals are abstractions from their particular instances [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 17686 | Universals are abstractions from states of affairs [Armstrong] |
| 4446 | It is claimed that some universals are not exemplified by any particular, so must exist separately [Armstrong] |
| 4442 | Most thinkers now reject self-predication (whiteness is NOT white) so there is no Third Man problem [Armstrong] |
| 8505 | Refusal to explain why different tokens are of the same type is to be an ostrich [Armstrong] |
| 8529 | Deniers of properties and relations rely on either predicates or on classes [Armstrong] |
| 4440 | 'Resemblance Nominalism' finds that in practice the construction of resemblance classes is hard [Armstrong] |
| 8532 | Resemblances must be in certain 'respects', and they seem awfully like properties [Armstrong] |
| 4439 | 'Resemblance Nominalism' says properties are resemblances between classes of particulars [Armstrong] |
| 4031 | It doesn't follow that because there is a predicate there must therefore exist a property [Armstrong] |
| 8530 | Change of temperature in objects is quite independent of the predicates 'hot' and 'cold' [Armstrong] |
| 8536 | We want to know what constituents of objects are grounds for the application of predicates [Armstrong] |
| 4431 | 'Predicate Nominalism' says that a 'universal' property is just a predicate applied to lots of things [Armstrong] |
| 4433 | Concept and predicate nominalism miss out some predicates, and may be viciously regressive [Armstrong] |
| 4432 | 'Concept Nominalism' says a 'universal' property is just a mental concept applied to lots of things [Armstrong] |
| 8531 | In most sets there is no property common to all the members [Armstrong] |
| 4436 | 'Class Nominalism' may explain properties if we stick to 'natural' sets, and ignore random ones [Armstrong] |
| 4434 | 'Class Nominalism' says that properties or kinds are merely membership of a set (e.g. of white things) [Armstrong] |
| 4435 | 'Class Nominalism' cannot explain co-extensive properties, or sets with random members [Armstrong] |
| 18371 | The class of similar things is much too big a truthmaker for the feature of a particular [Armstrong] |
| 4437 | 'Mereological Nominalism' sees whiteness as a huge white object consisting of all the white things [Armstrong] |
| 4438 | 'Mereological Nominalism' may work for whiteness, but it doesn't seem to work for squareness [Armstrong] |
| 10272 | The notion of 'object' is at least partially structural and mathematical [Shapiro] |
| 17668 | It is likely that particulars can be individuated by unique conjunctions of properties [Armstrong] |
| 10275 | A blurry border is still a border [Shapiro] |
| 15753 | Essences might support Resemblance Nominalism, but they are too coarse and ill-defined [Armstrong] |
| 18389 | When entities contain entities, or overlap with them, there is 'partial' identity [Armstrong] |
| 10024 | The type-token distinction is the universal-particular distinction [Armstrong, by Hodes] |
| 10728 | A thing's self-identity can't be a universal, since we can know it a priori [Armstrong, by Oliver] |
| 17680 | The identity of a thing with itself can be ruled out as a pseudo-property [Armstrong] |
| 10258 | Logical modalities may be acceptable, because they are reducible to satisfaction in models [Shapiro] |
| 15542 | All possibilities are recombinations of properties in the actual world [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 17693 | The necessary/contingent distinction may need to recognise possibilities as real [Armstrong] |
| 4743 | The truth-maker for a truth must necessitate that truth [Armstrong] |
| 10266 | Why does the 'myth' of possible worlds produce correct modal logic? [Shapiro] |
| 11003 | The best version of reductionist actualism around is Armstrong's combinatorial account [Armstrong, by Read] |
| 18388 | Possible worlds don't fix necessities; intrinsic necessities imply the extension in worlds [Armstrong] |
| 6498 | Armstrong suggests secondary qualities are blurred primary qualities [Armstrong, by Robinson,H] |
| 7440 | Secondary qualities are microscopic primary qualities of physical things [Armstrong] |
| 3900 | Maybe experience is not essential to perception, but only to the causing of beliefs [Armstrong, by Scruton] |
| 8725 | Rationalism tries to apply mathematical methodology to all of knowledge [Shapiro] |
| 4253 | Externalism says knowledge involves a natural relation between the belief state and what makes it true [Armstrong] |
| 3061 | Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing [Anaxarchus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| 17685 | Induction aims at 'all Fs', but abduction aims at hidden or theoretical entities [Armstrong] |
| 17683 | Science suggests that the predicate 'grue' is not a genuine single universal [Armstrong] |
| 17675 | Unlike 'green', the 'grue' predicate involves a time and a change [Armstrong] |
| 17674 | The raven paradox has three disjuncts, confirmed by confirming any one of them [Armstrong] |
| 17672 | A good reason for something (the smoke) is not an explanation of it (the fire) [Armstrong] |
| 17684 | To explain observations by a regular law is to explain the observations by the observations [Armstrong] |
| 17676 | Best explanations explain the most by means of the least [Armstrong] |
| 7437 | Consciousness and experience of qualities are not the same [Armstrong] |
| 10203 | We apprehend small, finite mathematical structures by abstraction from patterns [Shapiro] |
| 18375 | General truths are a type of negative truth, saying there are no more ravens than black ones [Armstrong] |
| 5690 | A mental state without belief refutes self-intimation; a belief with no state refutes infallibility [Armstrong, by Shoemaker] |
| 7434 | Behaviourism is false, but mind is definable as the cause of behaviour [Armstrong] |
| 7436 | The manifestations of a disposition need never actually exist [Armstrong] |
| 5493 | If pains are defined causally, and research shows that the causal role is physical, then pains are physical [Armstrong, by Lycan] |
| 4600 | Armstrong and Lewis see functionalism as an identity of the function and its realiser [Armstrong, by Heil] |
| 7429 | Causal Functionalism says mental states are apt for producing behaviour [Armstrong] |
| 7438 | A causal theory of mentality would be improved by a teleological element [Armstrong] |
| 7431 | The identity of mental states with physical properties is contingent, because the laws of nature are contingent [Armstrong] |
| 7432 | One mental role might be filled by a variety of physical types [Armstrong] |
| 17664 | Each subject has an appropriate level of abstraction [Armstrong] |
| 10229 | Simple types can be apprehended through their tokens, via abstraction [Shapiro] |
| 9626 | A structure is an abstraction, focussing on relationships, and ignoring other features [Shapiro] |
| 10217 | We can apprehend structures by focusing on or ignoring features of patterns [Shapiro] |
| 9554 | We can focus on relations between objects (like baseballers), ignoring their other features [Shapiro] |
| 10231 | Abstract objects might come by abstraction over an equivalence class of base entities [Shapiro] |
| 8533 | Predicates need ontological correlates to ensure that they apply [Armstrong] |
| 4035 | There must be some explanation of why certain predicates are applicable to certain objects [Armstrong] |
| 18368 | For all being, there is a potential proposition which expresses its existence and nature [Armstrong] |
| 18370 | A realm of abstract propositions is causally inert, so has no explanatory value [Armstrong] |
| 17692 | We can't deduce the phenomena from the One [Armstrong] |
| 17689 | Absences might be effects, but surely not causes? [Armstrong] |
| 18380 | Negative causations supervene on positive causations plus their laws? [Armstrong] |
| 4798 | In recent writings, Armstrong makes a direct identification of necessitation with causation [Armstrong, by Psillos] |
| 17682 | A universe couldn't consist of mere laws [Armstrong] |
| 17662 | Science depends on laws of nature to study unobserved times and spaces [Armstrong] |
| 17690 | Oaken conditional laws, Iron universal laws, and Steel necessary laws [Armstrong, by PG] |
| 17670 | Newton's First Law refers to bodies not acted upon by a force, but there may be no such body [Armstrong] |
| 8582 | Regularities are lawful if a second-order universal unites two first-order universals [Armstrong, by Lewis] |
| 17671 | A naive regularity view says if it never occurs then it is impossible [Armstrong] |
| 8541 | Regularities theories are poor on causal connections, counterfactuals and probability [Armstrong] |
| 8540 | The introduction of sparse properties avoids the regularity theory's problem with 'grue' [Armstrong] |
| 17681 | The laws of nature link properties with properties [Armstrong] |
| 16246 | Rather than take necessitation between universals as primitive, just make laws primitive [Maudlin on Armstrong] |
| 9480 | Armstrong has an unclear notion of contingent necessitation, which can't necessitate anything [Bird on Armstrong] |
| 5492 | How can essences generate the right powers to vary with distance between objects? [Armstrong] |
| 18401 | The pure present moment is too brief to be experienced [Armstrong] |