37 ideas
| 22886 | The modern idea of 'limit' allows infinite quantities to have a finite sum [Bardon] |
| 22914 | An equally good question would be why there was nothing instead of something [Bardon] |
| 13076 | Scholastics treat relations as two separate predicates of the relata [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13102 | If you individuate things by their origin, you still have to individuate the origins themselves [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13103 | Numerical difference is a symmetrical notion, unlike proper individuation [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13104 | Haecceity as property, or as colourless thisness, or as singleton set [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13100 | Maybe 'substance' is more of a mass-noun than a count-noun [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13068 | We can ask for the nature of substance, about type of substance, and about individual substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13069 | The general assumption is that substances cannot possibly be non-substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13072 | Modern essences are sets of essential predicate-functions [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 17080 | Modern essentialists express essence as functions from worlds to extensions for predicates [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13101 | Necessity-of-origin won't distinguish ex nihilo creations, or things sharing an origin [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 13081 | Even extreme modal realists might allow transworld identity for abstract objects [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 22110 | Demonstration provides depth of understanding and explanation (rather than foundations) [Kretzmann/Stump] |
| 13071 | We can go beyond mere causal explanations if we believe in an 'order of being' [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| 22902 | Why does an effect require a prior event if the prior event isn't a cause? [Bardon] |
| 22905 | Becoming disordered is much easier for a system than becoming ordered [Bardon] |
| 22913 | The universe expands, so space-time is enlarging [Bardon] |
| 22889 | We should treat time as adverbial, so we don't experience time, we experience things temporally [Bardon, by Bardon] |
| 22900 | How can we question the passage of time, if the question takes time to ask? [Bardon] |
| 22898 | What is time's passage relative to, and how fast does it pass? [Bardon] |
| 22897 | The A-series says a past event is becoming more past, but how can it do that? [Bardon] |
| 22901 | The B-series needs a revised view of causes, laws and explanations [Bardon] |
| 22896 | The B-series is realist about time, but idealist about its passage [Bardon] |
| 22903 | The B-series adds directionality when it accepts 'earlier' and 'later' [Bardon] |
| 22910 | To define time's arrow by causation, we need a timeless definition of causation [Bardon] |
| 22909 | We judge memories to be of the past because the events cause the memories [Bardon] |
| 22904 | The psychological arrow of time is the direction from our memories to our anticipations [Bardon] |
| 22906 | The direction of entropy is probabilistic, not necessary, so cannot be identical to time's arrow [Bardon] |
| 22907 | It is arbitrary to reverse time in a more orderly universe, but not in a sub-system of it [Bardon] |
| 22883 | It seems hard to understand change without understanding time first [Bardon] |
| 22890 | We experience static states (while walking round a house) and observe change (ship leaving dock) [Bardon] |
| 22884 | The motion of a thing should be a fact in the present moment [Bardon] |
| 22892 | Experiences of motion may be overlapping, thus stretching out the experience [Bardon] |
| 22911 | At least eternal time gives time travellers a possible destination [Bardon] |
| 22912 | Time travel is not a paradox if we include it in the eternal continuum of events [Bardon] |
| 22882 | We use calendars for the order of events, and clocks for their passing [Bardon] |