39 ideas
| 14018 | Is Sufficient Reason self-refuting (no reason to accept it!), or is it a legitimate explanatory tool? [Bourne] |
| 14008 | The redundancy theory conflates metalinguistic bivalence with object-language excluded middle [Bourne] |
| 17926 | Rejecting double negation elimination undermines reductio proofs [Colyvan] |
| 17925 | Showing a disproof is impossible is not a proof, so don't eliminate double negation [Colyvan] |
| 17924 | Excluded middle says P or not-P; bivalence says P is either true or false [Colyvan] |
| 17929 | Löwenheim proved his result for a first-order sentence, and Skolem generalised it [Colyvan] |
| 17930 | Axioms are 'categorical' if all of their models are isomorphic [Colyvan] |
| 17928 | Ordinal numbers represent order relations [Colyvan] |
| 17923 | Intuitionists only accept a few safe infinities [Colyvan] |
| 17941 | Infinitesimals were sometimes zero, and sometimes close to zero [Colyvan] |
| 17922 | Reducing real numbers to rationals suggested arithmetic as the foundation of maths [Colyvan] |
| 17936 | Transfinite induction moves from all cases, up to the limit ordinal [Colyvan] |
| 17940 | Most mathematical proofs are using set theory, but without saying so [Colyvan] |
| 17931 | Structuralism say only 'up to isomorphism' matters because that is all there is to it [Colyvan] |
| 17932 | If 'in re' structures relies on the world, does the world contain rich enough structures? [Colyvan] |
| 16062 | A necessary relation between fact-levels seems to be a further irreducible fact [Lynch/Glasgow] |
| 16061 | If some facts 'logically supervene' on some others, they just redescribe them, adding nothing [Lynch/Glasgow] |
| 16060 | Nonreductive materialism says upper 'levels' depend on lower, but don't 'reduce' [Lynch/Glasgow] |
| 16064 | The hallmark of physicalism is that each causal power has a base causal power under it [Lynch/Glasgow] |
| 14010 | All relations between spatio-temporal objects are either spatio-temporal, or causal [Bourne] |
| 14009 | It is a necessary condition for the existence of relations that both of the relata exist [Bourne] |
| 17943 | Probability supports Bayesianism better as degrees of belief than as ratios of frequencies [Colyvan] |
| 17939 | Mathematics can reveal structural similarities in diverse systems [Colyvan] |
| 17938 | Mathematics can show why some surprising events have to occur [Colyvan] |
| 17934 | Proof by cases (by 'exhaustion') is said to be unexplanatory [Colyvan] |
| 17933 | Reductio proofs do not seem to be very explanatory [Colyvan] |
| 17935 | If inductive proofs hold because of the structure of natural numbers, they may explain theorems [Colyvan] |
| 17942 | Can a proof that no one understands (of the four-colour theorem) really be a proof? [Colyvan] |
| 17937 | Mathematical generalisation is by extending a system, or by abstracting away from it [Colyvan] |
| 14016 | The idea of simultaneity in Special Relativity is full of verificationist assumptions [Bourne] |
| 14019 | Relativity denies simultaneity, so it needs past, present and future (unlike Presentism) [Bourne] |
| 14013 | Special Relativity allows an absolute past, future, elsewhere and simultaneity [Bourne] |
| 14015 | No-Futurists believe in past and present, but not future, and say the world grows as facts increase [Bourne] |
| 14007 | How can presentists talk of 'earlier than', and distinguish past from future? [Bourne] |
| 14011 | Presentism seems to deny causation, because the cause and the effect can never coexist [Bourne] |
| 14017 | Since presentists treat the presentness of events as basic, simultaneity should be define by that means [Bourne] |
| 14003 | Time is tensed or tenseless; the latter says all times and objects are real, and there is no passage of time [Bourne] |
| 14005 | B-series objects relate to each other; A-series objects relate to the present [Bourne] |
| 14006 | Time flows, past is fixed, future is open, future is feared but not past, we remember past, we plan future [Bourne] |