more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 10699

[filed under theme 4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 8. Critique of Set Theory ]

Full Idea

Is there, in addition to the 200 Cheerios in a bowl, also a set of them all? And what about the vast number of subsets of Cheerios? It is haywire to think that when you have some Cheerios you are eating a set. What you are doing is: eating the Cheerios.

Clarification

From the context, we can take Cheerios to be a breakfast cereal!

Gist of Idea

Does a bowl of Cheerios contain all its sets and subsets?

Source

George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], p.72)

Book Ref

Boolos,George: 'Logic, Logic and Logic' [Harvard 1999], p.72


A Reaction

In my case Boolos is preaching to the converted. I am particularly bewildered by someone (i.e. Quine) who believes that innumerable sets exist while 'having a taste for desert landscapes' in their ontology.


The 23 ideas with the same theme [objections to the whole idea of set theory]:

Classes are logical fictions, and are not part of the ultimate furniture of the world [Russell]
I gradually replaced classes with properties, and they ended as a symbolic convenience [Russell]
Russell denies extensional sets, because the null can't be a collection, and the singleton is just its element [Russell/Whitehead, by Shapiro]
We regard classes as mere symbolic or linguistic conveniences [Russell/Whitehead]
Classes can be reduced to propositional functions [Russell, by Hanna]
Classes, grouped by a convenient property, are logical constructions [Russell]
Skolem did not believe in the existence of uncountable sets [Skolem]
Very few things in set theory remain valid in intuitionist mathematics [Bernays]
Von Neumann wanted mathematical functions to replace sets [Neumann, by Benardete,JA]
Two objects can apparently make up quite distinct arrangements in sets [Goodman, by Burgess/Rosen]
Two things can never entail three things [Quine, by Benardete,JA]
Does a bowl of Cheerios contain all its sets and subsets? [Boolos]
What in the real world could ground the distinction between the sets {A,{A,B}} and {B,{A,B}}? [Inwagen]
In Field's Platonist view, set theory is false because it asserts existence for non-existent things [Field,H, by Chihara]
Physicalism requires the naturalisation or rejection of set theory [Lycan]
Maybe sets should be rethought in terms of the even more basic categories [Hart,WD]
God does not create the world, and then add the classes [Heil]
Anti-realists reject set theory [Shapiro]
We could talk of open sentences, instead of sets [Chihara, by Shapiro]
Could we replace sets by the open sentences that define them? [Chihara, by Bostock]
A pack of wolves doesn't cease when one member dies [Chihara]
As a reduction of arithmetic, set theory is not fully general, and so not logical [George/Velleman]
Maybe we reduce sets to ordinals, rather than the other way round [Hossack]