more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 15136

[filed under theme 5. Theory of Logic / G. Quantification / 4. Substitutional Quantification ]

Full Idea

If quantification into sentence position is substitutional, then it is metaphysically neutral. A substitutionally interpreted 'existential' quantification is semantically equivalent to the disjunction (possibly infinite) of its substitution instances.

Gist of Idea

Substitutional quantification is metaphysical neutral, and equivalent to a disjunction of instances

Source

Timothy Williamson (Truthmakers and Converse Barcan Formula [1999], §2)

Book Ref

-: 'Dialectica' [-], p.262


A Reaction

Is it not committed to the disjunction, just as the objectual reading commits to objects? Something must make the disjunction true. Or is it too verbal to be about reality?


The 23 ideas with the same theme [quantifiers range over expressions instead of objects]:

Contradiction arises from Frege's substitutional account of second-order quantification [Dummett on Frege]
The values of variables can't determine existence, because they are just expressions [Ryle, by Quine]
If quantification is all substitutional, there is no ontology [Quine]
You can't base quantification on substituting names for variables, if the irrationals cannot all be named [Quine]
Some quantifications could be false substitutionally and true objectually, because of nameless objects [Quine]
Either reference really matters, or we don't need to replace it with substitutions [Quine]
Quine thought substitutional quantification confused use and mention, but then saw its nominalist appeal [Quine, by Marcus (Barcan)]
Maybe a substitutional semantics for quantification lends itself to nominalism [Marcus (Barcan)]
Substitutional language has no ontology, and is just a way of speaking [Marcus (Barcan)]
A true universal sentence might be substitutionally refuted, by an unnamed denumerable object [Marcus (Barcan)]
Substitutional quantification is just a variant of Tarski's account [Wallace, by Baldwin]
The substitutional quantifier is not in competition with the standard interpretation [Kripke, by Marcus (Barcan)]
Substitutional quantification is just standard if all objects in the domain have a name [Bostock]
Substitutional existential quantifier may explain the existence of linguistic entities [Parsons,C]
On the substitutional interpretation, '(∃x) Fx' is true iff a closed term 't' makes Ft true [Parsons,C]
We can quantify over fictions by quantifying for real over their names [Lewis]
Substitutional universal quantification retains truth for substitution of terms of the same type [Jacquette]
Nominalists like substitutional quantification to avoid the metaphysics of objects [Jacquette]
Substitutional quantification is referential quantification over expressions [Fine,K]
We might reduce ontology by using truth of sentences and terms, instead of using objects satisfying models [Shapiro]
Substitutional quantification is metaphysical neutral, and equivalent to a disjunction of instances [Williamson]
The substitution view of quantification says a sentence is true when there is a substitution instance [Orenstein]
Quantification can't all be substitutional; some reference is obviously to objects [Hofweber]