more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I am unable to see how the mere existence of pure abstract entities enables us to concoct appropriate models to serve as interpretations.
Gist of Idea
How can pure abstract entities give models to serve as interpretations?
Source
Michael Jubien (Ontology and Mathematical Truth [1977], p.111)
Book Ref
'Philosophy of Mathematics: anthology', ed/tr. Jacquette,Dale [Blackwell 2002], p.111
A Reaction
Nice question. It is always assumed that once we have platonic realm, that everything else follows. Even if we are able to grasp the objects, despite their causal inertness, we still have to discern innumerable relations between them.
| 9963 | If we all intuited mathematical objects, platonism would be agreed [Jubien] |
| 9962 | How can pure abstract entities give models to serve as interpretations? [Jubien] |
| 9964 | Since mathematical objects are essentially relational, they can't be picked out on their own [Jubien] |
| 9965 | There couldn't just be one number, such as 17 [Jubien] |
| 9966 | The subject-matter of (pure) mathematics is abstract structure [Jubien] |
| 9967 | 'Impure' sets have a concrete member, while 'pure' (abstract) sets do not [Jubien] |
| 9968 | A model is 'fundamental' if it contains only concrete entities [Jubien] |
| 9969 | The empty set is the purest abstract object [Jubien] |