more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 10560

[filed under theme 6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 6. Mathematics as Set Theory / b. Mathematics is not set theory ]

Full Idea

Set-theoretic imperialists think that it must be possible to represent every mathematical object as a set.

Gist of Idea

Set-theoretic imperialists think sets can represent every mathematical object

Source

Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1)

Book Ref

-: 'Philosophical Studies' [-], p.367


The 229 ideas from Kit Fine

Definitions formed an abstract hierarchy for Aristotle, as sets do for us [Fine,K]
There is no distinctive idea of constitution, because you can't say constitution begins and ends [Fine,K]
Is there a plausible Aristotelian notion of constitution, applicable to both physical and non-physical? [Fine,K]
The components of abstract definitions could play the same role as matter for physical objects [Fine,K]
Aristotle sees hierarchies in definitions using genus and differentia (as we see them in sets) [Fine,K]
Maybe bottom-up grounding shows constitution, and top-down grounding shows essence [Fine,K]
After abstraction all numbers seem identical, so only 0 and 1 will exist! [Fine,K]
I think of variables as objects rather than as signs [Fine,K]
To obtain the number 2 by abstraction, we only want to abstract the distinctness of a pair of objects [Fine,K]
We should define abstraction in general, with number abstraction taken as a special case [Fine,K]
If green is abstracted from a thing, it is only seen as a type if it is common to many things [Fine,K]
3-D says things are stretched in space but not in time, and entire at a time but not at a location [Fine,K]
4-D says things are stretched in space and in time, and not entire at a time or at a location [Fine,K]
You can ask when the wedding was, but not (usually) when the bride was [Fine,K, by Simons]
Three-dimensionalist can accept temporal parts, as things enduring only for an instant [Fine,K]
Genuine motion, rather than variation of position, requires the 'entire presence' of the object [Fine,K]
An essential property of something must be bound up with what it is to be that thing [Fine,K, by Rami]
Essential properties are part of an object's 'definition' [Fine,K, by Rami]
Essence as necessary properties produces a profusion of essential properties [Fine,K, by Lowe]
Essences are either taken as real definitions, or as necessary properties [Fine,K]
An object is dependent if its essence prevents it from existing without some other object [Fine,K]
Modern philosophy has largely abandoned real definitions, apart from sortals [Fine,K]
My account shows how the concept works, rather than giving an analysis [Fine,K]
Simple modal essentialism refers to necessary properties of an object [Fine,K]
Essentialist claims can be formulated more clearly with quantified modal logic [Fine,K]
Essentially having a property is naturally expressed as 'the property it must have to be what it is' [Fine,K]
Socrates is necessarily distinct from the Eiffel Tower, but that is not part of his essence [Fine,K]
The nature of singleton Socrates has him as a member, but not vice versa [Fine,K]
It is not part of the essence of Socrates that a huge array of necessary truths should hold [Fine,K]
If Socrates lacks necessary existence, then his nature cannot require his parents' existence [Fine,K]
Metaphysical necessities are true in virtue of the nature of all objects [Fine,K]
The subject of a proposition need not be the source of its necessity [Fine,K]
Metaphysical necessity is a special case of essence, not vice versa [Fine,K]
Conceptual necessities rest on the nature of all concepts [Fine,K]
Analytic truth may only be true in virtue of the meanings of certain terms [Fine,K]
The meaning of 'bachelor' is irrelevant to the meaning of 'unmarried man' [Fine,K]
Defining a term and giving the essence of an object don't just resemble - they are the same [Fine,K]
Is there metaphysical explanation (as well as causal), involving a constitutive form of determination? [Fine,K]
Each basic modality has its 'own' explanatory relation [Fine,K]
2+2=4 is necessary if it is snowing, but not true in virtue of the fact that it is snowing [Fine,K]
If you say one thing causes another, that leaves open that the 'other' has its own distinct reality [Fine,K]
Philosophical explanation is largely by ground (just as cause is used in science) [Fine,K]
We can only explain how a reduction is possible if we accept the concept of ground [Fine,K]
Ground is best understood as a sentence operator, rather than a relation between predicates [Fine,K]
If grounding is a relation it must be between entities of the same type, preferably between facts [Fine,K]
Realist metaphysics concerns what is real; naive metaphysics concerns natures of things [Fine,K]
If mind supervenes on the physical, it may also explain the physical (and not vice versa) [Fine,K]
Even a three-dimensionalist might identify temporal parts, in their thinking [Fine,K]
Truths need not always have their source in what exists [Fine,K]
If the truth-making relation is modal, then modal truths will be grounded in anything [Fine,K]
An immediate ground is the next lower level, which gives the concept of a hierarchy [Fine,K]
'Strict' ground moves down the explanations, but 'weak' ground can move sideways [Fine,K]
Facts, such as redness and roundness of a ball, can be 'fused' into one fact [Fine,K]
Logical consequence is verification by a possible world within a truth-set [Fine,K]
We explain by identity (what it is), or by truth (how things are) [Fine,K]
We learn grounding from what is grounded, not what does the grounding [Fine,K]
Only metaphysical grounding must be explained by essence [Fine,K]
Every necessary truth is grounded in the nature of something [Fine,K]
Empiricists suspect modal notions: either it happens or it doesn't; it is just regularities. [Fine,K]
Objects, as well as sentences, can have logical form [Fine,K]
The three basic types of necessity are metaphysical, natural and normative [Fine,K]
We must distinguish between the identity or essence of an object, and its necessary features [Fine,K]
Philosophers with a new concept are like children with a new toy [Fine,K]
Metaphysical necessity may be 'whatever the circumstance', or 'regardless of circumstances' [Fine,K]
If sentence content is all worlds where it is true, all necessary truths have the same content! [Fine,K]
Possible objects are abstract; actual concrete objects are possible; so abstract/concrete are compatible [Fine,K]
A non-standard realism, with no privileged standpoint, might challenge its absoluteness or coherence [Fine,K]
The objects and truths of mathematics are imperative procedures for their construction [Fine,K]
My Proceduralism has one simple rule, and four complex rules [Fine,K]
Proceduralism offers a version of logicism with no axioms, or objects, or ontological commitment [Fine,K]
Fine considers abstraction as reconceptualization, to produce new senses by analysing given senses [Fine,K, by Cook/Ebert]
Implicit definitions must be satisfiable, creative definitions introduce things, contextual definitions build on things [Fine,K, by Cook/Ebert]
Fine's 'procedural postulationism' uses creative definitions, but avoids abstract ontology [Fine,K, by Cook/Ebert]
We can abstract from concepts (e.g. to number) and from objects (e.g. to direction) [Fine,K]
Abstractionism can be regarded as an alternative to set theory [Fine,K]
Points in Euclidean space are abstract objects, but not introduced by abstraction [Fine,K]
An object is the abstract of a concept with respect to a relation on concepts [Fine,K]
Many different kinds of mathematical objects can be regarded as forms of abstraction [Fine,K]
'Creative definitions' do not presuppose the existence of the objects defined [Fine,K]
Postulationism says avoid abstract objects by giving procedures that produce truth [Fine,K]
Abstracts cannot be identified with sets [Fine,K]
S5 provides the correct logic for necessity in the broadly logical sense [Fine,K]
Some sentences depend for their truth on worldly circumstances, and others do not [Fine,K]
Proper necessary truths hold whatever the circumstances; transcendent truths regardless of circumstances [Fine,K]
What it is is fixed prior to existence or the object's worldly features [Fine,K]
B-theorists say tensed sentences have an unfilled argument-place for a time [Fine,K]
A-theorists tend to reject the tensed/tenseless distinction [Fine,K]
The actual world is a totality of facts, so we also think of possible worlds as totalities [Fine,K]
Possible worlds may be more limited, to how things might actually turn out [Fine,K]
It is the nature of Socrates to be a man, so necessarily he is a man [Fine,K]
Tensed and tenseless sentences state two sorts of fact, which belong to two different 'realms' of reality [Fine,K]
Bottom level facts are subject to time and world, middle to world but not time, and top to neither [Fine,K]
We would understand identity between objects, even if their existence was impossible [Fine,K]
Self-identity should have two components, its existence, and its neutral identity with itself [Fine,K]
Essential features of an object have no relation to how things actually are [Fine,K]
Modal features are not part of entities, because they are accounted for by the entity [Fine,K]
There are levels of existence, as well as reality; objects exist at the lowest level in which they can function [Fine,K]
It is said that in the A-theory, all existents and objects must be tensed, as well as the sentences [Fine,K]
The 'standard' view of relations is that they hold of several objects in a given order [Fine,K]
The 'positionalist' view of relations says the number of places is fixed, but not the order [Fine,K]
A block on top of another contains one relation, not both 'on top of' and 'beneath' [Fine,K]
Language imposes a direction on a road which is not really part of the road [Fine,K]
Explain biased relations as orderings of the unbiased, or the unbiased as permutation classes of the biased? [Fine,K]
We should understand identity in terms of the propositions it renders true [Fine,K]
A natural modal account of dependence says x depends on y if y must exist when x does [Fine,K]
An object's 'being' isn't existence; there's more to an object than existence, and its nature doesn't include existence [Fine,K]
Metaphysics deals with the existence of things and with the nature of things [Fine,K]
We understand things through their dependency relations [Fine,K]
Dependency is the real counterpart of one term defining another [Fine,K]
An object depends on another if the second cannot be eliminated from the first's definition [Fine,K]
How do we distinguish basic from derived esssences? [Fine,K]
An object only essentially has a property if that property follows from every definition of the object [Fine,K]
Maybe some things have essential relationships as well as essential properties [Fine,K]
There is 'weak' dependence in one definition, and 'strong' dependence in all the definitions [Fine,K]
Maybe two objects might require simultaneous real definitions, as with two simultaneous terms [Fine,K]
An abstraction principle should not 'inflate', producing more abstractions than objects [Fine,K]
Definitions concern how we should speak, not how things are [Fine,K]
If Hume's Principle can define numbers, we needn't worry about its truth [Fine,K]
Hume's Principle is either adequate for number but fails to define properly, or vice versa [Fine,K]
The actual world is a possible world, so we can't define possible worlds as 'what might have been' [Fine,K]
Possible states of affairs are not propositions; a proposition can't be a state of affairs! [Fine,K]
The possible Aristotelian view that forms are real and active principles is clearly wrong [Fine,K, by Pasnau]
It is plausible that x^2 = -1 had no solutions before complex numbers were 'introduced' [Fine,K]
The indispensability argument shows that nature is non-numerical, not the denial of numbers [Fine,K]
Just as we introduced complex numbers, so we introduced sums and temporal parts [Fine,K]
'Exists' is a predicate, not a quantifier; 'electrons exist' is like 'electrons spin' [Fine,K]
Ontological claims are often universal, and not a matter of existential quantification [Fine,K]
The existence of numbers is not a matter of identities, but of constituents of the world [Fine,K]
Real objects are those which figure in the facts that constitute reality [Fine,K]
Being real and being fundamental are separate; Thales's water might be real and divisible [Fine,K]
For ontology we need, not internal or external views, but a view from outside reality [Fine,K]
If you make 'grounding' fundamental, you have to mention some non-fundamental notions [Sider on Fine,K]
Reality is a primitive metaphysical concept, which cannot be understood in other terms [Fine,K]
What is real can only be settled in terms of 'ground' [Fine,K]
In metaphysics, reality is regarded as either 'factual', or as 'fundamental' [Fine,K]
Something is grounded when it holds, and is explained, and necessitated by something else [Fine,K, by Sider]
Reduction might be producing a sentence which gets closer to the logical form [Fine,K]
Reduction might be semantic, where a reduced sentence is understood through its reduction [Fine,K]
Reduction is modal, if the reductions necessarily entail the truth of the target sentence [Fine,K]
'Quietist' says abandon metaphysics because answers are unattainable (as in Kant's noumenon) [Fine,K]
If metaphysics can't be settled, it hardly matters whether it makes sense [Fine,K]
The notion of reduction (unlike that of 'ground') implies the unreality of what is reduced [Fine,K]
Grounding relations are best expressed as relations between sentences [Fine,K]
Ultimate explanations are in 'grounds', which account for other truths, which hold in virtue of the grounding [Fine,K]
A proposition ingredient is 'essential' if changing it would change the truth-value [Fine,K]
Grounding is an explanation of truth, and needs all the virtues of good explanations [Fine,K]
Although colour depends on us, we can describe the world that way if it picks out fundamentals [Fine,K]
Why should what is explanatorily basic be therefore more real? [Fine,K]
Is it the sentence-token or the sentence-type that has a logical form? [Fine,K]
Substitutional quantification is referential quantification over expressions [Fine,K]
If you ask what F the second-order quantifier quantifies over, you treat it as first-order [Fine,K]
Set-theoretic imperialists think sets can represent every mathematical object [Fine,K]
There is no stage at which we can take all the sets to have been generated [Fine,K]
We might combine the axioms of set theory with the axioms of mereology [Fine,K]
A generative conception of abstracts proposes stages, based on concepts of previous objects [Fine,K]
Abstraction-theoretic imperialists think Fregean abstracts can represent every mathematical object [Fine,K]
We can combine ZF sets with abstracts as urelements [Fine,K]
We can create objects from conditions, rather than from concepts [Fine,K]
Concern for rigour can get in the way of understanding phenomena [Fine,K]
Dedekind cuts lead to the bizarre idea that there are many different number 1's [Fine,K]
Why should a Dedekind cut correspond to a number? [Fine,K]
Unless we know whether 0 is identical with the null set, we create confusions [Fine,K]
Assigning an entity to each predicate in semantics is largely a technical convenience [Fine,K]
Logicists say mathematics can be derived from definitions, and can be known that way [Fine,K]
The role of semantic necessity in semantics is like metaphysical necessity in metaphysics [Fine,K, by Hale/Hoffmann,A]
Semantics is either an assignment of semantic values, or a theory of truth [Fine,K]
The Quinean doubt: are semantics and facts separate, and do analytic sentences have no factual part? [Fine,K]
Semantics is a body of semantic requirements, not semantic truths or assigned values [Fine,K]
Referential semantics (unlike Fregeanism) allows objects themselves in to semantic requirements [Fine,K]
Theories in logic are sentences closed under consequence, but in truth discussions theories have axioms [Fine,K]
That two utterances say the same thing may not be intrinsic to them, but involve their relationships [Fine,K]
The two main theories are Holism (which is inferential), and Representational (which is atomistic) [Fine,K]
You cannot determine the full content from a thought's intrinsic character, as relations are involved [Fine,K]
It seemed that Frege gave the syntax for variables, and Tarski the semantics, and that was that [Fine,K]
In separate expressions variables seem identical in role, but in the same expression they aren't [Fine,K]
The usual Tarskian interpretation of variables is to specify their range of values [Fine,K]
Variables can be viewed as special terms - functions taking assignments into individuals [Fine,K]
The 'algebraic' account of variables reduces quantification to the algebra of its component parts [Fine,K]
'Instantial' accounts of variables say we grasp arbitrary instances from their use in quantification [Fine,K]
The standard aim of semantics is to assign a semantic value to each expression [Fine,K]
We should pursue semantic facts as stated by truths in theories (and not put the theories first!) [Fine,K]
Cicero/Cicero and Cicero/Tully may differ in relationship, despite being semantically the same [Fine,K]
Referentialist semantics has objects for names, properties for predicates, and propositions for connectives [Fine,K]
Fregeans approach the world through sense, Referentialists through reference [Fine,K]
Mental files are devices for keeping track of basic coordination of objects [Fine,K]
If Cicero=Tully refers to the man twice, then surely Cicero=Cicero does as well? [Fine,K]
I can only represent individuals as the same if I do not already represent them as the same [Fine,K]
I take indexicals such as 'this' and 'that' to be linked to some associated demonstration [Fine,K]
Logical concepts rest on certain inferences, not on facts about implications [Fine,K]
A logical truth is true in virtue of the nature of the logical concepts [Fine,K]
Being a man is a consequence of his essence, not constitutive of it [Fine,K]
The property of Property Abstraction says any suitable condition must imply a property [Fine,K]
Can the essence of an object circularly involve itself, or involve another object? [Fine,K]
If there are alternative definitions, then we have three possibilities for essence [Fine,K]
The essence or definition of an essence involves either a class of properties or a class of propositions [Fine,K]
Formal grounding needs transitivity of grounding, no self-grounding, and the existence of both parties [Fine,K]
Strong Kleene disjunction just needs one true disjunct; Weak needs the other to have some value [Fine,K]
Two sorts of whole have 'rigid embodiment' (timeless parts) or 'variable embodiment' (temporary parts) [Fine,K]
A 'temporary' part is a part at one time, but may not be at another, like a carburetor [Fine,K]
A 'timeless' part just is a part, not a part at some time; some atoms are timeless parts of a water molecule [Fine,K]
An 'aggregative' sum is spread in time, and exists whenever a component exists [Fine,K]
An 'compound' sum is not spread in time, and only exists when all the components exists [Fine,K]
Part and whole contribute asymmetrically to one another, so must differ [Fine,K]
The matter is a relatively unstructured version of the object, like a set without membership structure [Fine,K]
Hierarchical set membership models objects better than the subset or aggregate relations do [Fine,K]
Supervaluation can give no answer to 'who is the last bald man' [Fine,K]
Local indeterminacy concerns a single object, and global indeterminacy covers a range [Fine,K]
Conjoining two indefinites by related sentences seems to produce a contradiction [Fine,K]
Identifying vagueness with ignorance is the common mistake of confusing symptoms with cause [Fine,K]
Classical semantics has referents for names, extensions for predicates, and T or F for sentences [Fine,K]
We identify laws with regularities because we mistakenly identify causes with their symptoms [Fine,K]
We do not have an intelligible concept of a borderline case [Fine,K]
Standardly vagueness involves borderline cases, and a higher standpoint from which they can be seen [Fine,K]
Indeterminacy is in conflict with classical logic [Fine,K]
It seems absurd that there is no identity of any kind between two objects which involve survival [Fine,K]
Study vagueness first by its logic, then by its truth-conditions, and then its metaphysics [Fine,K]
Vagueness is semantic, a deficiency of meaning [Fine,K]
A vague sentence is only true for all ways of making it completely precise [Fine,K]
Logical connectives cease to be truth-functional if vagueness is treated with three values [Fine,K]
Vagueness can be in predicates, names or quantifiers [Fine,K]
Meaning is both actual (determining instances) and potential (possibility of greater precision) [Fine,K]
Logic holding between indefinite sentences is the core of all language [Fine,K]
With the super-truth approach, the classical connectives continue to work [Fine,K]
Borderline cases must be under our control, as capable of greater precision [Fine,K]
Excluded Middle, and classical logic, may fail for vague predicates [Fine,K]
A thing might be vaguely vague, giving us higher-order vagueness [Fine,K]
Unsupported testimony may still be believable [Fine,K]
Each area of enquiry, and its source, has its own distinctive type of necessity [Fine,K]
Causation is easier to disrupt than logic, so metaphysics is part of nature, not vice versa [Fine,K]