42 ideas
18194 | 'Forcing' can produce new models of ZFC from old models [Maddy] |
18195 | A Large Cardinal Axiom would assert ever-increasing stages in the hierarchy [Maddy] |
18191 | Axiom of Infinity: completed infinite collections can be treated mathematically [Maddy] |
18193 | The Axiom of Foundation says every set exists at a level in the set hierarchy [Maddy] |
18169 | Axiom of Reducibility: propositional functions are extensionally predicative [Maddy] |
18168 | 'Propositional functions' are propositions with a variable as subject or predicate [Maddy] |
18171 | Cantor and Dedekind brought completed infinities into mathematics [Maddy] |
18190 | Completed infinities resulted from giving foundations to calculus [Maddy] |
18172 | Infinity has degrees, and large cardinals are the heart of set theory [Maddy] |
18175 | For any cardinal there is always a larger one (so there is no set of all sets) [Maddy] |
18196 | An 'inaccessible' cardinal cannot be reached by union sets or power sets [Maddy] |
18187 | Theorems about limits could only be proved once the real numbers were understood [Maddy] |
18182 | The extension of concepts is not important to me [Maddy] |
18177 | In the ZFC hierarchy it is impossible to form Frege's set of all three-element sets [Maddy] |
18164 | Frege solves the Caesar problem by explicitly defining each number [Maddy] |
18184 | Making set theory foundational to mathematics leads to very fruitful axioms [Maddy] |
18185 | Unified set theory gives a final court of appeal for mathematics [Maddy] |
18183 | Set theory brings mathematics into one arena, where interrelations become clearer [Maddy] |
18186 | Identifying geometric points with real numbers revealed the power of set theory [Maddy] |
18188 | The line of rationals has gaps, but set theory provided an ordered continuum [Maddy] |
18163 | Mathematics rests on the logic of proofs, and on the set theoretic axioms [Maddy] |
18207 | Maybe applications of continuum mathematics are all idealisations [Maddy] |
18204 | Scientists posit as few entities as possible, but set theorist posit as many as possible [Maddy] |
18167 | We can get arithmetic directly from HP; Law V was used to get HP from the definition of number [Maddy] |
18205 | The theoretical indispensability of atoms did not at first convince scientists that they were real [Maddy] |
9476 | If dispositions are more fundamental than causes, then they won't conceptually reduce to them [Bird on Lewis] |
8425 | For true counterfactuals, both antecedent and consequent true is closest to actuality [Lewis] |
18206 | Science idealises the earth's surface, the oceans, continuities, and liquids [Maddy] |
8424 | Determinism says there can't be two identical worlds up to a time, with identical laws, which then differ [Lewis] |
4688 | We imagine small and large objects scaled to the same size, suggesting a fixed capacity for imagination [Lavers] |
8420 | A proposition is a set of possible worlds where it is true [Lewis] |
8405 | A theory of causation should explain why cause precedes effect, not take it for granted [Lewis, by Field,H] |
8427 | I reject making the direction of causation axiomatic, since that takes too much for granted [Lewis] |
10392 | It is just individious discrimination to pick out one cause and label it as 'the' cause [Lewis] |
8419 | The modern regularity view says a cause is a member of a minimal set of sufficient conditions [Lewis] |
8421 | Regularity analyses could make c an effect of e, or an epiphenomenon, or inefficacious, or pre-empted [Lewis] |
17525 | The counterfactual view says causes are necessary (rather than sufficient) for their effects [Lewis, by Bird] |
17524 | Lewis has basic causation, counterfactuals, and a general ancestral (thus handling pre-emption) [Lewis, by Bird] |
8397 | Counterfactual causation implies all laws are causal, which they aren't [Tooley on Lewis] |
8423 | My counterfactual analysis applies to particular cases, not generalisations [Lewis] |
8426 | One event causes another iff there is a causal chain from first to second [Lewis] |
4795 | Lewis's account of counterfactuals is fine if we know what a law of nature is, but it won't explain the latter [Cohen,LJ on Lewis] |