|
10751
|
Second-order logic needs the sets, and its consequence has epistemological problems [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
Second-order logic raises doubts because of its ontological commitment to the set-theoretic hierarchy, and the allegedly problematic epistemic status of the second-order consequence relation.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
The 'epistemic' problem is whether you can know the truths, given that the logic is incomplete, and so they cannot all be proved. Rossberg defends second-order logic against the second problem. A third problem is that it may be mathematics.
|
|
10753
|
Logical consequence is intuitively semantic, and captured by model theory [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
Logical consequence is intuitively taken to be a semantic notion, ...and it is therefore the formal semantics, i.e. the model theory, that captures logical consequence.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
If you come at the issue from normal speech, this seems right, but if you start thinking about the necessity of logical consequence, that formal rules and proof-theory seem to be the foundation.
|
|
10752
|
Γ |- S says S can be deduced from Γ; Γ |= S says a good model for Γ makes S true [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
Deductive consequence, written Γ|-S, is loosely read as 'the sentence S can be deduced from the sentences Γ', and semantic consequence Γ|=S says 'all models that make Γ true make S true as well'.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
We might read |= as 'true in the same model as'. What is the relation, though, between the LHS and the RHS? They seem to be mutually related to some model, but not directly to one another.
|
|
10756
|
A model is a domain, and an interpretation assigning objects, predicates, relations etc. [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
A standard model is a set of objects called the 'domain', and an interpretation function, assigning objects in the domain to names, subsets to predicate letters, subsets of the Cartesian product of the domain with itself to binary relation symbols etc.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
The model actually specifies which objects have which predicates, and which objects are in which relations. Tarski's account of truth in terms of 'satisfaction' seems to be just a description of those pre-decided facts.
|
|
10758
|
If models of a mathematical theory are all isomorphic, it is 'categorical', with essentially one model [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
A mathematical theory is 'categorical' if, and only if, all of its models are isomorphic. Such a theory then essentially has just one model, the standard one.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
So the term 'categorical' is gradually replacing the much-used phrase 'up to isomorphism'.
|
|
8375
|
'Necessary' is a predicate of a propositional function, saying it is true for all values of its argument [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Necessary' is a predicate of a propositional function, meaning that it is true for all possible values of its argument or arguments. Thus 'If x is a man, x is mortal' is necessary, because it is true for any possible value of x.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On the Notion of Cause [1912], p.175)
|
|
A reaction:
This is presumably the intermediate definition of necessity, prior to modern talk of possible worlds. Since it is a predicate about functions, it is presumably a metalinguistic concept, like the semantic concept of truth.
|
|
4396
|
The law of causality is a source of confusion, and should be dropped from philosophy [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On the Notion of Cause [1912], p.173)
|
|
A reaction:
A bold proposal which should be taken seriously. However, if we drop it from scientific explanation, we may well find ourselves permanently stuck with it in 'folk' explanation. What is the alternative?
|
|
8379
|
In causal laws, 'events' must recur, so they have to be universals, not particulars [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
An 'event' (in a statement of the 'law of causation') is intended to be something that is likely to recur, since otherwise the law becomes trivial. It follows that an 'event' is not some particular, but a universal of which there may be many instances.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On the Notion of Cause [1912], p.179)
|
|
A reaction:
I am very struck by this. It may be a key insight into understanding what a law of nature actually is. It doesn't follow that we must be realists about universals, but the process of abstraction from particulars is at the heart of generalisation.
|
|
24043
|
Soul must be immortal, since it continually moves, like the heavens [Alcmaeon, by Aristotle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Alcmaeon says that the soul is immortal because it resembles immortal things and that this affection belongs to it because it is always in movement, like divine things, such the moon, the sun, the stars and the whole heaven.
|
|
From:
report of Alcmaeon (fragments/reports [c.490 BCE], DK 24) by Aristotle - De Anima 405a30
|
|
A reaction:
Hm. Fish and rivers seem to be continually moving too. Presumably we are like gods, but then Greek gods seem awfully like humans. I don't know the history of belief in immortality; an interesting topic.
|