23 ideas
10482 | The logic of ZF is classical first-order predicate logic with identity [Boolos] |
Full Idea: The logic of ZF Set Theory is classical first-order predicate logic with identity. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.121) | |
A reaction: This logic seems to be unable to deal with very large cardinals, precisely those that are implied by set theory, so there is some sort of major problem hovering here. Boolos is fairly neutral. |
10492 | A few axioms of set theory 'force themselves on us', but most of them don't [Boolos] |
Full Idea: Maybe the axioms of extensionality and the pair set axiom 'force themselves on us' (Gödel's phrase), but I am not convinced about the axioms of infinity, union, power or replacement. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.130) | |
A reaction: Boolos is perfectly happy with basic set theory, but rather dubious when very large cardinals come into the picture. |
10485 | Naïve sets are inconsistent: there is no set for things that do not belong to themselves [Boolos] |
Full Idea: The naïve view of set theory (that any zero or more things form a set) is natural, but inconsistent: the things that do not belong to themselves are some things that do not form a set. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.127) | |
A reaction: As clear a summary of Russell's Paradox as you could ever hope for. |
10484 | The iterative conception says sets are formed at stages; some are 'earlier', and must be formed first [Boolos] |
Full Idea: According to the iterative conception, every set is formed at some stage. There is a relation among stages, 'earlier than', which is transitive. A set is formed at a stage if and only if its members are all formed before that stage. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.126) | |
A reaction: He gives examples of the early stages, and says the conception is supposed to 'justify' Zermelo set theory. It is also supposed to make the axioms 'natural', rather than just being selected for convenience. And it is consistent. |
10491 | Infinite natural numbers is as obvious as infinite sentences in English [Boolos] |
Full Idea: The existence of infinitely many natural numbers seems to me no more troubling than that of infinitely many computer programs or sentences of English. There is, for example, no longest sentence, since any number of 'very's can be inserted. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129) | |
A reaction: If you really resisted an infinity of natural numbers, presumably you would also resist an actual infinity of 'very's. The fact that it is unclear what could ever stop a process doesn't guarantee that the process is actually endless. |
10483 | Mathematics and science do not require very high orders of infinity [Boolos] |
Full Idea: To the best of my knowledge nothing in mathematics or science requires the existence of very high orders of infinity. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.122) | |
A reaction: He is referring to particular high orders of infinity implied by set theory. Personally I want to wield Ockham's Razor. Is being implied by set theory a sufficient reason to accept such outrageous entities into our ontology? |
10490 | Mathematics isn't surprising, given that we experience many objects as abstract [Boolos] |
Full Idea: It is no surprise that we should be able to reason mathematically about many of the things we experience, for they are already 'abstract'. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129) | |
A reaction: He has just given a list of exemplary abstract objects (Idea 10489), but I think there is a more interesting idea here - that our experience of actual physical objects is to some extent abstract, as soon as it is conceptualised. |
10488 | It is lunacy to think we only see ink-marks, and not word-types [Boolos] |
Full Idea: It's a kind of lunacy to think that sound scientific philosophy demands that we think that we see ink-tracks but not words, i.e. word-types. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.128) | |
A reaction: This seems to link him with Armstrong's mockery of 'ostrich nominalism'. There seems to be some ambiguity with the word 'see' in this disagreement. When we look at very ancient scratches on stones, why don't we always 'see' if it is words? |
10487 | I am a fan of abstract objects, and confident of their existence [Boolos] |
Full Idea: I am rather a fan of abstract objects, and confident of their existence. Smaller numbers, sets and functions don't offend my sense of reality. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.128) | |
A reaction: The great Boolos is rather hard to disagree with, but I disagree. Logicians love abstract objects, indeed they would almost be out of a job without them. It seems to me they smuggle them into our ontology by redefining either 'object' or 'exists'. |
10489 | We deal with abstract objects all the time: software, poems, mistakes, triangles.. [Boolos] |
Full Idea: We twentieth century city dwellers deal with abstract objects all the time, such as bank balances, radio programs, software, newspaper articles, poems, mistakes, triangles. | |
From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129) | |
A reaction: I find this claim to be totally question-begging, and typical of a logician. The word 'object' gets horribly stretched in these discussions. We can create concepts which have all the logical properties of objects. Maybe they just 'subsist'? |
17472 | Thick mechanisms map whole reactions, and thin mechanism chart the steps [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: In chemistry the 'thick' notion of a mechanism traces out positions of electrons and atomic cores, and correlates them with energies, showing the whole reaction. 'Thin' mechanisms focus on a discrete set of intermediate steps. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 5.1) |
17471 | Using mechanisms as explanatory schemes began in chemistry [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: The production of mechanisms as explanatory schemes finds its original home in chemistry. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 5.1) | |
A reaction: This is as opposed to mechanisms in biology or neuroscience, which come later. |
1748 | Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius] |
Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless. | |
From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3 |
17465 | Lavoisier's elements included four types of earth [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: Four types of earth found a place on Lavoisier's list of elements. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 1.2) | |
A reaction: A nice intermediate point between the ancient Greek and the modern view of earth. |
17469 | 'H2O' just gives the element proportions, not the microstructure [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: 'H2O' is not a description of any microstructure. It is a compositional formula, describing the combining proportions of hydrogen and oxygen to make water. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 4.5) |
17468 | Over 100,000,000 compounds have been discovered or synthesised [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: There are well over 100,000,000 chemical compounds that have been discovered or synthesised, all of which have been formally characterised. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 4.3) |
17470 | Water molecules dissociate, and form large polymers, explaining its properties [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: Water's structure cannot simply be described as a collection of individual molecules. There is a continual dissociation of H2O molecules into hydrogen and hydroxide ions; they former larger polymeric species, explaining conductivity, melting and boiling. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 4.5) | |
A reaction: [compressed] If philosophers try to state the 'essence of water', they had better not be too glib about it. |
17473 | It is unlikely that chemistry will ever be reduced to physics [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: Most philosophers believe chemistry has not been reduced to physics nor is it likely to be. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 6) | |
A reaction: [Le Poidevin 2007 argues the opposite] That chemical features are actually metaphysically 'emergent' is a rare view, defended by Hendry. The general view is that the concepts are too different, and approximations render it hopeless. |
17474 | Quantum theory won't tell us which structure a set of atoms will form [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: Quantum mechanics cannot tell us why a given collection of atoms will adopt one molecular structure (and set of chemical properties) or the other. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 6.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably it the 'chance' process of how the atoms are thrown together. |
17475 | For temperature to be mean kinetic energy, a state of equilibrium is also required [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: Having a particular average kinetic energy is only a necessary condition for having a given temperature, not a sufficient one, because only gases at equilibrium have a well-defined temperature. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 6.2) | |
A reaction: If you try to pin it all down more precisely, the definition turns out to be circular. |
17467 | Isotopes (such as those of hydrogen) can vary in their rates of chemical reaction [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: There are chemically salient differences among the isotopes, best illustrated by the three isotopes of hydrogen: protium, deuterium and tritium, which show different rates of reaction, making heavy water poisonous where ordinary water is not. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 1.4) | |
A reaction: [They cite Paul Needham 2008] The point is that the isotopes are the natural kinds, rather than the traditional elements. The view is unorthodox, but clearly makes a good point. |
17466 | Mendeleev systematised the elements, and also gave an account of their nature [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |
Full Idea: In addition to providing the systematization of the elements used in modern chemistry, Mendeleev also gave an account of the nature of the elements which informs contemporary philosophical understanding. | |
From: Weisberg/Needham/Hendry (Philosophy of Chemistry [2011], 1.3) |
5989 | Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield] |
Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime. | |
From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus | |
A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea. |