27 ideas
18781 | Inconsistency doesn't prevent us reasoning about some system [Mares] |
Full Idea: We are able to reason about inconsistent beliefs, stories, and theories in useful and important ways | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) |
12463 | Unlike correspondence, truthmaking can be one truth to many truthmakers, or vice versa [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: I assume a form of truthmaking theory, ..which is a many-many relation, unlike, say correspondence, so that one entity can make multiple truths true and one truth can have multiple truthmakers. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §1) | |
A reaction: This sounds like common sense, once you think about it. One tree makes many things true, and one statement about trees is made true by many trees. |
18789 | Intuitionist logic looks best as natural deduction [Mares] |
Full Idea: Intuitionist logic appears most attractive in the form of a natural deduction system. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.5) |
18790 | Intuitionism as natural deduction has no rule for negation [Mares] |
Full Idea: In intuitionist logic each connective has one introduction and one elimination rule attached to it, but in the classical system we have to add an extra rule for negation. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.5) | |
A reaction: How very intriguing. Mares says there are other ways to achieve classical logic, but they all seem rather cumbersome. |
18787 | Three-valued logic is useful for a theory of presupposition [Mares] |
Full Idea: One reason for wanting a three-valued logic is to act as a basis of a theory of presupposition. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 3.1) | |
A reaction: [He cites Strawson 1950] The point is that you can get a result when the presupposition does not apply, as in talk of the 'present King of France'. |
18793 | Material implication (and classical logic) considers nothing but truth values for implications [Mares] |
Full Idea: The problem with material implication, and classical logic more generally, is that it considers only the truth value of formulas in deciding whether to make an implication stand between them. It ignores everything else. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 7.1) | |
A reaction: The obvious problem case is conditionals, and relevance is an obvious extra principle that comes to mind. |
18784 | In classical logic the connectives can be related elegantly, as in De Morgan's laws [Mares] |
Full Idea: Among the virtues of classical logic is the fact that the connectives are related to one another in elegant ways that often involved negation. For example, De Morgan's Laws, which involve negation, disjunction and conjunction. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) | |
A reaction: Mares says these enable us to take disjunction or conjunction as primitive, and then define one in terms of the other, using negation as the tool. |
18786 | Excluded middle standardly implies bivalence; attacks use non-contradiction, De M 3, or double negation [Mares] |
Full Idea: On its standard reading, excluded middle tells us that bivalence holds. To reject excluded middle, we must reject either non-contradiction, or ¬(A∧B) ↔ (¬A∨¬B) [De Morgan 3], or the principle of double negation. All have been tried. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) |
18780 | Standard disjunction and negation force us to accept the principle of bivalence [Mares] |
Full Idea: If we treat disjunction in the standard way and take the negation of a statement A to mean that A is false, accepting excluded middle forces us also to accept the principle of bivalence, which is the dictum that every statement is either true or false. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) | |
A reaction: Mates's point is to show that passively taking the normal account of negation for granted has important implications. |
18782 | The connectives are studied either through model theory or through proof theory [Mares] |
Full Idea: In studying the logical connectives, philosophers of logic typically adopt the perspective of either model theory (givng truth conditions of various parts of the language), or of proof theory (where use in a proof system gives the connective's meaning). | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The commonest proof theory is natural deduction, giving rules for introduction and elimination. Mates suggests moving between the two views is illuminating. |
18783 | Many-valued logics lack a natural deduction system [Mares] |
Full Idea: Many-valued logics do not have reasonable natural deduction systems. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 1) |
18792 | Situation semantics for logics: not possible worlds, but information in situations [Mares] |
Full Idea: Situation semantics for logics consider not what is true in worlds, but what information is contained in situations. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 6.2) | |
A reaction: Since many theoretical physicists seem to think that 'information' might be the most basic concept of a natural ontology, this proposal is obviously rather appealing. Barwise and Perry are the authors of the theory. |
18785 | Consistency is semantic, but non-contradiction is syntactic [Mares] |
Full Idea: The difference between the principle of consistency and the principle of non-contradiction is that the former must be stated in a semantic metalanguage, whereas the latter is a thesis of logical systems. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 2.2) |
18788 | For intuitionists there are not numbers and sets, but processes of counting and collecting [Mares] |
Full Idea: For the intuitionist, talk of mathematical objects is rather misleading. For them, there really isn't anything that we should call the natural numbers, but instead there is counting. What intuitionists study are processes, such as counting and collecting. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 5.1) | |
A reaction: That is the first time I have seen mathematical intuitionism described in a way that made it seem attractive. One might compare it to a metaphysics based on processes. Apparently intuitionists struggle with infinite sets and real numbers. |
14375 | If structures result from intrinsic natures of properties, the 'relations' between them can drop out [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: If a relation holds between two properties as a result of their intrinsic natures, then it appears the relation between the properties is not needed to do the structuring of reality; the properties themselves suffice to fix the structure. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.1) | |
A reaction: [the first bit quotes Jubien 2007] He cites a group of scientific essentialists as spokesmen for this view. Sounds right to me. No on seems able to pin down what a relation is - which may be because there is no such entity. |
14378 | Science aims at identifying the structure and nature of the powers that exist [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: Scientific practice seems aimed precisely at identifying the structure and nature of the powers that exist. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.3) | |
A reaction: Good. Friends of powers should look at this nice paper by Jacobs. There is a good degree of support for this view from pronouncements of modern scientists. If scientists don't support it, they should. Otherwise they are trapped in the superficial. |
12467 | Powers come from concrete particulars, not from the laws of nature [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: The source of powers is not the laws of nature; it is the powerful nature of the ordinary properties of concrete particulars. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.2) | |
A reaction: This pithily summarises my own view. People who think the powers of the world derive from the laws either have an implicit religious framework, or they are giving no thought at all to the ontological status of the laws. |
14377 | Possibilities are manifestations of some power, and impossibilies rest on no powers [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: To be possible is just to be one of the many manifestations of some power, and to be impossible is to be a manifestation of no power. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.2.1) | |
A reaction: [This remark occurs in a discussion of theistic Aristotelianism] I like this. If we say that something is possible, the correct question is to ask what power could bring it about. |
14376 | States of affairs are only possible if some substance could initiate a causal chain to get there [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: A non-actual state of affairs in possible if there actually was a substance capable of initiating a causal chain, perhaps non-deterministic, that could lead to the state of affairs that we claim is possible. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.2) | |
A reaction: [He is quoting A.R. Pruss 2002] That seems exactly right. Of course the initial substance(s) might create a further substance, such as a transuranic element, which then produces the state of affairs. I favour this strongly actualist view. |
14379 | Counterfactuals invite us to consider the powers picked out by the antecedent [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: A counterfactual is an invitation to consider what the properties picked out by the antecedent are powers for (where Lewis 1973 took it to be an invitation to consider what goes on in a selected possible world). | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.4.3) | |
A reaction: A beautifully simple proposal from Jacobs, with which I agree. This seems to be an expansion of the Ramsey test for conditionals, where you consider the antecedent being true, and see what follows. What, we ask Ramsey, would make it follow? |
14372 | Possible worlds are just not suitable truthmakers for modality [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: Possible worlds are just not the sorts of things that could ground modality; they are not suitable truthmakers. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §3) | |
A reaction: Are possible world theorists actually claiming that the worlds 'ground' modality? Maybe Lewis is, since all those concrete worlds had better do some hard work, but for the ersatzist they just provide a kind of formal semantics, leaving ontology to others. |
12466 | All modality is in the properties and relations of the actual world [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: Properties and the relations between them introduce modal connections in the actual world. ..This is a strong form of actualism, since all of modality is part of the fundamental fabric of the actual world. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4) | |
A reaction: This is the view of modality which I find most congenial, with the notion of 'powers' giving us the conceptual framework on which to build an account. |
14371 | We can base counterfactuals on powers, not possible worlds, and hence define necessity [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: Together with a definition of possibility and necessity in terms of counterfactuals, the powers semantics of counterfactuals generates a semantics for modality that appeals to causal powers and not possible worlds. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §1) | |
A reaction: Wonderful. Just what the doctor ordered. The only caveat is that if we say that reality is built up from fundamental powers, then might those powers change their character without losing their identity (e.g. gravity getting weaker)? |
12465 | Concrete worlds, unlike fictions, at least offer evidence of how the actual world could be [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: Lewis's concrete worlds give a better account of modality (than fictional worlds). When I learn that a man like me drives a truck, I gain evidence for the fact that I can drive a truck. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §3) | |
A reaction: Cf. Idea 12464. Jacobs still rightly rejects this as an account of possibility, since the possibility that I might drive a truck must be rooted in me, not in some other person who drives a truck, even if that person is very like me. |
12464 | If some book described a possibe life for you, that isn't what makes such a life possible [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: Suppose somewhere deep in the rain forest is a book that includes a story about you as a truck-driver. I doubt that you would be inclined the think that that story, that book, is the reason you could have been a truck driver. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §3) | |
A reaction: This begins to look like a totally overwhelming and obvious reason why possible worlds (especially as stories) don't give a good metaphysical account of possibility. They provide a semantic structure for modal reasoning, but that is entirely different. |
12469 | Possible worlds semantics gives little insight into modality [Jacobs] |
Full Idea: If we want our semantics for modality to give us insight into the truthmakers for modality, then possible worlds semantics is inadequate. | |
From: Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.4) | |
A reaction: [See the other ideas of Jacobs (and Jubien) for this] It is an interesting question whether a semantics for a logic is meant to give us insight into how things really are, or whether it just builds nice models. Satisfaction, or truth? |
18791 | In 'situation semantics' our main concepts are abstracted from situations [Mares] |
Full Idea: In 'situation semantics' individuals, properties, facts, and events are treated as abstractions from situations. | |
From: Edwin D. Mares (Negation [2014], 6.1) | |
A reaction: [Barwise and Perry 1983 are cited] Since I take the process of abstraction to be basic to thought, I am delighted to learn that someone has developed a formal theory based on it. I am immediately sympathetic to situation semantics. |