18 ideas
17486 | Supervenience is simply modally robust property co-variance [Hendry] |
Full Idea: Supervenience is not an ontological relationship, being just modally robust property co-variance. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Ontol') | |
A reaction: I take supervenience to be nothing more than an interesting phenomenon that requires explanation. I suppose Humean Supervenience is a priori metaphysics, since you could hardly explain it. |
10502 | We can rise by degrees through abstraction, with higher levels representing more things [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P] |
Full Idea: I can start with a triangle, and rise by degrees to all straight-lined figures and to extension itself. The lower degree will include the higher degree. Since the higher degree is less determinate, it can represent more things. | |
From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This attempts to explain the generalising ability of abstraction cited in Idea 10501. If you take a complex object and eliminate features one by one, it can only 'represent' more particulars; it could hardly represent fewer. |
18258 | We can only know the exterior world via our ideas [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P] |
Full Idea: We can have knowledge of what is outside us only through the mediation of ideas in us. | |
From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], p.63), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 1 'Conc' |
16784 | Forms make things distinct and explain the properties, by pure form, or arrangement of parts [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P] |
Full Idea: The form is what renders a thing such and distinguishes it from others, whether it is a being really distinct from the matter, according to the Schools, or whether it is only the arrangement of the parts. By this form one must explain its properties. | |
From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], III.18 p240), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 27.6 | |
A reaction: If we ask 'what explains the properties of this thing' it is hard to avoid coming up with something that might be called the 'form'. Note that they allow either substantial or corpuscularian forms. It is hard to disagree with the idea. |
17481 | Nuclear charge (plus laws) explains electron structure and spectrum, but not vice versa [Hendry] |
Full Idea: Given relevant laws of nature (quantum mechanics, the exclusion principle) nuclear charge determines and explains electronic structure and spectroscopic behaviour, but not vice versa. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: I argue that the first necessary condition for essentialism is a direction of explanation, and here we seem to have one. |
10499 | We know by abstraction because we only understand composite things a part at a time [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P] |
Full Idea: The mind cannot perfectly understand things that are even slightly composite unless it considers them a part at a time. ...This is generally called knowing by abstraction. (..the human body, for example). | |
From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5) | |
A reaction: This adds the interesting thought that the mind is forced to abstract, rather than abstraction being a luxury extra feature. Knowledge through analysis is knowledge by abstraction. Also a nice linking of abstraction to epistemology. |
10501 | A triangle diagram is about all triangles, if some features are ignored [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P] |
Full Idea: If I draw an equilateral triangle on a piece of paper, ..I shall have an idea of only a single triangle. But if I ignore all the particular circumstances and focus on the three equal lines, I will be able to represent all equilateral triangles. | |
From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5) | |
A reaction: [compressed] They observed that we grasp composites through their parts, and now that we can grasp generalisations through particulars, both achieved by the psychological act of abstraction, thus showing its epistemological power. |
10500 | No one denies that a line has width, but we can just attend to its length [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P] |
Full Idea: Geometers by no means assume that there are lines without width or surfaces without depth. They only think it is possible to consider the length without paying attention to the width. We can measure the length of a path without its width. | |
From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5) | |
A reaction: A nice example which makes the point indubitable. The modern 'rigorous' account of abstraction that starts with Frege seems to require more than one object, in order to derive abstractions like direction or number. Path widths are not comparatives. |
16591 | Prime matter is nothing but its parts [Vanini] |
Full Idea: The whole of prime matter, considered as prime matter, is nothing other than its parts. | |
From: Julio Cesare Vanini (Amphitheatrum [1615], Ex 5:p.28), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 03.2 | |
A reaction: This is a late scholastic writer rejecting the traditional (and obscure) prime matter with the new corpuscularian approach. It signals the end of the Greek concept of matter. |
17478 | Maybe two kinds are the same if there is no change of entropy on isothermal mixing [Hendry] |
Full Idea: One suggestion is that any two different substance, however alike, exhibit a positive entropy change on mixing. So absence of entropy change on isothermal mixing provides a criterion of sameness of kind. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: [He cites Paul Needham 2000] This sounds nice, because at a more amateur level we can say that stuff is the same if mixing two samples of it produces no difference. I call it the Upanishads Test. |
17484 | Maybe the nature of water is macroscopic, and not in the microstructure [Hendry] |
Full Idea: Some deny that that microstructure is what makes it water; substance identity and difference should be determined instead by macroscopic similarities and differences. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: Very plausible. Is the essential nature of human beings to be found in the structure of our cells? |
17479 | The nature of an element must survive chemical change, so it is the nucleus, not the electrons [Hendry] |
Full Idea: Whatever earns something membership of the extension of 'krypton' must be a property that can survive chemical change and, therefore, the gain and loss of electrons. Hence what makes it krypton must be a nuclear property. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: A very nice illuminating example of essentialism in chemistry. The 'nature' is what survives through change, just like what Aristotle said, innit? |
17485 | Maybe water is the smallest part of it that still counts as water (which is H2O molecules) [Hendry] |
Full Idea: If they do count as water, individual H2O molecules are the smallest items that can qualify as water on their own account. Hydroxyl ions and protons, in contrast, qualify as water only as part of a larger body. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: As Aristotle might say, this is the homoeomerous aspect of water. This is Hendry's own proposal, and seems rather good. |
17482 | Compounds can differ with the same collection of atoms, so structure matters too [Hendry] |
Full Idea: The distinctness of the isomers ethanol (CH3CH2OH, boiling at 78.4°) and dimethyl ether (CH3OCH3, boiling at -24.9°) must lie in their different molecular structures. ...But structure has continuously varying quantities, like bond length and angle. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: [compressed] This seems to imply that what matters is an idealised abstraction of the structure (i.e. its topology), which is a reason for denying that chemistry is reducible to mere physics. |
17483 | Water continuously changes, with new groupings of molecules [Hendry] |
Full Idea: Macroscopic bodies of water are complex and dynamic congeries of different molecular species, in which there is a constant dissociation of individual molecules, re-association of ions, and formation, growth and disassociation of oligomers. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: The point is that these activities are needed to explain the behaviour of water (such as its conductivity). |
17476 | Elements survive chemical change, and are tracked to explain direction and properties [Hendry] |
Full Idea: Elements survive chemical change, and chemical explanations track them from one composite substance to another, thereby explaining both the direction of the chemical change, and the properties of the substances they compose. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], Intro) | |
A reaction: [The 16,000th idea of this database, entered on Guy Fawkes' Day 2013] |
17477 | Defining elements by atomic number allowed atoms of an element to have different masses [Hendry] |
Full Idea: In 1923 elements were defined as populations of atoms with the same nuclear charge (i.e. atomic number), allowing that atoms of the same element may have different masses. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Chem') | |
A reaction: The point is that it allowed isotopes of the same element to come under one heading. This is fine for the heavier elements, but a bit dubious for the very light ones (where an isotope makes a bigger difference). |
17480 | Generally it is nuclear charge (not nuclear mass) which determines behaviour [Hendry] |
Full Idea: In general, nuclear charge is the overwhelming determinant of an element's chemical behaviour, while nuclear mass is a negligible factor. | |
From: Robin F. Hendry (Chemistry [2008], 'Micro') | |
A reaction: The exception is the isotopes of very light elements light hydrogen. |