35 ideas
| 19342 | Reason avoids multiplying hypotheses or principles [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Reason requires that we avoid multiplying hypotheses or principles, in somewhat the same way that the simplest system is always preferred in astronomy. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], 5) | |
| A reaction: He offers this principle without mentioning Ockham, as if it were self-evident. |
| 10859 | A set is 'well-ordered' if every subset has a first element [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: For a set to be 'well-ordered' it is required that every subset of the set has a first element. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
| 10857 | Set theory made a closer study of infinity possible [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Set theory made a closer study of infinity possible. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
| 10864 | Any set can always generate a larger set - its powerset, of subsets [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: The idea of the 'power set' means that it is always possible to generate a bigger one using only the elements of that set, namely the set of all its subsets. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.14) |
| 10872 | Extensionality: Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Extension: Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
| 10875 | Pairing: For any two sets there exists a set to which they both belong [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Pairing: For any two sets there exists a set to which they both belong. So you can make a set out of two other sets. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
| 10876 | Unions: There is a set of all the elements which belong to at least one set in a collection [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Unions: For every collection of sets there exists a set that contains all the elements that belong to at least one of the sets in the collection. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
| 10878 | Infinity: There exists a set of the empty set and the successor of each element [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Infinity: There exists a set containing the empty set and the successor of each of its elements. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
| A reaction: This is rather different from the other axioms because it contains the notion of 'successor', though that can be generated by an ordering procedure. |
| 10877 | Powers: All the subsets of a given set form their own new powerset [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Powers: For each set there exists a collection of sets that contains amongst its elements all the subsets of the given set. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
| A reaction: Obviously this must include the whole of the base set (i.e. not just 'proper' subsets), otherwise the new set would just be a duplicate of the base set. |
| 10879 | Choice: For every set a mechanism will choose one member of any non-empty subset [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Choice: For every set we can provide a mechanism for choosing one member of any non-empty subset of the set. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
| A reaction: This axiom is unusual because it makes the bold claim that such a 'mechanism' can always be found. Cohen showed that this axiom is separate. The tricky bit is choosing from an infinite subset. |
| 10871 | Axiom of Existence: there exists at least one set [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Existence: there exists at least one set. This may be the empty set, but you need to start with something. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
| 10874 | Specification: a condition applied to a set will always produce a new set [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Axiom of Specification: For every set and every condition, there corresponds a set whose elements are exactly the same as those elements of the original set for which the condition is true. So the concept 'number is even' produces a set from the integers. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
| A reaction: What if the condition won't apply to the set? 'Number is even' presumably won't produce a set if it is applied to a set of non-numbers. |
| 10880 | Mathematics can be 'pure' (unapplied), 'real' (physically grounded); or 'applied' (just applicable) [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Three views of mathematics: 'pure' mathematics, where it doesn't matter if it could ever have any application; 'real' mathematics, where every concept must be physically grounded; and 'applied' mathematics, using the non-real if the results are real. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.17) | |
| A reaction: Very helpful. No one can deny the activities of 'pure' mathematics, but I think it is undeniable that the origins of the subject are 'real' (rather than platonic). We do economics by pretending there are concepts like the 'average family'. |
| 10861 | Beyond infinity cardinals and ordinals can come apart [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: With ordinary finite numbers ordinals and cardinals are in effect the same, but beyond infinity it is possible for two sets to have the same cardinality but different ordinals. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
| 10860 | An ordinal number is defined by the set that comes before it [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: You can think of an ordinal number as being defined by the set that comes before it, so, in the non-negative integers, ordinal 5 is defined as {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
| 10854 | Transcendental numbers can't be fitted to finite equations [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: The 'transcendental numbers' are those irrationals that can't be fitted to a suitable finite equation, of which π is far and away the best known. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch. 6) |
| 10858 | By adding an axis of imaginary numbers, we get the useful 'number plane' instead of number line [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: The realisation that brought 'i' into the toolkit of physicists and engineers was that you could extend the 'number line' into a new dimension, with an imaginary number axis at right angles to it. ...We now have a 'number plane'. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.12) |
| 10853 | Either lack of zero made early mathematics geometrical, or the geometrical approach made zero meaningless [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: It is a chicken-and-egg problem, whether the lack of zero forced forced classical mathematicians to rely mostly on a geometric approach to mathematics, or the geometric approach made 0 a meaningless concept, but the two remain strongly tied together. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch. 6) |
| 10866 | Cantor's account of infinities has the shaky foundation of irrational numbers [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: As far as Kronecker was concerned, Cantor had built a whole structure on the irrational numbers, and so that structure had no foundation at all. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
| 10869 | The Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: Paul Cohen showed that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
| 10862 | The 'continuum hypothesis' says aleph-one is the cardinality of the reals [Clegg] |
| Full Idea: The 'continuum hypothesis' says that aleph-one is the cardinality of the rational and irrational numbers. | |
| From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.14) |
| 15201 | That Queen Anne is dead is a 'general fact', not a fact about Queen Anne [Prior,AN] |
| Full Idea: The fact that Queen Anne has been dead for some years is not, in the strict sense of 'about', a fact about Queen Anne; it is not a fact about anyone or anything - it is a general fact. | |
| From: Arthur N. Prior (Changes in Events and Changes in Things [1968], p.13), quoted by Robin Le Poidevin - Past, Present and Future of Debate about Tense 1 b | |
| A reaction: He distinguishes 'general facts' (states of affairs, I think) from 'individual facts', involving some specific object. General facts seem to be what are expressed by negative existential truths, such as 'there is no Loch Ness Monster'. Useful. |
| 12711 | The immediate cause of movements is more real [than geometry] [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The force or proximate cause of these changes [of position] is something more real, and there is sufficient basis to attribute it to one body more than to another. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §18), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 3 | |
| A reaction: The force is said to be 'more real' than geometry. Leibniz seems to have embraced fairly physical powers in the period 1678-1698, and then seen them as more and more like spirits. |
| 19349 | The complete notion of a substance implies all of its predicates or attributes [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a notion so complete that it is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §8) | |
| A reaction: This is the unusual Leibnizian view of such things, which he takes to extremes. I think it depends on whether you are talking of predicates, or of real intrinsic properties. I don't see how what happens to a substance can be contained in the subject. |
| 7558 | Substances mirror God or the universe, each from its own viewpoint [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Each substance is like a whole world, and like a mirror of God, or indeed of the whole universe, which each one expresses in its own fashion. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686]), quoted by Nicholas Jolley - Leibniz Intro | |
| A reaction: Leibniz isn't a pantheist, so he does not identify God with the universe, so it is a bit revealing that substance could reflect either one or the other, and he doesn't seem to care which. In the end, for all the sophistication, he just made it up. |
| 16761 | Forms are of no value in physics, but are indispensable in metaphysics [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The consideration of forms serves no purpose in the details of physics and must not be used to explain particular phenomena. …but their misuse must not lead us to reject something which is so useful to metaphysics. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], 10), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 24.5 | |
| A reaction: This is a key test for the question of whether metaphysics is separate from science (as Leibniz and Pasnau think), or whether there is a continuum. Is 'substantial form' an illuminating way to undestand modern physics? |
| 13088 | Subjects include predicates, so full understanding of subjects reveals all the predicates [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The subject-term must always include the predicate-term, in such a way that the man who understood the notion of the subject perfectly would also judge that the predicate belongs to it. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §8) | |
| A reaction: Sounds as if every sentence is analytic, but he doesn't mean that. He does, oddly, mean that if we fully understand the name 'Alexander', we understand his complete history, which is a bit silly, I'm afraid. Even God doesn't learn things just from names. |
| 13085 | Leibniz is some form of haecceitist [Leibniz, by Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: Some form of haecceitism is central to the Leibnizian metaphysic. | |
| From: report of Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §8) by Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J - Substance and Individuation in Leibniz 5.2.1 | |
| A reaction: That is, there is some inner hallmark that individuates each thing (though they don't mean the Duns Scotus idea of a haecceity which has no qualities apart from the capacity to individuate). Leibniz thinks essences individuate. |
| 5024 | Knowledge doesn't just come from the senses; we know the self, substance, identity, being etc. [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It is always false to say that all our notions come from the so-called external senses, for the notion I have of myself and of my thoughts, and consequently of being, substance, action, identity, and many others, come from an internal experience. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §27) | |
| A reaction: Of course, an empiricist like Hume would not deny this, as he bases his views on 'experience' (including anger, for example), not just 'sense experience'. But Hume, famously, said he has no experience of a Self, so can't get started on Leibniz's journey. |
| 5027 | If a person's memories became totally those of the King of China, he would be the King of China [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: If someone were suddenly to become the King of China, forgetting what he has been, as if born anew, is this not as if he were annihilated, and a King of China created in his place at the same moment? | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §34) | |
| A reaction: Strikingly, this clearly endorse the view of the empiricist Locke. It is a view about the continuity of the self, not its essence, but Descartes must have turned in his grave when he read this. When this 'King of China' introspects his self, what is it? |
| 5023 | Future contingent events are certain, because God foresees them, but that doesn't make them necessary [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: We must distinguish between what is certain and what is necessary; everyone agrees that future contingents are certain, since God foresees them, but it is not thereby admitted that they are necessary. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §13) | |
| A reaction: An interesting point, since there is presumably a difference between God foreseeing that future squares will have four corners, and His foreseeing the next war. It seems to me, though, that 'certainty' is bad enough news for free will, without necessity. |
| 2119 | People argue for God's free will, but it isn't needed if God acts in perfection following supreme reason [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: People try to safeguard God's freedom, as though it were not freedom of the highest sort to act in perfection following sovereign reason. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §03) |
| 5025 | Mind and body can't influence one another, but God wouldn't intervene in the daily routine [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It is inconceivable that mind and body should have any influence on one another, and it is unreasonable simply to have recourse to the extraordinary operation of the universal cause in a matter which is ordinary and particular. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §33) | |
| A reaction: Leibniz was the ultimate intellectual contortionist! Here he is rejecting Cartesian interactionism, and also Malebranche's Occasionalism (God bridges the gap), in order to prepare for his own (daft) theory of what is now called Parallelism. |
| 5026 | Animals lack morality because they lack self-reflection [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It is for lack of reflection on themselves that beasts have no moral qualities. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Discourse on Metaphysics [1686], §34) | |
| A reaction: Interesting, but I think this is false. I would say animals do have a sense of their self, because that is the most basic feature of any mind, but what they lack is second-order thought, that is, ability to reflect on and judge their own beliefs and acts. |
| 22899 | 'Thank goodness that's over' is not like 'thank goodness that happened on Friday' [Prior,AN] |
| Full Idea: One says 'thank goodness that is over', ..and it says something which it is impossible which any use of any tenseless copula with a date should convey. It certainly doesn't mean the same as 'thank goodness that occured on Friday June 15th 1954'. | |
| From: Arthur N. Prior (Changes in Events and Changes in Things [1968]), quoted by Adrian Bardon - Brief History of the Philosophy of Time 4 'Pervasive' | |
| A reaction: [Ref uncertain] This seems to be appealing to ordinary usage, in which tenses have huge significance. If we take time (with its past, present and future) as primitive, then tenses can have full weight. Did tenses mean anything at all to Einstein? |