|
10007
|
Quantifiers for domains and for inference come apart if there are no entities [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Quantifiers have two functions in communication - to range over a domain of entities, and to have an inferential role (e.g. F(t)→'something is F'). In ordinary language these two come apart for singular terms not standing for any entities.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §6.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This simple observations seems to me to be wonderfully illuminating of a whole raft of problems, the sort which logicians get steamed up about, and ordinary speakers don't. Context is the key to 90% of philosophical difficulties (?). See Idea 10008.
|
|
9998
|
What is the relation of number words as singular-terms, adjectives/determiners, and symbols? [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are three different uses of the number words: the singular-term use (as in 'the number of moons of Jupiter is four'), the adjectival (or determiner) use (as in 'Jupiter has four moons'), and the symbolic use (as in '4'). How are they related?
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
A classic philosophy of language approach to the problem - try to give the truth-conditions for all three types. The main problem is that the first one implies that numbers are objects, whereas the others do not. Why did Frege give priority to the first?
|
|
10002
|
'2 + 2 = 4' can be read as either singular or plural [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are two ways to read to read '2 + 2 = 4', as singular ('two and two is four'), and as plural ('two and two are four').
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §4.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Hofweber doesn't notice that this phenomenon occurs elsewhere in English. 'The team is playing well', or 'the team are splitting up'; it simply depends whether you are holding the group in though as an entity, or as individuals. Important for numbers.
|
|
10003
|
Why is arithmetic hard to learn, but then becomes easy? [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Why is arithmetic so hard to learn, and why does it seem so easy to us now? For example, subtracting 789 from 26,789.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §4.2)
|
|
A reaction:
His answer that we find thinking about objects very easy, but as children we have to learn with difficulty the conversion of the determiner/adjectival number words, so that we come to think of them as objects.
|
|
10008
|
Arithmetic is not about a domain of entities, as the quantifiers are purely inferential [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
I argue for an internalist conception of arithmetic. Arithmetic is not about a domain of entities, not even quantified entities. Quantifiers over natural numbers occur in their inferential-role reading in which they merely generalize over the instances.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §6.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Hofweber offers the hope that modern semantics can disentangle the confusions in platonist arithmetic. Very interesting. The fear is that after digging into the semantics for twenty years, you find the same old problems re-emerging at a lower level.
|
|
10005
|
Arithmetic doesn’t simply depend on objects, since it is true of fictional objects [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
That 'two dogs are more than one' is clearly true, but its truth doesn't depend on the existence of dogs, as is seen if we consider 'two unicorns are more than one', which is true even though there are no unicorns.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §6.2)
|
|
A reaction:
This is an objection to crude empirical accounts of arithmetic, but the idea would be that there is a generalisation drawn from objects (dogs will do nicely), which then apply to any entities. If unicorns are entities, it will be true of them.
|
|
10000
|
We might eliminate adjectival numbers by analysing them into blocks of quantifiers [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Determiner uses of number words may disappear on analysis. This is inspired by Russell's elimination of the word 'the'. The number becomes blocks of first-order quantifiers at the level of semantic representation.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] The proposal comes from platonists, who argue that numbers cannot be analysed away if they are objects. Hofweber says the analogy with Russell is wrong, as 'the' can't occur in different syntactic positions, the way number words can.
|
|
10006
|
First-order logic captures the inferential relations of numbers, but not the semantics [Hofweber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Representing arithmetic formally we do not primarily care about semantic features of number words. We are interested in capturing the inferential relations of arithmetical statements to one another, which can be done elegantly in first-order logic.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hofweber (Number Determiners, Numbers, Arithmetic [2005], §6.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This begins to pinpoint the difference between the approach of logicists like Frege, and those who are interested in the psychology of numbers, and the empirical roots of numbers in the process of counting.
|
|
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.
|
|
9332
|
Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich]
|
|
Full Idea:
Our a priori commitment to certain sentences is not really explained by our knowledge of a word's meaning. It is the other way around. We accept a priori that the sentences are true, and thereby provide it with meaning.
|
|
From:
Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds like a lovely trump card, but how on earth do you decide that a sentence is true if you don't know what it means? Personally I would take it that we are committed to the truth of a proposition, before we have a sentence for it.
|
|
9341
|
Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich]
|
|
Full Idea:
A priori knowledge of logic and mathematics cannot derive from meanings or concepts, because someone may possess such concepts, and yet disagree with us about them.
|
|
From:
Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12)
|
|
A reaction:
A good argument. The thing to focus on is not whether such ideas are a priori, but whether they are knowledge. I think we should employ the word 'intuition' for a priori candidates for knowledge, and demand further justification for actual knowledge.
|
|
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?
|