33 ideas
10775 | The axiom of choice now seems acceptable and obvious (if it is meaningful) [Tharp] |
Full Idea: The main objection to the axiom of choice was that it had to be given by some law or definition, but since sets are arbitrary this seems irrelevant. Formalists consider it meaningless, but set-theorists consider it as true, and practically obvious. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §3) |
10766 | Logic is either for demonstration, or for characterizing structures [Tharp] |
Full Idea: One can distinguish at least two quite different senses of logic: as an instrument of demonstration, and perhaps as an instrument for the characterization of structures. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) | |
A reaction: This is trying to capture the proof-theory and semantic aspects, but merely 'characterizing' something sounds like a rather feeble aspiration for the semantic side of things. Isn't it to do with truth, rather than just rule-following? |
10767 | Elementary logic is complete, but cannot capture mathematics [Tharp] |
Full Idea: Elementary logic cannot characterize the usual mathematical structures, but seems to be distinguished by its completeness. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) |
10769 | Second-order logic isn't provable, but will express set-theory and classic problems [Tharp] |
Full Idea: The expressive power of second-order logic is too great to admit a proof procedure, but is adequate to express set-theoretical statements, and open questions such as the continuum hypothesis or the existence of big cardinals are easily stated. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) |
10762 | In sentential logic there is a simple proof that all truth functions can be reduced to 'not' and 'and' [Tharp] |
Full Idea: In sentential logic there is a simple proof that all truth functions, of any number of arguments, are definable from (say) 'not' and 'and'. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §0) | |
A reaction: The point of 'say' is that it can be got down to two connectives, and these are just the usual preferred pair. |
10776 | The main quantifiers extend 'and' and 'or' to infinite domains [Tharp] |
Full Idea: The symbols ∀ and ∃ may, to start with, be regarded as extrapolations of the truth functional connectives ∧ ('and') and ∨ ('or') to infinite domains. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §5) |
10774 | There are at least five unorthodox quantifiers that could be used [Tharp] |
Full Idea: One might add to one's logic an 'uncountable quantifier', or a 'Chang quantifier', or a 'two-argument quantifier', or 'Shelah's quantifier', or 'branching quantifiers'. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §3) | |
A reaction: [compressed - just listed for reference, if you collect quantifiers, like collecting butterflies] |
10773 | The Löwenheim-Skolem property is a limitation (e.g. can't say there are uncountably many reals) [Tharp] |
Full Idea: The Löwenheim-Skolem property seems to be undesirable, in that it states a limitation concerning the distinctions the logic is capable of making, such as saying there are uncountably many reals ('Skolem's Paradox'). | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) |
10777 | Skolem mistakenly inferred that Cantor's conceptions were illusory [Tharp] |
Full Idea: Skolem deduced from the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem that 'the absolutist conceptions of Cantor's theory' are 'illusory'. I think it is clear that this conclusion would not follow even if elementary logic were in some sense the true logic, as Skolem assumed. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §7) | |
A reaction: [Tharp cites Skolem 1962 p.47] Kit Fine refers to accepters of this scepticism about the arithmetic of infinities as 'Skolemites'. |
10765 | Soundness would seem to be an essential requirement of a proof procedure [Tharp] |
Full Idea: Soundness would seem to be an essential requirement of a proof procedure, since there is little point in proving formulas which may turn out to be false under some interpretation. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) |
10763 | Completeness and compactness together give axiomatizability [Tharp] |
Full Idea: Putting completeness and compactness together, one has axiomatizability. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §1) |
10770 | If completeness fails there is no algorithm to list the valid formulas [Tharp] |
Full Idea: In general, if completeness fails there is no algorithm to list the valid formulas. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) | |
A reaction: I.e. the theory is not effectively enumerable. |
10771 | Compactness is important for major theories which have infinitely many axioms [Tharp] |
Full Idea: It is strange that compactness is often ignored in discussions of philosophy of logic, since the most important theories have infinitely many axioms. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) | |
A reaction: An example of infinite axioms is the induction schema in first-order Peano Arithmetic. |
10772 | Compactness blocks infinite expansion, and admits non-standard models [Tharp] |
Full Idea: The compactness condition seems to state some weakness of the logic (as if it were futile to add infinitely many hypotheses). To look at it another way, formalizations of (say) arithmetic will admit of non-standard models. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) |
10764 | A complete logic has an effective enumeration of the valid formulas [Tharp] |
Full Idea: A complete logic has an effective enumeration of the valid formulas. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) |
10768 | Effective enumeration might be proved but not specified, so it won't guarantee knowledge [Tharp] |
Full Idea: Despite completeness, the mere existence of an effective enumeration of the valid formulas will not, by itself, provide knowledge. For example, one might be able to prove that there is an effective enumeration, without being able to specify one. | |
From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2) | |
A reaction: The point is that completeness is supposed to ensure knowledge (of what is valid but unprovable), and completeness entails effective enumerability, but more than the latter is needed to do the key job. |
8784 | Neo-logicism founds arithmetic on Hume's Principle along with second-order logic [Hale/Wright] |
Full Idea: The result of joining Hume's Principle to second-order logic is a consistent system which is a foundation for arithmetic, in the sense that all the fundamental laws of arithmetic are derivable within it as theorems. This seems a vindication of logicism. | |
From: B Hale / C Wright (Logicism in the 21st Century [2007], 1) | |
A reaction: The controversial part seems to be second-order logic, which Quine (for example) vigorously challenged. The contention against most attempts to improve Frege's logicism is that they thereby cease to be properly logical. |
8787 | The Julius Caesar problem asks for a criterion for the concept of a 'number' [Hale/Wright] |
Full Idea: The Julius Caesar problem is the problem of supplying a criterion of application for 'number', and thereby setting it up as the concept of a genuine sort of object. (Why is Julius Caesar not a number?) | |
From: B Hale / C Wright (Logicism in the 21st Century [2007], 3) | |
A reaction: One response would be to deny that numbers are objects. Another would be to derive numbers from their application in counting objects, rather than the other way round. I suspect that the problem only real bothers platonists. Serves them right. |
8788 | Logicism is only noteworthy if logic has a privileged position in our ontology and epistemology [Hale/Wright] |
Full Idea: It is only if logic is metaphysically and epistemologically privileged that a reduction of mathematical theories to logical ones can be philosophically any more noteworthy than a reduction of any mathematical theory to any other. | |
From: B Hale / C Wright (Logicism in the 21st Century [2007], 8) | |
A reaction: It would be hard to demonstrate this privileged position, though intuitively there is nothing more basic in human rationality. That may be a fact about us, but it doesn't make logic basic to nature, which is where proper reduction should be heading. |
8783 | Logicism might also be revived with a quantificational approach, or an abstraction-free approach [Hale/Wright] |
Full Idea: Two modern approaches to logicism are the quantificational approach of David Bostock, and the abstraction-free approach of Neil Tennant. | |
From: B Hale / C Wright (Logicism in the 21st Century [2007], 1 n2) | |
A reaction: Hale and Wright mention these as alternatives to their own view. I merely catalogue them for further examination. My immediate reaction is that Bostock sounds hopeless and Tennant sounds interesting. |
13076 | Scholastics treat relations as two separate predicates of the relata [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The scholastics treated it as a step in the right explanatory direction to analyze a relational statement of the form 'aRb' into two subject-predicate statements, attributing different relational predicates to a and to b. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 2.2.1) | |
A reaction: The only alternative seems to be Russell's view of relations as pure universals, having a life of their own, quite apart from their relata. Or you could take them as properties of space, time (and powers?), external to the relata? |
13102 | If you individuate things by their origin, you still have to individuate the origins themselves [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: If we go for the necessity-of-origins view, A and B are different if the origin of A is different from the origin of B. But one is left with the further question 'When is the origin of A distinct from the origin of B?' | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
A reaction: There may be an answer to this, in a regress of origins that support one another, but in the end the objection is obviously good. You can't begin to refer to an 'origin' if you can't identify anything in the first place. |
13103 | Numerical difference is a symmetrical notion, unlike proper individuation [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: Scholastics distinguished criteria of numerical difference from questions of individuation proper, since numerical difference is a symmetrical notion. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
A reaction: This apparently old-fashioned point appears to be conclusively correct. Modern thinkers, though, aren't comfortable with proper individuation, because they don't believe in concepts like 'essence' and 'substance' that are needed for the job. |
13104 | Haecceity as property, or as colourless thisness, or as singleton set [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: There is a contemporary property construal of haecceities, ...and a Scotistic construal as primitive, 'colourless' thisnesses which, unlike singleton-set haecceities, are aimed to do some explanatory work. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.4) | |
A reaction: [He associates the contemporary account with David Kaplan] I suppose I would say that individuation is done by properties, but not by some single property, so I take it that I don't believe in haecceities at all. What individuates a haecceity? |
13100 | Maybe 'substance' is more of a mass-noun than a count-noun [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: We could think of 'substance' on the model of a mass noun, rather than a count noun. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.3) | |
A reaction: They offer this to help Leibniz out of a mess, but I think he would be appalled. The proposal seems close to 'prime matter' in Aristotle, which never quite does the job required of it. The idea is nice, though, and should be taken seriously. |
13068 | We can ask for the nature of substance, about type of substance, and about individual substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: In the 'blueprint' approach to substance, we confront at least three questions: What is it for a thing to be an individual substance? What is it for a thing to be the kind of substance that it is? What is it to be that very individual substance? | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.1) | |
A reaction: My working view is that the answer to the first question is that substance is essence, that the second question is overrated and parasitic on the third, and that the third is the key question, and also reduces to essence. |
13069 | The general assumption is that substances cannot possibly be non-substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: There is a widespread assumption, now and in the past, that substances are essentially substances: nothing is actually a substance but possibly a non-substance. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.2) | |
A reaction: It seems to me that they clearly mean, in this context, that substances are 'necessarily' substances, not that they are 'essentially' substances. I would just say that substances are essences, and leave the necessity question open. |
13072 | Modern essences are sets of essential predicate-functions [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The modern view of essence is that the essence of a particular thing is given by the set of predicate-functions essential to it, and the essence of any kind is given by the set of predicate-functions essential to every possible member of that kind. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.2.2) | |
A reaction: Thus the modern view has elided the meanings of 'essential' and 'necessary' when talking of properties. They are said to be 'functions' from possible worlds to individuals. The old view (and mine) demands real essences, not necessary properties. |
17080 | Modern essentialists express essence as functions from worlds to extensions for predicates [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The modern essentialist gives the same metaphysical treatment to every grammatical predicate - by associating a function from worlds to extensions for each. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 2.2) | |
A reaction: I take this to mean that essentialism is the view that if some predicate attaches to an object then that predicate is essential if there is an extension of that predicate in all possible worlds. In English, essential predicates are necessary predicates. |
13101 | Necessity-of-origin won't distinguish ex nihilo creations, or things sharing an origin [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: A necessity-of-origins approach cannot work to distinguish things that come into being genuinely ex nihilo, and cannot work to distinguish things sharing a single origin. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
A reaction: Since I am deeply suspicious of essentiality or necessity of origin (and they are not, I presume, the same thing) I like these two. Twins have always bothered me with the second case (where order of birth seems irrelevant). |
13081 | Even extreme modal realists might allow transworld identity for abstract objects [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: It might be suggested that even the extreme modal realist can countenance transworld identity for abstract objects. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 3.2.2 n46) | |
A reaction: This may sound right for uncontroversial or well-defined abstracta such as numbers and circles, but even 'or' is ambiguous, and heaven knows what the transworld identity of 'democracy' is! |
13071 | We can go beyond mere causal explanations if we believe in an 'order of being' [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The philosopher comfortable with an 'order of being' has richer resources to make sense of the 'in virtue of' relation than that provided only by causal relations between states of affairs, positing in addition other sorts of explanatory relationships. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.2) | |
A reaction: This might best be characterised as 'ontological dependence', and could be seen as a non-causal but fundamental explanatory relationship, and not one that has to depend on a theistic world view. |
8786 | One first-order abstraction principle is Frege's definition of 'direction' in terms of parallel lines [Hale/Wright] |
Full Idea: An example of a first-order abstraction principle is Frege's definition of 'direction' in terms of parallel lines; a higher-order example (which refers to first-order predicates) defines 'equinumeral' in terms of one-to-one correlation (Hume's Principle). | |
From: B Hale / C Wright (Logicism in the 21st Century [2007], 1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This is the way modern logicians now treat abstraction, but abstraction principles include the elusive concept of 'equivalence' of entities, which may be no more than that the same adjective ('parallel') can be applied to them. |