|
12215
|
The existence of numbers is not a matter of identities, but of constituents of the world [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
On saying that a particular number exists, we are not saying that there is something identical to it, but saying something about its status as a genuine constituent of the world.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.168)
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at Frege's criterion of identity, which is to be an element in an identity relation, such as x = y. Fine suggests that this only gives a 'trivial' notion of existence, when he is interested in a 'thick' sense of 'exists'.
|
|
12209
|
The indispensability argument shows that nature is non-numerical, not the denial of numbers [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Arguments such as the dispensability argument are attempting to show something about the essentially non-numerical character of physical reality, rather than something about the nature or non-existence of the numbers themselves.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.160)
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at Hartry Field. If Quine was right, and we only believe in numbers because of our science, and then Field shows our science doesn't need it, then Fine would be wrong. Quine must be wrong, as well as Field.
|
|
12214
|
'Exists' is a predicate, not a quantifier; 'electrons exist' is like 'electrons spin' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The most natural reading of 'electrons exist' is that there are electrons while, on our view, the proper reading should be modeled on 'electrons spin', meaning every electron spins. 'Exists' should be treated as a predicate rather than a quantifier.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.167)
|
|
A reaction:
So existence IS a predicate (message to Kant). Dunno. Electrons have to exist in order to spin, but they don't have to exist in order to exist. But they don't have to exist to be 'dead'.
|
|
12217
|
For ontology we need, not internal or external views, but a view from outside reality [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
We need to straddle both of Carnap's internal and external views. It is only by standing outside of reality that we are able to occupy a standpoint from which the constitution of reality can be adequately described.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Question of Ontology [2009], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 4840! I thoroughly approve of this idea, which almost amounts to a Credo for the modern metaphysician. Since we can think outside our room, or our country, or our era, or our solar system, I think we can do what Fine is demanding.
|
|
8329
|
Either causal relations are given in experience, or they are unobserved and theoretical [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a fundamental choice between the realist approach to causation which says that the relation is immediately given in experience, and the view that causation is a theoretical relation, and so not directly observable.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Even if immediate experience is involved, there is a step of abstraction in calling it a cause, and picking out events. A 'theoretical relation' is not of much interest there if no observations are involved. I don't think a choice is required here.
|
|
8324
|
The problem is to explain how causal laws and relations connect, and how they link to the world [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Causal states of affairs encompass causal laws, and causal relations between events or states of affairs; two key questions concern the relation between causal laws and causal relations, and the relation between these and non-causal affairs.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the agenda for modern analytical philosophy. I'm not quite clear what would count as an answer. When have you 'explained' a relation? Does calling it 'gravity', or finding an equation, explain that relation? Do gravitinos explain it?
|
|
8328
|
Causation isn't energy transfer, because an electron is caused by previous temporal parts [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
The temporal parts of an electron (for example) are causally related, but this relation does not involve any transfer of energy or momentum. Causation cannot be identified with physical energy relations, and physicalist reductions look unpromising.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This idea, plus Idea 8327, are their grounds for rejecting Fair's proposal (Idea 8326). It feels like a different use of 'cause' when we say 'the existence of x was caused by its existence yesterday'. It is more like inertia. Destruction needs energy.
|
|
8325
|
The dominant view is that causal laws are prior; a minority say causes can be explained singly [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
The dominant view is that causal laws are more basic than causal relations, with relations being logically supervenient on causal laws, and on properties and event relations; some, though, defend the singularist view, in which events alone can be related.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I am deeply suspicious about laws (see Idea 5470). I suspect that the laws are merely descriptions of the regularities that arise from the single instances of causation. We won't explain the single instances, but then laws don't 'explain' them either.
|