|
18189
|
ZFC could contain a contradiction, and it can never prove its own consistency [MacLane]
|
|
Full Idea:
We have at hand no proof that the axioms of ZFC for set theory will never yield a contradiction, while Gödel's second theorem tells us that such a consistency proof cannot be conducted within ZFC.
|
|
From:
Saunders MacLane (Mathematics: Form and Function [1986], p.406), quoted by Penelope Maddy - Naturalism in Mathematics
|
|
A reaction:
Maddy quotes this, while defending set theory as the foundation of mathematics, but it clearly isn't the most secure foundation that could be devised. She says the benefits of set theory do not need guaranteed consistency (p.30).
|
|
7563
|
The old 'influx' view of causation says it is a flow of accidental properties from A to B [Suárez, by Jolley]
|
|
Full Idea:
The 'influx' model of causation says that causes involve a process of contagion, as it were; when the kettle boils, the gas infects the water inside the kettle with its own 'individual accident' of heat, which literally flows from one to the other.
|
|
From:
report of Francisco Suárez (works [1588]) by Nicholas Jolley - Leibniz Ch.2
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely captures the scholastic target of Hume's sceptical thinking on the subject. However, see Idea 2542, where the idea of influx has had a revival. It is hard to see how the water could change if it didn't 'catch' something from the gas.
|