40 ideas
| 9550 | We only know relational facts about the empty set, but nothing intrinsic [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: Everything we know about the empty set is relational; we know that nothing is the membership relation to it. But what do we know about its 'intrinsic properties'? | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.5) | |
| A reaction: Set theory seems to depend on the concept of the empty set. Modern theorists seem over-influenced by the Quine-Putnam view, that if science needs it, we must commit ourselves to its existence. |
| 9562 | In simple type theory there is a hierarchy of null sets [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: In simple type theory, there is a null set of type 1, a null set of type 2, a null set of type 3..... (Quine has expressed his distaste for this). | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 07.4) | |
| A reaction: It is bad enough trying to individuate the unique null set, without whole gangs of them drifting indistinguishably through the logical fog. All rational beings should share Quine's distaste, even if Quine is wrong. |
| 9572 | Realists about sets say there exists a null set in the real world, with no members [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: In the Gödelian realistic view of set theory the statement that there is a null set as the assertion of the existence in the real world of a set that has no members. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 11.6) | |
| A reaction: It seems to me obvious that such a claim is nonsense on stilts. 'In the beginning there was the null set'? |
| 9573 | The null set is a structural position which has no other position in membership relation [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: In the structuralist view of sets, in structures of a certain sort the null set is taken to be a position (or point) that will be such that no other position (or point) will be in the membership relation to it. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 11.6) | |
| A reaction: It would be hard to conceive of something having a place in a structure if nothing had a relation to it, so is the null set related to singeton sets but not there members. It will be hard to avoid Platonism here. Set theory needs the null set. |
| 9551 | What is special about Bill Clinton's unit set, in comparison with all the others? [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: What is it about the intrinsic properties of just that one unit set in virtue of which Bill Clinton is related to just it and not to any other unit sets in the set-theoretical universe? | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.5) | |
| A reaction: If we all kept pet woodlice, we had better not hold a wood louse rally, or we might go home with the wrong one. My singleton seems seems remarkably like yours. Could we, perhaps, swap, just for a change? |
| 9549 | The set theorist cannot tell us what 'membership' is [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: The set theorist cannot tell us anything about the true relationship of membership. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.5) | |
| A reaction: If three unrelated objects suddenly became members of a set, it is hard to see how the world would have changed, except in the minds of those thinking about it. |
| 9571 | ZFU refers to the physical world, when it talks of 'urelements' [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: ZFU set theory talks about physical objects (the urelements), and hence is in some way about the physical world. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 11.5) | |
| A reaction: This sounds a bit surprising, given that the whole theory would appear to be quite unaffected if God announced that idealism is true and there are no physical objects. |
| 9563 | A pack of wolves doesn't cease when one member dies [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: A pack of wolves is not thought to go out of existence just because some member of the pack is killed. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 07.5) | |
| A reaction: The point is that the formal extensional notion of a set doesn't correspond to our common sense notion of a group or class. Even a highly scientific theory about wolves needs a loose notion of a wolf pack. |
| 9561 | The mathematics of relations is entirely covered by ordered pairs [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: Everything one needs to do with relations in mathematics can be done by taking a relation to be a set of ordered pairs. (Ordered triples etc. can be defined as order pairs, so that <x,y,z> is <x,<y,z>>). | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 07.2) | |
| A reaction: How do we distinguish 'I own my cat' from 'I love my cat'? Or 'I quite like my cat' from 'I adore my cat'? Nevertheless, this is an interesting starting point for a discussion of relations. |
| 9552 | Sentences are consistent if they can all be true; for Frege it is that no contradiction can be deduced [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: In first-order logic a set of sentences is 'consistent' iff there is an interpretation (or structure) in which the set of sentences is true. ..For Frege, though, a set of sentences is consistent if it is not possible to deduce a contradiction from it. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 02.1) | |
| A reaction: The first approach seems positive, the second negative. Frege seems to have a higher standard, which is appealing, but the first one seems intuitively right. There is a possible world where this could work. |
| 9553 | Analytic geometry gave space a mathematical structure, which could then have axioms [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: With the invention of analytic geometry (by Fermat and then Descartes) physical space could be represented as having a mathematical structure, which could eventually lead to its axiomatization (by Hilbert). | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 02.3) | |
| A reaction: The idea that space might have axioms seems to be pythagoreanism run riot. I wonder if there is some flaw at the heart of Einstein's General Theory because of this? |
| 10192 | We can replace existence of sets with possibility of constructing token sentences [Chihara, by MacBride] |
| Full Idea: Chihara's 'constructability theory' is nominalist - mathematics is reducible to a simple theory of types. Instead of talk of sets {x:x is F}, we talk of open sentences Fx defining them. Existence claims become constructability of sentence tokens. | |
| From: report of Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004]) by Fraser MacBride - Review of Chihara's 'Structural Acc of Maths' p.81 | |
| A reaction: This seems to be approaching the problem in a Fregean way, by giving an account of the semantics. Chihara is trying to evade the Quinean idea that assertion is ontological commitment. But has Chihara retreated too far? How does he assert existence? |
| 16039 | Supervenience: No A-difference without a B-difference [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: The slogan for supervenience might be 'there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference'. …(qualifying as a 'perfect forgery' would be an example). | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], Intro) | |
| A reaction: The key point about supervenience is that it is one-way. Presumably 'tracking' would be a better single word for it than 'dependence', which implies some sort of causal power. Supervenience describes, but doesn't attempt to explain. |
| 16043 | Supervenience is non-symmetric - sometimes it's symmetric, and sometimes it's one-way [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: Supervenience is neither symmetric nor asymmetric; it is non-symmetric. Sometimes it holds symmetrically. …And sometimes it holds asymmetrically. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], §3.2) | |
| A reaction: I think of supervenience as 'tracking'. Stalkers track victims; married couples track one another. Beauty tracks statues, but statues don't seem to track beauty. I take so-called mind-brain supervenience to be two-way, not one-way. |
| 16047 | Weak supervenience is in one world, strong supervenience in all possible worlds [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: Weak supervenience says there is no possible world that contains individuals that are B-indiscernible but A-discernible. Strong supervenience entails the same even if they are in different possible worlds. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], §4.1) | |
| A reaction: In other words (I presume), in simple language, the weak version says they happen supervene, the strong version says they have to supervene. |
| 16040 | Aesthetics, morality and mind supervene on the physical? Modal on non-modal? General on particular? [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: It has been claimed that aesthetic, moral and mental properties supervene upon physical properties, …and that modal truths supervene on non-modal ones, and that general truths supervene on particular ones. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], Intro) | |
| A reaction: I am attracted to the last bit. I am bewildered by people who try to derive particular truths from general ones, such as deriving physical behaviour from laws, or the nature of some creature simply from its species. Only some tigers are man-eaters. |
| 16044 | Some entailments do not involve supervenience, as when brotherhood entails siblinghood [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: Some entailments do not suffice for supervenience. Being a brother entails being a sibling, but being a sibling does not supervene on being a brother. Sarah has a sister and Jack in an only child. Sarah, unlike Jack, is a sibling; neither is a brother. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], §3.2) | |
| A reaction: The whole point of supervenience, I take it, is to label a relation of tracking, while offering no explanation of the tracking. Entailment would be a rather powerful explanation, as would a dog's being tied to a cart. |
| 16046 | Reduction requires supervenience, but does supervenience suffice for reduction? [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: Everyone agrees that reduction requires supervenience, …but the more interesting issue is whether supervenience suffices for reduction. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], §3.3) | |
| A reaction: I think we should assume that there is a reason for every genuine case of supervenience (i.e. there are no cases of eternal or ubiquitious coincidence). One-way causation seems to give supervenience without reduction. |
| 16049 | Definitions of physicalism are compatible with a necessary God [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: All definitions of physicalism are compatible with the existence of a necessarily existing God. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], 5.4) | |
| A reaction: All the definitions seem to depend on all the facts covarying with the physical facts, so anything which is invariant (such as divine or platonic entities) will stand outside the definition. Physicalism is more like a credo about all facts whatever. |
| 9566 | No scientific explanation would collapse if mathematical objects were shown not to exist [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: Evidently, no scientific explanations of specific phenomena would collapse as a result of any hypothetical discovery that no mathematical objects exist. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 09.1) | |
| A reaction: It is inconceivable that anyone would challenge this claim. A good model seems to be drama; a play needs commitment from actors and audience, even when we know it is fiction. The point is that mathematics doesn't collapse either. |
| 9559 | If a successful theory confirms mathematics, presumably a failed theory disconfirms it? [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: If mathematics shares whatever confirmation accrues to the theories using it, would it not be reasonable to suppose that mathematics shares whatever disconfirmation accrues to the theories using it? | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 05.8) | |
| A reaction: Presumably Quine would bite the bullet here, although maths is much closer to the centre of his web of belief, and so far less likely to require adjustment. In practice, though, mathematics is not challenged whenever an experiment fails. |
| 9476 | If dispositions are more fundamental than causes, then they won't conceptually reduce to them [Bird on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Maybe a disposition is a more fundamental notion than a cause, in which case Lewis has from the very start erred in seeking a causal analysis, in a traditional, conceptual sense, of disposition terms. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Alexander Bird - Nature's Metaphysics 2.2.8 | |
| A reaction: Is this right about Lewis? I see him as reducing both dispositions and causes to a set of bald facts, which exist in possible and actual worlds. Conditionals and counterfactuals also suffer the same fate. |
| 16042 | The metaphysically and logically possible worlds are the same, so they are the same strength [Bennett,K] |
| Full Idea: Metaphysical necessity is just as strong as logical necessity in that the space of metaphysical possibility is exactly the same as the space of logical possibility: the logically possible worlds = the metaphysically possible worlds. | |
| From: Karen Bennett (Supervenience [2011], §3.1) | |
| A reaction: I think this is wrong. To be the 'same strength' there would also have to be the same number of logical as metaphysical truths, and I presume that is not the case. There are far more logical than metaphysical possibilities. |
| 8425 | For true counterfactuals, both antecedent and consequent true is closest to actuality [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A counterfactual is non-vacuously true iff it takes less of a departure from actuality to make the consequent true along with the antecedent than it does to make the antecedent true without the consequent. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.197) | |
| A reaction: Almost every theory proposed by Lewis hangs on the meaning of the word 'close', as used here. If you visited twenty Earth-like worlds (watch Startrek?), it would be a struggle to decide their closeness to ours in rank order. |
| 8424 | Determinism says there can't be two identical worlds up to a time, with identical laws, which then differ [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: By determinism I mean that the prevailing laws of nature are such that there do not exist any two possible worlds which are exactly alike up to that time, which differ thereafter, and in which those laws are never violated. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.196) | |
| A reaction: This would mean that the only way an action of free will could creep in would be if it accepted being a 'violation' of the laws of nature. Fans of free will would probably prefer to call it a 'natural' phenomenon. I'm with Lewis. |
| 9568 | I prefer the open sentences of a Constructibility Theory, to Platonist ideas of 'equivalence classes' [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: What I refer to as an 'equivalence class' (of line segments of a particular length) is an open sentence in my Constructibility Theory. I just use this terminology of the Platonist for didactic purposes. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 09.10) | |
| A reaction: This is because 'equivalence classes' is committed to the existence of classes, which is Quinean Platonism. I am with Chihara in wanting a story that avoids such things. Kit Fine is investigating similar notions of rules of construction. |
| 9547 | Mathematical entities are causally inert, so the causal theory of reference won't work for them [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: Causal theories of reference seem doomed to failure for the case of reference to mathematical entities, since such entities are evidently causally inert. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], 01.3) | |
| A reaction: Presumably you could baptise a fictional entity such as 'Polonius', and initiate a social causal chain, with a tradition of reference. You could baptise a baby in absentia. |
| 8420 | A proposition is a set of possible worlds where it is true [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I identify a proposition with the set of possible worlds where it is true. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.193) | |
| A reaction: As it stands, I'm baffled by this. How can 'it is raining' be a set of possible worlds? I assume it expands to refer to the truth-conditions, among possibilities as well as actualities. 'It is raining' fits all worlds where it is raining. |
| 8405 | A theory of causation should explain why cause precedes effect, not take it for granted [Lewis, by Field,H] |
| Full Idea: Lewis thinks it is a major defect in a theory of causation that it builds in the condition that the time of the cause precede that of the effect: that cause precedes effect is something we ought to explain (which his counterfactual theory claims to do). | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Hartry Field - Causation in a Physical World | |
| A reaction: My immediate reaction is that the chances of explaining such a thing are probably nil, and that we might as well just accept the direction of causation as a given. Even philosophers balk at the question 'why doesn't time go backwards?' |
| 8427 | I reject making the direction of causation axiomatic, since that takes too much for granted [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: One might stipulate that a cause must always precede its effect, but I reject this solution. It won't solve the problem of epiphenomena, it rejects a priori any backwards causation, and it trivializes defining time-direction through causation. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.203) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Not strong arguments, I would say. Maybe apparent causes are never epiphenomenal. Maybe backwards causation is impossible. Maybe we must use time to define causal direction, and not vice versa. |
| 10392 | It is just individious discrimination to pick out one cause and label it as 'the' cause [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We sometimes single out one among all the causes of some event and call it 'the' cause. ..We may select the abnormal causes, or those under human control, or those we deem good or bad, or those we want to talk about. This is invidious discrimination. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view expressed by Mill - presumably the obvious empiricist line. But if we specify 'the pre-conditions' for an event, we can't just mention ANY fact prior to the effect - there is obvious relevance. So why not for 'the' cause as well? |
| 8419 | The modern regularity view says a cause is a member of a minimal set of sufficient conditions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In present-day regularity analyses, a cause is defined (roughly) as any member of any minimal set of actual conditions that are jointly sufficient, given the laws, for the existence of the effect. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.193) | |
| A reaction: This is the view Lewis is about to reject. It seem to summarise the essence of the Mackie INUS theory. This account would make the presence of oxygen a cause of almost every human event. |
| 8421 | Regularity analyses could make c an effect of e, or an epiphenomenon, or inefficacious, or pre-empted [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In the regularity analysis of causes, instead of c causing e, c might turn out to be an effect of e, or an epiphenomenon, or an inefficacious effect of a genuine cause, or a pre-empted cause (by some other cause) of e. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.194) | |
| A reaction: These are Lewis's reasons for rejecting the general regularity account, in favour of his own particular counterfactual account. It is unlikely that c would be regularly pre-empted or epiphenomenal. If we build time's direction in, it won't be an effect. |
| 17525 | The counterfactual view says causes are necessary (rather than sufficient) for their effects [Lewis, by Bird] |
| Full Idea: The Humean idea, developed by Lewis, is that rather than being sufficient for their effects, causes are (counterfactual) necessary for their effects. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Alexander Bird - Causation and the Manifestation of Powers p.162 |
| 17524 | Lewis has basic causation, counterfactuals, and a general ancestral (thus handling pre-emption) [Lewis, by Bird] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's basic account has a basic causal relation, counterfactual dependence, and the general causal relation is the ancestral of this basic one. ...This is motivated by counterfactual dependence failing to be general because of the pre-emption problem. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Alexander Bird - Causation and the Manifestation of Powers p.161 | |
| A reaction: It is so nice when you struggle for ages with a topic, and then some clever person summarises it clearly for you. |
| 8397 | Counterfactual causation implies all laws are causal, which they aren't [Tooley on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Some counterfactuals are based on non-causal laws, such as Newton's Third Law of Motion. 'If no force one way, then no force the other'. Lewis's counterfactual analysis implies that one force causes the other, which is not the case. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Michael Tooley - Causation and Supervenience 5.2 | |
| A reaction: So what exactly does 'cause' my punt to move forwards? Basing causal laws on counterfactual claims looks to me like putting the cart before the horse. |
| 8423 | My counterfactual analysis applies to particular cases, not generalisations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: My (counterfactual) analysis is meant to apply to causation in particular cases; it is not an analysis of causal generalizations. Those presumably quantify over particulars, but it is hard to match natural language to the quantifiers. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.195) | |
| A reaction: What authority could you have for asserting a counterfactual claim, if you only had one observation? Isn't the counterfactual claim the hallmark of a generalisation? For one case, 'if not-c, then not-e' is just a speculation. |
| 8426 | One event causes another iff there is a causal chain from first to second [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: One event is the cause of another iff there exists a causal chain leading from the first to the second. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.200) | |
| A reaction: It will be necessary to both explain and identify a 'chain'. Some chains are extremely tenuous (Alexander could stop a barrel of beer). Go back a hundred years, and the cause of any present event is everything back then. |
| 4795 | Lewis's account of counterfactuals is fine if we know what a law of nature is, but it won't explain the latter [Cohen,LJ on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis can elucidate the logic of counterfactuals on the assumption that you are not at all puzzled about what a law of nature is. But if you are puzzled about this, it cannot contribute anything towards resolving your puzzlement. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by L. Jonathan Cohen - The Problem of Natural Laws p.219 | |
| A reaction: This seems like a penetrating remark. The counterfactual theory is wrong, partly because it is epistemological instead of ontological, and partly because it refuses to face the really difficult problem, of what is going on out there. |
| 9574 | 'Gunk' is an individual possessing no parts that are atoms [Chihara] |
| Full Idea: An 'atomless gunk' is defined to be an individual possessing no parts that are atoms. | |
| From: Charles Chihara (A Structural Account of Mathematics [2004], App A) | |
| A reaction: [Lewis coined it] If you ask what are a-toms made of and what are ideas made of, the only answer we can offer is that the a-toms are made of gunk, and the ideas aren't made of anything, which is still bad news for the existence of ideas. |