|
10170
|
While true-in-a-model seems relative, true-in-all-models seems not to be [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
While truth can be defined in a relative way, as truth in one particular model, a non-relative notion of truth is implied, as truth in all models.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
[The article is actually discussing arithmetic] This idea strikes me as extremely important. True-in-all-models is usually taken to be tautological, but it does seem to give a more universal notion of truth. See semantic truth, Tarski, Davidson etc etc.
|
|
10175
|
Three types of variable in second-order logic, for objects, functions, and predicates/sets [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
In second-order logic there are three kinds of variables, for objects, for functions, and for predicates or sets.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
It is interesting that a predicate seems to be the same as a set, which begs rather a lot of questions. For those who dislike second-order logic, there seems nothing instrinsically wicked in having variables ranging over innumerable multi-order types.
|
|
10164
|
Peano Arithmetic can have three second-order axioms, plus '1' and 'successor' [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
A common formulation of Peano Arithmetic uses 2nd-order logic, the constant '1', and a one-place function 's' ('successor'). Three axioms then give '1 is not a successor', 'different numbers have different successors', and induction.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This is 'second-order' Peano Arithmetic, though it is at least as common to formulate in first-order terms (only quantifying over objects, not over properties - as is done here in the induction axiom). I like the use of '1' as basic instead of '0'!
|
|
10167
|
Structuralism emerged from abstract algebra, axioms, and set theory and its structures [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Structuralism has emerged from the development of abstract algebra (such as group theory), the creation of axiom systems, the introduction of set theory, and Bourbaki's encyclopaedic survey of set theoretic structures.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
In other words, mathematics has gradually risen from one level of abstraction to the next, so that mathematical entities like points and numbers receive less and less attention, with relationships becoming more prominent.
|
|
10169
|
Relativist Structuralism just stipulates one successful model as its arithmetic [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Relativist Structuralism simply picks one particular model of axiomatised arithmetic (i.e. one particular interpretation that satisfies the axioms), and then stipulates what the elements, functions and quantifiers refer to.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that a successful model can be offered, and it doesn't matter which one, like having any sort of aeroplane, as long as it flies. I don't find this approach congenial, though having a model is good. What is the essence of flight?
|
|
10179
|
There are 'particular' structures, and 'universal' structures (what the former have in common) [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
The term 'structure' has two uses in the literature, what can be called 'particular structures' (which are particular relational systems), but also what can be called 'universal structures' - what particular systems share, or what they instantiate.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a very helpful distinction, because it clarifies why (rather to my surprise) some structuralists turn out to be platonists in a new guise. Personal my interest in structuralism has been anti-platonist from the start.
|
|
10182
|
There are Formalist, Relativist, Universalist and Pattern structuralism [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are four main variants of structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics - formalist structuralism, relativist structuralism, universalist structuralism (with modal variants), and pattern structuralism.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §9)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure where Chihara's later book fits into this, though it is at the nominalist end of the spectrum. Shapiro and Resnik do patterns (the latter more loosely); Hellman does modal universalism; Quine does the relativist version. Dedekind?
|
|
10168
|
Formalist Structuralism says the ontology is vacuous, or formal, or inference relations [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Formalist Structuralism endorses structural methodology in mathematics, but rejects semantic and metaphysical problems as either meaningless, or purely formal, or as inference relations.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
[very compressed] I find the third option fairly congenial, certainly in preference to rather platonist accounts of structuralism. One still needs to distinguish the mathematical from the non-mathematical in the inference relations.
|
|
10178
|
Maybe we should talk of an infinity of 'possible' objects, to avoid arithmetic being vacuous [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is tempting to take a modal turn, and quantify over all possible objects, because if there are only a finite number of actual objects, then there are no models (of the right sort) for Peano Arithmetic, and arithmetic is vacuously true.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed; Geoffrey Hellman is the chief champion of this view] The article asks whether we are not still left with the puzzle of whether infinitely many objects are possible, instead of existent.
|
|
10177
|
Universalist Structuralism eliminates the base element, as a variable, which is then quantified out [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Universalist Structuralism is eliminativist about abstract objects, in a distinctive form. Instead of treating the base element (say '1') as an ambiguous referring expression (the Relativist approach), it is a variable which is quantified out.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
I am a temperamental eliminativist on this front (and most others) so this is tempting. I am also in love with the concept of a 'variable', which I take to be utterly fundamental to all conceptual thought, even in animals, and not just a trick of algebra.
|
|
11842
|
If short-lived happenings like car crashes are 'events', why not long-lived events like Dover Cliffs? [Broad]
|
|
Full Idea:
We call a lightning flash or a motor accident an event, but refuse to apply this to the cliffs of Dover. ...But quantitative differences (of time) give no good grounds for calling one bit of history an event, and refusing the name to another bit.
|
|
From:
C.D. Broad (Scientific Thought [1923], p.54), quoted by David Wiggins - Sameness and Substance Renewed 2.3 n13
|
|
A reaction:
Wiggins calls this proposal a 'terrible absurdity', but it seems to me to demand attention. There is a case to be made for a 'process' to be the fundamental category of our ontology, with stable physical objects seen in that light.
|
|
14609
|
We could say present and past exist, but not future, so that each event adds to the total history [Broad]
|
|
Full Idea:
One theory accepts the reality of the present and the past, but holds that the future is simply nothing at all. Nothing has happened to the present by becoming past except that fresh slices of existence have been added to the total history of the world.
|
|
From:
C.D. Broad (Scientific Thought [1923], II)
|
|
A reaction:
This is now known as Broad's 'Growing Block' view of time. It is tempting to say that neither past nor future exist, but it seems undeniable that statements about the past can be wholly true, unlike those about the future.
|
|
22933
|
We imagine the present as a spotlight, moving across events from past to future [Broad]
|
|
Full Idea:
We imagine presentness moving, like the spot of light from a policeman's bulls eye traversing the fronts of houses in a street. What is illuminated is present, what was illuminated is past, and what is not yet illuminated is the future.
|
|
From:
C.D. Broad (Scientific Thought [1923], II)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the 'moving spotlight' compromise theory, which retains the B-series eternal sequence of ordered events, but adds the A-series privileged present moment. Le Poidevin says Broad represents time twice over.
|