|
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.
|
|
8348
|
If we don't assume that events exist, we cannot make sense of our common talk [Davidson]
|
|
Full Idea:
The assumption, ontological and metaphysical, that there are events, is one without which we cannot make sense of much of our most common talk.
|
|
From:
Donald Davidson (Causal Relations [1967], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
He considers events to be unanalysable basics. Explanation of normal talk also needs ghosts, premonitions, telepathy and Father Christmas. It is extremely hard to individuate events, unless they are subatomic, and rather numerous.
|
|
10371
|
Distinguish causation, which is in the world, from explanations, which depend on descriptions [Davidson, by Schaffer,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Davidson distinguishes between causation, an extensional relation that holds between coarse events, and explanation, which is an intensional relation that holds between the coarse events under a description.
|
|
From:
report of Donald Davidson (Causal Relations [1967]) by Jonathan Schaffer - The Metaphysics of Causation 1.2
|
|
A reaction:
I'm unclear why everything has to be so coarse, when reality and causal events seem to fine-grained, but the distinction strikes me as good. Explanations relate to human understanding and human interests. Cf. Anscombe's view.
|
|
8346
|
Full descriptions can demonstrate sufficiency of cause, but not necessity [Davidson]
|
|
Full Idea:
The fuller we make the description of a cause, the better our chances of demonstrating that it was sufficient (as described) to produce the effect, and the worse our chances of demonstrating that it was necessary. (For the effect, it is the opposite).
|
|
From:
Donald Davidson (Causal Relations [1967], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
If the fullness of description is relevant, this suggests that Davidson is focusing on human explanations, rather than on the ontology of causation. If the cause IS necessary, why wouldn't a better description make that clearer?
|