16960
|
If possibilitiy is relative, that might make accessibility non-transitive, and T the correct system [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
If some world is 'a way the world might be considered to be if things were different in a certain respect', that might show that the accessibility relation should not be taken to be transitive, and we should have to adopt modal logic T.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (Could There Be Unicorns? [1983], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
He has already rejected symmetry from the relation, for reasons concerning relative identity. He is torn between T and S4, but rejects S5, and opts not to discuss it.
|
16958
|
In S4 the actual world has a special place [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
In S4 logic the actual world is, in itself, special, not just from our point of view.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (Could There Be Unicorns? [1983], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
S4 lacks symmetricality, so 'you can get there, but you can't get back', which makes the starting point special. So if you think the actual world has a special place in modal metaphysics, you must reject S5?
|
16959
|
If possible worlds have no structure (S5) they are equal, and it is hard to deny them reality [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
If our space of possible worlds has no structure, as in the semantics for S5, then, from the standpoint of the semantics, all possible worlds are on the same footing; it then becomes difficult to resist the claim that all are equally real.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (Could There Be Unicorns? [1983], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a rather startling and interesting claim, given that modern philosophy seems full of thinkers who both espouse S5 for metaphysics, and also deny Lewisian realism about possible worlds. I'll ponder that one. Must read the new Williamson….
|
22363
|
You have only begun to do real science when you can express it in numbers [Kelvin]
|
|
Full Idea:
When you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.
|
|
From:
Lord Kelvin (Wm Thomson) (works [1881]), quoted by Reiss,J/Spreger,J - Scientific Objectivity 4.1
|
|
A reaction:
[Popular Lectures 1 p.73] Clearly the writer is a physicist! Astronomers discover objects, geologists discover structures, biologists reveal mechanisms.
|
16954
|
Generalised talk of 'natural kinds' is unfortunate, as they vary too much [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
In my view, Kripke's promotion of 'natural kinds', coverning chemical substances and animal and plant species, is unfortunate, since these are rather different types of things, and words used for them behave differently.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (Could There Be Unicorns? [1983], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
My view is that the only significant difference among natural kinds is their degree of stability in character. Presumably particles, elements and particular molecules are fairly invariant, but living things evolve.
|
20644
|
Energy has progressed from a mere formula, to a principle pervading all nature [Kelvin]
|
|
Full Idea:
The name 'energy', first used by Thomas Young, has come into use after it was raised from a mere formula of mathematical dynamics to become a principle pervading all nature, and guiding every field of science.
|
|
From:
Lord Kelvin (Wm Thomson) (works [1881]), quoted by Peter Watson - Convergence 01 'Principle'
|
|
A reaction:
[bit compressed] As far as I can see energy behaves exactly as if it were a substance, like water conserved in rainfalls, and yet it isn't a stuff, and seems to result from a process of abstraction. I take it to be one of the biggest mysteries in physics.
|