|
9224
|
Proceduralism offers a version of logicism with no axioms, or objects, or ontological commitment [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
My Proceduralism offers axiom-free foundations for mathematics. Axioms give way to the stipulation of procedures. We obtain a form of logicism, but with a procedural twist, and with a logic which is ontologically neutral, and no assumption of objects.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Our Knowledge of Mathematical Objects [2005], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
[See Ideas 9222 and 9223 for his Proceduralism] Sounds like philosophical heaven. We get to take charge of mathematics, without the embarrassment of declaring ourselves to be platonists. Someone, not me, should evaluate this.
|
|
9223
|
My Proceduralism has one simple rule, and four complex rules [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
My Proceduralism has one simple rule (introduce an object), and four complex rules: Composition (combining two procedures), Conditionality (if A, do B), Universality (do a procedure for every x), and Iteration (rule to keep doing B).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Our Knowledge of Mathematical Objects [2005], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
It sounds like a highly artificial and private game which Fine has invented, but he claims that this is the sort of thing that practising mathematicians have always done.
|
|
16391
|
Indexical thoughts are about themselves, and ascribe properties to themselves [Perry, by Recanati]
|
|
Full Idea:
Perry's newer token-reflexive framework says indexical thoughts have token-reflexive content, that is, thoughts that are about themselves and ascribe properties to themselves. …They relate not to the subject, but to the occurrence of a thought.
|
|
From:
report of John Perry (Reference and Reflexivity [2001]) by François Recanati - Mental Files 18.1
|
|
A reaction:
[There seem to be four indexical theories: this one, Recanati's, the earlier Kaplan-Perry one, and Lewis's] Is Perry thinking of second-level thoughts? 'I'm bored' has the content 'boredom' plus 'felt in here'? How does 'I'm bored' refer to 'I'm bored'?
|
|
12709
|
Motion is not absolute, but consists in relation [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
In reality motion is not something absolute, but consists in relation.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Motion [1677], A6.4.1968), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 3
|
|
A reaction:
It is often thought that motion being relative was invented by Einstein, but Leibniz wholeheartedly embraced 'Galilean relativity', and refused to even consider any absolute concept of motion. Acceleration is a bit trickier than velocity.
|