13 ideas
| 23623 | Predicativism says only predicated sets exist [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Predicativists doubt the existence of sets with no predicative definition. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 02.3) | |
| A reaction: This would imply that sets which encounter paradoxes when they try to be predicative do not therefore exist. Surely you can have a set of random objects which don't fall under a single predicate? |
| 23624 | The iterative conception has to appropriate Replacement, to justify the ordinals [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The iterative conception justifies Power Set, but cannot justify a satisfactory theory of von Neumann ordinals, so ZFC appropriates Replacement from NBG set theory. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 09.9) | |
| A reaction: The modern approach to axioms, where we want to prove something so we just add an axiom that does the job. |
| 23625 | Limitation of Size justifies Replacement, but then has to appropriate Power Set [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The limitation of size conception of sets justifies the axiom of Replacement, but cannot justify Power Set, so NBG set theory appropriates the Power Set axiom from ZFC. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 09.9) | |
| A reaction: Which suggests that the Power Set axiom is not as indispensable as it at first appears to be. |
| 23628 | The connective 'and' can have an order-sensitive meaning, as 'and then' [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The sentence connective 'and' also has an order-sensitive meaning, when it means something like 'and then'. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 10.4) | |
| A reaction: This is support the idea that orders are a feature of reality, just as much as possible concatenation. Relational predicates, he says, refer to series rather than to individuals. Nice point. |
| 23627 | 'Before' and 'after' are not two relations, but one relation with two orders [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The reason the two predicates 'before' and 'after' are needed is not to express different relations, but to indicate its order. Since there can be difference of order without difference of relation, the nature of relations is not the source of order. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 10.3) | |
| A reaction: This point is to refute Russell's 1903 claim that order arises from the nature of relations. Hossack claims that it is ordered series which are basic. I'm inclined to agree with him. |
| 23626 | Transfinite ordinals are needed in proof theory, and for recursive functions and computability [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The transfinite ordinal numbers are important in the theory of proofs, and essential in the theory of recursive functions and computability. Mathematics would be incomplete without them. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: Hossack offers this as proof that the numbers are not human conceptual creations, but must exist beyond the range of our intellects. Hm. |
| 23621 | Numbers are properties, not sets (because numbers are magnitudes) [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: I propose that numbers are properties, not sets. Magnitudes are a kind of property, and numbers are magnitudes. …Natural numbers are properties of pluralities, positive reals of continua, and ordinals of series. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Interesting! Since time can have a magnitude (three weeks) just as liquids can (three litres), it is not clear that there is a single natural property we can label 'magnitude'. Anything we can manage to measure has a magnitude. |
| 23622 | We can only mentally construct potential infinities, but maths needs actual infinities [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Numbers cannot be mental objects constructed by our own minds: there exists at most a potential infinity of mental constructions, whereas the axioms of mathematics require an actual infinity of numbers. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], Intro 2) | |
| A reaction: Doubt this, but don't know enough to refute it. Actual infinities were a fairly late addition to maths, I think. I would think treating fictional complete infinities as real would be sufficient for the job. Like journeys which include imagined roads. |
| 19553 | Commitment to 'I have a hand' only makes sense in a context where it has been doubted [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: If I utter 'I know I have a hand' then I can only be reckoned a cooperative conversant by my interlocutors on the assumption that there was a real question as to whether I have a hand. | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: This seems to point to the contextualist approach to global scepticism, which concerns whether we are setting the bar high or low for 'knowledge'. |
| 19551 | How can we know the heavyweight implications of normal knowledge? Must we distort 'knowledge'? [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: Those who deny skepticism but accept closure will have to explain how we know the various 'heavyweight' skeptical hypotheses to be false. Do we then twist the concept of knowledge to fit the twin desiderata of closue and anti-skepticism? | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], Intro) | |
| A reaction: [He is giving Dretske's view; Dretske says we do twist knowledge] Thus if I remember yesterday, that has the heavyweight implication that the past is real. Hawthorne nicely summarises why closure produces a philosophical problem. |
| 19552 | We wouldn't know the logical implications of our knowledge if small risks added up to big risks [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: Maybe one cannot know the logical consequences of the proposition that one knows, on account of the fact that small risks add up to big risks. | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 1) | |
| A reaction: The idea of closure is that the new knowledge has the certainty of logic, and each step is accepted. An array of receding propositions can lose reliability, but that shouldn't apply to logic implications. Assuming monotonic logic, of course. |
| 19554 | Denying closure is denying we know P when we know P and Q, which is absurd in simple cases [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: How could we know that P and Q but not be in a position to know that P (as deniers of closure must say)? If my glass is full of wine, we know 'g is full of wine, and not full of non-wine'. How can we deny that we know it is not full of non-wine? | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: Hawthorne merely raises this doubt. Dretske is concerned with heavyweight implications, but how do you accept lightweight implications like this one, and then suddenly reject them when they become too heavy? [see p.49] |
| 18265 | We don't judge by combining subject and concept; we get a concept by splitting up a judgement [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Instead of putting a judgement together out of an individual as subject and an already previously formed concept as predicate, we do the opposite and arrive at a concept by splitting up the content of possible judgement. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Boole calculus and the Concept script [1881], p.17) | |
| A reaction: This is behind holistic views of sentences, and hence of whole languages, and behind Quine's rejection of 'properties' inferred from the predicates in judgements. |