9 ideas
| 17611 | We want the essence of continuity, by showing its origin in arithmetic [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: It then only remained to discover its true origin in the elements of arithmetic and thus at the same time to secure a real definition of the essence of continuity. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], Intro) | |
| A reaction: [He seeks the origin of the theorem that differential calculus deals with continuous magnitude, and he wants an arithmetical rather than geometrical demonstration; the result is his famous 'cut']. |
| 10572 | A cut between rational numbers creates and defines an irrational number [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: Whenever we have to do a cut produced by no rational number, we create a new, an irrational number, which we regard as completely defined by this cut. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], §4) | |
| A reaction: Fine quotes this to show that the Dedekind Cut creates the irrational numbers, rather than hitting them. A consequence is that the irrational numbers depend on the rational numbers, and so can never be identical with any of them. See Idea 10573. |
| 17612 | Arithmetic is just the consequence of counting, which is the successor operation [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: I regard the whole of arithmetic as a necessary, or at least natural, consequence of the simplest arithmetic act, that of counting, and counting itself is nothing else than the successive creation of the infinite series of positive integers. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], §1) | |
| A reaction: Thus counting roots arithmetic in the world, the successor operation is the essence of counting, and the Dedekind-Peano axioms are built around successors, and give the essence of arithmetic. Unfashionable now, but I love it. Intransitive counting? |
| 18087 | If x changes by less and less, it must approach a limit [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: If in the variation of a magnitude x we can for every positive magnitude δ assign a corresponding position from and after which x changes by less than δ then x approaches a limiting value. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], p.27), quoted by Philip Kitcher - The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge 10.7 | |
| A reaction: [Kitcher says he 'showed' this, rather than just stating it] |
| 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] |
| 3400 | Things must have parts to intermingle [Gassendi] |
| Full Idea: If you are no larger than a point, how are you joined to the whole body, which is so large? …and there can be no intermingling between things unless the parts of them can be intermingled. | |
| From: Pierre Gassendi (Objections to 'Meditations' (Fifth) [1641]), quoted by Jaegwon Kim - Philosophy of Mind p.131 | |
| A reaction: As Descartes says that mind is distinct from body because it is non-spatial, it doesn't seem quite right to describe it as a 'point', but the second half is a real problem. Being non-spatial is a real impediment to intermingling with spatial objects. |