46 ideas
| 10455 | Free logic at least allows empty names, but struggles to express non-existence [Bach] |
| Full Idea: Unlike standard first-order logic, free logic can allow empty names, but still has to deny existence by either representing it as a predicate, or invoke some dubious distinction such as between existence and being. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L1) |
| 10676 | The Axiom of Choice is a non-logical principle of set-theory [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The Axiom of Choice seems better treated as a non-logical principle of set-theory. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 4 n8) | |
| A reaction: This reinforces the idea that set theory is not part of logic (and so pure logicism had better not depend on set theory). |
| 10686 | The Axiom of Choice guarantees a one-one correspondence from sets to ordinals [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: We cannot explicitly define one-one correspondence from the sets to the ordinals (because there is no explicit well-ordering of R). Nevertheless, the Axiom of Choice guarantees that a one-one correspondence does exist, even if we cannot define it. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 10) |
| 10687 | Maybe we reduce sets to ordinals, rather than the other way round [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: We might reduce sets to ordinal numbers, thereby reversing the standard set-theoretical reduction of ordinals to sets. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 10) | |
| A reaction: He has demonstrated that there are as many ordinals as there are sets. |
| 10677 | Extensional mereology needs two definitions and two axioms [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Extensional mereology defs: 'distinct' things have no parts in common; a 'fusion' has some things all of which are parts, with no further parts. Axioms: (transitivity) a part of a part is part of the whole; (sums) any things have a unique fusion. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 5) |
| 10454 | In first-order we can't just assert existence, and it is very hard to deny something's existence [Bach] |
| Full Idea: In standard logic we can't straightforwardly say that n exists. We have to resort to using a formula like '∃x(x=n)', but we can't deny n's existence by negating that formula, because standard first-order logic disallows empty names. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L1) |
| 10453 | In logic constants play the role of proper names [Bach] |
| Full Idea: In standard first-order logic the role of proper names is played by individual constants. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L1) |
| 10452 | Proper names can be non-referential - even predicate as well as attributive uses [Bach] |
| Full Idea: Like it or not, proper names have non-referential uses, including not only attributive but even predicate uses. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L1) | |
| A reaction: 'He's a right little Hitler'. 'You're doing a George Bush again'. 'Try to live up to the name of Churchill'. |
| 10456 | Millian names struggle with existence, empty names, identities and attitude ascription [Bach] |
| Full Idea: The familiar problems with the Millian view of names are the problem of positive and negative existential statements, empty names, identity sentences, and propositional attitude ascription. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L1) | |
| A reaction: I take this combination of problems to make an overwhelming case against the daft idea that the semantics of a name amounts to the actual object it picks out. It is a category mistake to attempt to insert a person into a sentence. |
| 10440 | An object can be described without being referred to [Bach] |
| Full Idea: An object can be described without being referred to. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], Intro) | |
| A reaction: I'm not clear how this is possible for a well-known object, though it is clearly possible for a speculative object, such as a gadget I would like to buy. In the former case reference seems to occur even if the speaker is trying to avoid it. |
| 10444 | Definite descriptions can be used to refer, but are not semantically referential [Bach] |
| Full Idea: If Russell is, as I believe, basically right, then definite descriptions are the paradigm of singular terms that can be used to refer but are not linguistically (semantically) referential. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1 s5) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure that we can decide what is 'semantically referential'. Most of the things we refer to don't have names. We don't then 'use' definite descriptions (I'm thinking) - they actually DO the job. If we use them, we can 'use' names too? |
| 10671 | Plural definite descriptions pick out the largest class of things that fit the description [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: If we extend the power of language with plural definite descriptions, these would pick out the largest class of things that fit the description. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 3) |
| 10666 | Plural reference will refer to complex facts without postulating complex things [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: It may be that plural reference gives atomism the resources to state complex facts without needing to refer to complex things. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 1) | |
| A reaction: This seems the most interesting metaphysical implication of the possibility of plural quantification. |
| 10669 | Plural reference is just an abbreviation when properties are distributive, but not otherwise [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: If all properties are distributive, plural reference is just a handy abbreviation to avoid repetition (as in 'A and B are hungry', to avoid 'A is hungry and B is hungry'), but not all properties are distributive (as in 'some people surround a table'). | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 2) | |
| A reaction: The characteristic examples to support plural quantification involve collective activity and relations, which might be weeded out of our basic ontology, thus leaving singular quantification as sufficient. |
| 10675 | A plural comprehension principle says there are some things one of which meets some condition [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Singular comprehension principles have a bad reputation, but the plural comprehension principle says that given a condition on individuals, there are some things such that something is one of them iff it meets the condition. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 4) |
| 10673 | Plural language can discuss without inconsistency things that are not members of themselves [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: In a plural language we can discuss without fear of inconsistency the things that are not members of themselves. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 4) | |
| A reaction: [see Hossack for details] |
| 10680 | The theory of the transfinite needs the ordinal numbers [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The theory of the transfinite needs the ordinal numbers. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 8) |
| 10684 | I take the real numbers to be just lengths [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: I take the real numbers to be just lengths. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 9) | |
| A reaction: I love it. Real numbers are beginning to get on my nerves. They turn up to the party with no invitation and improperly dressed, and then refuse to give their names when challenged. |
| 10674 | A plural language gives a single comprehensive induction axiom for arithmetic [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: A language with plurals is better for arithmetic. Instead of a first-order fragment expressible by an induction schema, we have the complete truth with a plural induction axiom, beginning 'If there are some numbers...'. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 4) |
| 10681 | In arithmetic singularists need sets as the instantiator of numeric properties [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: In arithmetic singularists need sets as the instantiator of numeric properties. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 8) |
| 10685 | Set theory is the science of infinity [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Set theory is the science of infinity. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 10) |
| 12270 | Being is one [Melissus, by Aristotle] |
| Full Idea: Being is one. | |
| From: report of Melissus (fragments/reports [c.443 BCE]) by Aristotle - Topics 104b23 | |
| A reaction: I can only really understand this in terms of physics, as the belief that ultimately there is one simple theory which explains everything. That project doesn't look terribly promising, despite the lovely simplifications of modern physics. |
| 10668 | We are committed to a 'group' of children, if they are sitting in a circle [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: By Quine's test of ontological commitment, if some children are sitting in a circle, no individual child can sit in a circle, so a singular paraphrase will have us committed to a 'group' of children. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 2) | |
| A reaction: Nice of why Quine is committed to the existence of sets. Hossack offers plural quantification as a way of avoiding commitment to sets. But is 'sitting in a circle' a real property (in the Shoemaker sense)? I can sit in a circle without realising it. |
| 10664 | Complex particulars are either masses, or composites, or sets [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Complex particulars are of at least three types: masses (which sum, of which we do not ask 'how many?' but 'how much?'); composite individuals (how many?, and summing usually fails); and sets (only divisible one way, unlike composites). | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 1) | |
| A reaction: A composite pile of grains of sand gradually becomes a mass, and drops of water become 'water everywhere'. A set of people divides into individual humans, but redescribe the elements as the union of males and females? |
| 10678 | The relation of composition is indispensable to the part-whole relation for individuals [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The relation of composition seems to be indispensable in a correct account of the part-whole relation for individuals. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 7) | |
| A reaction: This is the culmination of a critical discussion of mereology and ontological atomism. At first blush it doesn't look as if 'composition' has much chance of being a precise notion, and it will be plagued with vagueness. |
| 10665 | Leibniz's Law argues against atomism - water is wet, unlike water molecules [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: We can employ Leibniz's Law against mereological atomism. Water is wet, but no water molecule is wet. The set of infinite numbers is infinite, but no finite number is infinite. ..But with plural reference the atomist can resist this argument. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 1) | |
| A reaction: The idea of plural reference is to state plural facts without referring to complex things, which is interesting. The general idea is that we have atomism, and then all the relations, unities, identities etc. are in the facts, not in the things. I like it. |
| 10682 | The fusion of five rectangles can decompose into more than five parts that are rectangles [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The fusion of five rectangles may have a decomposition into more than five parts that are rectangles. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 8) |
| 10663 | A thought can refer to many things, but only predicate a universal and affirm a state of affairs [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: A thought can refer to a particular or a universal or a state of affairs, but it can predicate only a universal and it can affirm only a state of affairs. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 1) | |
| A reaction: Hossack is summarising Armstrong's view, which he is accepting. To me, 'thought' must allow for animals, unlike language. I think Hossack's picture is much too clear-cut. Do animals grasp universals? Doubtful. Can they predicate? Yes. |
| 10446 | Fictional reference is different inside and outside the fiction [Bach] |
| Full Idea: We must distinguish 'reference' in a fiction from reference outside the fiction to fictional entities. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1) | |
| A reaction: This may be more semantically than ontologically significant. It is perhaps best explicated by Coleridge's distinction over whether or not I am 'suspending my disbelief' when I am discussing a character. |
| 10447 | We can refer to fictional entities if they are abstract objects [Bach] |
| Full Idea: If fictional entities, such as characters in a play, are real, albeit abstract entities, then we can genuinely refer to them. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Nathan Salmon 1998] Personally I would prefer to say that abstract entities are fictions. Fictional characters have uncertain identity conditions. Do they all have a pancreas, if this is never mentioned? |
| 10443 | You 'allude to', not 'refer to', an individual if you keep their identity vague [Bach] |
| Full Idea: If you say 'a special person is coming to visit', you are not referring to but merely 'alluding to' that individual. This does not count as referring because you are not expressing a singular proposition about it. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1 s2) | |
| A reaction: If you add 'I hope he doesn't wear his red suit, but I hope he plays his tuba', you seem to be expressing singular propositions about the person. Bach seems to want a very strict notion of reference, as really attaching listeners to individuals. |
| 10439 | What refers: indefinite or definite or demonstrative descriptions, names, indexicals, demonstratives? [Bach] |
| Full Idea: Philosophers agree that some expressions refer, but disagree over which ones. Few include indefinite descriptions, but some include definite descriptions, or only demonstrative descriptions. Some like proper names, some only indexicals and demonstratives. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], Intro) | |
| A reaction: My initial prejudice is rather Strawsonian - that people refer, not language, and it can be done in all sorts of ways. But Bach argues well that only language intrinsically does it. Even pointing fails without linguistic support. |
| 10441 | If we can refer to things which change, we can't be obliged to single out their properties [Bach] |
| Full Idea: We can refer to things which change over time, which suggests that in thinking of and in referring to an individual we are not constrained to represent it as that which has certain properties. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1) | |
| A reaction: This seems a good argument against the descriptive theory of reference which is not (I think) in Kripke. Problems like vagueness and the Ship of Theseus rear their heads. |
| 10442 | We can think of an individual without have a uniquely characterizing description [Bach] |
| Full Idea: Being able to think of an individual does not require being able to identify that individual by means of a uniquely characterizing description. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1 s1) | |
| A reaction: There is a bit of an equivocation over 'recognise' here. His example is 'the first child born in the 4th century'. We can't visually recognise such people, but the description does fix them, and a records office might give us 'recognition'. |
| 10445 | It can't be real reference if it could refer to some other thing that satisfies the description [Bach] |
| Full Idea: If one is referring to whatever happens to satisfy a description, and one would be referring to something else were it to have satisfied the description instead, this is known as 'weak' reference,...but surely this is not reference at all. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.1 s7) | |
| A reaction: Bach wants a precise notion of reference, as success in getting the audience to focus on the correct object. He talks of this case as 'singling out' some unfixed thing, and he also has 'alluding to' an unstated thing. Plausible view. |
| 10457 | Since most expressions can be used non-referentially, none of them are inherently referential [Bach] |
| Full Idea: An embarrassingly simple argument is that most expressions can be used literally but not referentially, no variation in meaning explains this fact, so its meaning is compatible with being non-referential, so no expression is inherently referential. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L2) | |
| A reaction: I think I have decided that no expression is 'inherently referential', and that it is all pragmatics. |
| 10463 | Just alluding to or describing an object is not the same as referring to it [Bach] |
| Full Idea: Much of what speakers do that passes for referring is merely alluding or describing. ...It is one thing for a speaker to express a thought about a certain object using an expression, and quite another for the expression to stand for that object. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.3) | |
| A reaction: Bach builds up a persuasive case for this view. If the question, though, is 'what are you talking about?', then saying what is being alluded to or singled out or described seems fine. Bach is being rather stipulative. |
| 10459 | Context does not create reference; it is just something speakers can exploit [Bach] |
| Full Idea: Context does not determine or constitute reference; rather, it is something for the speaker to exploit to enable the listener to determine the intended reference. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L3) | |
| A reaction: Bach thinks linguistic reference is a matter of speaker's intentions, and I think he is right. And this idea is right too. The domain of quantification constantly shifts in a conversation, and good speakers and listeners are sensitive to this. |
| 10460 | 'That duck' may not refer to the most obvious one in the group [Bach] |
| Full Idea: If one ducks starts quacking furiously, and you say 'that duck is excited', it isn't context that makes me take it that you are referring to the quacking duck. You could be referring to a quiet duck you recognise by its distinctive colour. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L3) | |
| A reaction: A persuasive example to make his point against the significance of context in conversational reference. Speaker's intended reference must always trump any apparent reference suggested by context. |
| 10461 | What a pronoun like 'he' refers back to is usually a matter of speaker's intentions [Bach] |
| Full Idea: To illustrate speakers' intentions, consider the anaphoric reference using pronouns in these: "A cop arrested a robber; he was wearing a badge", and "A cop arrested a robber; he was wearing a mask". The natural supposition is not the inevitable one. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L4) | |
| A reaction: I am a convert to speakers' intentions as the source of all reference, and this example seems to illustrate it very well. 'He said..' 'Who said?' |
| 10462 | Information comes from knowing who is speaking, not just from interpretation of the utterance [Bach] |
| Full Idea: It is a fallacy that all the information in an utterance must come from its interpretation, which ignores the essentially pragmatic fact that the speaker is making the utterance. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L4) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Barwise and Perry 1983:34] This is blatantly obvious in indexical remarks like 'I am tired', where the words don't tell you who is tired. But also 'the car has broken down, dear'. |
| 10458 | People slide from contextual variability all the way to contextual determination [Bach] |
| Full Idea: People slide from contextual variability to context relativity to context sensitivity to context dependence to contextual determination. | |
| From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L3) | |
| A reaction: This is reminiscent of the epistemological slide from cultural or individual relativity of some observed things, to a huge metaphysical denial of truth. Bach's warning applies to me, as I have been drifting down his slope lately. Nice. |
| 3059 | There is no real motion, only the appearance of it [Melissus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: There is no such thing as real motion, but there only appears to be such. | |
| From: report of Melissus (fragments/reports [c.443 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09.4.3 |
| 5100 | The void is not required for change, because a plenum can alter in quality [Aristotle on Melissus] |
| Full Idea: There is no need for void to be the cause of all change, because it is perfectly possible for a plenum to alter qualitatively (which is something Melissus overlooked). | |
| From: comment on Melissus (fragments/reports [c.443 BCE]) by Aristotle - Physics 214a27 | |
| A reaction: In modern physics this presumably gives us fluctuations in a force field. Motion is like a cat being digested by a python. The atomist claim that emptiness is needed if anything is to move still has intuitive appeal. |
| 10683 | We could ignore space, and just talk of the shape of matter [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: We might dispense with substantival space, and say that if the distribution of matter in space could have been different, that just means the matter of the Universe could have been shaped differently (with geometry as the science of shapes). | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Plurals and Complexes [2000], 9) |
| 456 | Nothing could come out of nothing [Melissus] |
| Full Idea: If Nothing existed, in no way could anything come into being out of nothing. | |
| From: Melissus (fragments/reports [c.443 BCE], B1), quoted by (who?) - where? |