37 ideas
17275 | Realist metaphysics concerns what is real; naive metaphysics concerns natures of things [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: We may broadly distinguish between two main branches of metaphysics: the 'realist' or 'critical' branch is concerned with what is real (tense, values, numbers); the 'naive' or 'pre-critical' branch concerns natures of things irrespective of reality. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The 'natures' of things are presumably the essences. He cites 3D v 4D objects, and the status of fictional characters, as examples of the second type. Fine says ground is central to realist metaphysics. |
17282 | Truths need not always have their source in what exists [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: There is no reason in principle why the ultimate source of what is true should always lie in what exists. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.03) | |
A reaction: This seems to be the weak point of the truthmaker theory, since truths about non-existence are immediately in trouble. Saying reality makes things true is one thing, but picking out a specific bit of it for each truth is not so easy. |
17283 | If the truth-making relation is modal, then modal truths will be grounded in anything [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: The truth-making relation is usually explicated in modal terms, ...but this lets in far too much. Any necessary truth will be grounded by anything. ...The fact that singleton Socrates exists will be a truth-maker for the proposition that Socrates exists. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.03) | |
A reaction: If truth-makers are what has to 'exist' for something to be true, then maybe nothing must exist for a necessity to be true - in which case it has no truth maker. Or maybe 2 and 4 must 'exist' for 2+2=4? |
17286 | Logical consequence is verification by a possible world within a truth-set [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: Under the possible worlds semantics for logical consequence, each sentence of a language is associated with a truth-set of possible worlds in which it is true, and then something is a consequence if one of these worlds verifies it. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.10) | |
A reaction: [compressed, and translated into English; see Fine for more symbolic version; I'm more at home in English] |
10429 | It is best to say that a name designates iff there is something for it to designate [Sainsbury] |
Full Idea: It is better to say that 'For all x ("Hesperus" stands for x iff x = Hesperus)', than to say '"Hesperus" stands for Hesperus', since then the expression can be a name with no bearer (e.g. "Vulcan"). | |
From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.2) | |
A reaction: In cases where it is unclear whether the name actually designates something, it seems desirable that the name is at least allowed to function semantically. |
10425 | Definite descriptions may not be referring expressions, since they can fail to refer [Sainsbury] |
Full Idea: Almost everyone agrees that intelligible definite descriptions may lack a referent; this has historically been a reason for not counting them among referring expressions. | |
From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.2) | |
A reaction: One might compare indexicals such as 'I', which may be incapable of failing to refer when spoken. However 'look at that!' frequently fails to communicate reference. |
10438 | Definite descriptions are usually rigid in subject, but not in predicate, position [Sainsbury] |
Full Idea: Definite descriptions used with referential intentions (usually in subject position) are normally rigid, ..but in predicate position they are normally not rigid, because there is no referential intention. | |
From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.5) | |
A reaction: 'The man in the blue suit is the President' seems to fit, but 'The President is the head of state' doesn't. Seems roughly right, but language is always too complex for philosophers. |
17272 | 2+2=4 is necessary if it is snowing, but not true in virtue of the fact that it is snowing [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It is necessary that if it is snowing then 2+2=4, but the fact that 2+2=4 does not obtain in virtue of the fact that it is snowing. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.01) | |
A reaction: Critics dislike 'in virtue of' (as vacuous), but I can't see how you can disagree with this obvervation of Fine's. You can hardly eliminate the word 'because' from English, or say p is because of some object. We demand the right to keep asking 'why?'! |
17276 | If you say one thing causes another, that leaves open that the 'other' has its own distinct reality [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It will not do to say that the physical is causally determinative of the mental, since that leaves open the possibility that the mental has a distinct reality over and above that of the physical. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: The context is a defence of grounding, so that if we say the mind is 'grounded' in the brain, we are saying rather more than merely that it is caused by the brain. A ghost might be 'caused' by a bar of soap. Nice. |
17284 | An immediate ground is the next lower level, which gives the concept of a hierarchy [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It is the notion of 'immediate' ground that provides us with our sense of a ground-theoretic hierarchy. For any truth, we can take its immediate grounds to be at the next lower level. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.05 'Mediate') | |
A reaction: Are the levels in the reality, the structure or the descriptions? I vote for the structure. I'm defending the idea that 'essence' picks out the bottom of a descriptive level. |
17285 | 'Strict' ground moves down the explanations, but 'weak' ground can move sideways [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: We might think of strict ground as moving us down in the explanatory hierarchy. ...Weak ground, on the other hand, may also move us sideways in the explanatory hierarchy. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.05 'Weak') | |
A reaction: This seems to me rather illuminating. For example, is the covering law account of explanation a 'sideways' move in explanation. Are inductive generalities mere 'sideways' accounts. Both fail to dig deeper. |
17288 | We learn grounding from what is grounded, not what does the grounding [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It is the fact to be grounded that 'points' to its ground and not the grounds that point to what they ground. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.11) | |
A reaction: What does the grounding may ground all sorts of other things, but what is grounded only has one 'full' (as opposed to 'partial', in Fine's terminology) ground. He says this leads to a 'top-down' approach to the study of grounds. |
17281 | If grounding is a relation it must be between entities of the same type, preferably between facts [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: In so far as ground is regarded as a relation it should be between entities of the same type, and the entities should probably be taken as worldly entities, such as facts, rather than as representational entities, such as propositions. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: That's more like it (cf. Idea 17280). The consensus of this discussion seems to point to facts as the best relata, for all the vagueness of facts, and the big question of how fine-grained facts should be (and how dependent they are on descriptions). |
17280 | Ground is best understood as a sentence operator, rather than a relation between predicates [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: Ground is perhaps best regarded as an operation (signified by an operator on sentences) rather than as a relation (signified by a predicate) | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: Someone in this book (Koslicki?) says this is to avoid metaphysical puzzles over properties. I don't like the idea, because it makes grounding about sentences when it should be about reality. Fine is so twentieth century. Audi rests ground on properties. |
17290 | Only metaphysical grounding must be explained by essence [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: If the grounding relation is not metaphysical (such as normative or natural grounding), there is no need for there to be an explanation of its holding in terms of the essentialist nature of the items involved. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.11) | |
A reaction: He accepts that some things have partial grounds in different areas of reality. |
17274 | Philosophical explanation is largely by ground (just as cause is used in science) [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: For philosophers interested in explanation - of what accounts for what - it is largely through the notion of ontological ground that such questions are to be pursued. Ground, if you like, stands to philosophy as cause stands to science. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: Why does the ground have to be 'ontological'? It isn't the existence of the snow that makes me cold, but the fact that I am lying in it. Better to talk of 'factual' ground (or 'determinative' ground), and then causal grounds are a subset of those? |
17278 | We can only explain how a reduction is possible if we accept the concept of ground [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It is only by embracing the concept of a ground as a metaphysical form of explanation in its own right that one can adequately explain how a reduction of the reality of one thing to another should be understood. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: I love that we are aiming to say 'how' a reduction should be understood, and not just 'that' it exists. I'm not sure about Fine's emphasis on explaining 'realities', when I think we are after more like structural relations or interconnected facts. |
17287 | Facts, such as redness and roundness of a ball, can be 'fused' into one fact [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: Given any facts, there will be a fusion of those facts. Given the facts that the ball is red and that it is round, there is a fused fact that it is 'red and round'. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.10) | |
A reaction: This is how we make 'units' for counting. Any type of thing which can be counted can be fused, such as the first five prime numbers, forming the 'first' group for some discussion. Any objects can be fused to make a unit - but is it thereby a 'unity'? |
17279 | Even a three-dimensionalist might identify temporal parts, in their thinking [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: Even the three-dimensionalist might be willing to admit that material things have temporal parts. For given any persisting object, he might suppose that 'in thought' we could mark out its temporal segments or parts. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: A big problem with temporal parts is how thin they are. Hawley says they are as fine-grained as time itself, but what if time has no grain? How thin can you 'think' a temporal part to be? Fine says imagined parts are grounded in things, not vice versa. |
17273 | Each basic modality has its 'own' explanatory relation [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: I am inclined to the view that ....each basic modality should be associated with its 'own' explanatory relation. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.01) | |
A reaction: He suggests that 'grounding' connects the various explanatory relations of the different modalities. I like this a lot. Why assert any necessity without some concept of where the necessity arises, and hence where it is grounded? You've got to eat. |
17289 | Every necessary truth is grounded in the nature of something [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It might be held as a general thesis that every necessary truth is grounded in the nature of certain items. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.11) | |
A reaction: [He cites his own 1994 for this] I'm not sure if I can embrace the 'every' in this. I would only say, more cautiously, that I can only make sense of necessity claims when I see their groundings - and I don't take a priori intuition as decent grounding. |
7621 | Special relativity, unlike general relativity, was operationalist in spirit [Putnam on Einstein] |
Full Idea: Einstein's interpretation of special relativity was operationalist in spirit (in marked contrast to the interpretation he gave to general relativity). | |
From: comment on Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Hilary Putnam - Reason, Truth and History Ch.5 | |
A reaction: The late twentieth century was polluted with daft relativism, and I hold Einstein partly responsible, suspecting that he was a bad philosopher. The later development of Einstein's view noted here is interesting. |
17291 | We explain by identity (what it is), or by truth (how things are) [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: I think it should be recognised that there are two fundamentally different types of explanation; one is of identity, or of what something is; and the other is of truth, or of how things are. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.11) |
17271 | Is there metaphysical explanation (as well as causal), involving a constitutive form of determination? [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: In addition to scientific or causal explanation, there maybe a distinctive kind of metaphysical explanation, in which explanans and explanandum are connected, not through some causal mechanism, but through some constitutive form of determination. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], Intro) | |
A reaction: I'm unclear why determination has to be 'constitutive', since I would take determination to be a family of concepts, with constitution being one of them, as when chess pieces determine a chess set. Skip 'metaphysical'; just have Determinative Explanation. |
17277 | If mind supervenes on the physical, it may also explain the physical (and not vice versa) [Fine,K] |
Full Idea: It is not enough to require that the mental should modally supervene on the physical, since that still leaves open the possibility that the physical is itself ultimately to be understood in terms of the mental. | |
From: Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02) | |
A reaction: See Horgan on supervenience. Supervenience is a question, not an answer. The first question is whether the supervenience is mutual, and if not, which 'direction' does it go in? |
10432 | A new usage of a name could arise from a mistaken baptism of nothing [Sainsbury] |
Full Idea: A baptism which, perhaps through some radical mistake, is the baptism of nothing, is as good a propagator of a new use as a baptism of an object. | |
From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.3) | |
A reaction: An obvious example might be the Loch Ness Monster. There is something intuitively wrong about saying that physical objects are actually part of linguistic meaning or reference. I am not a meaning! |
10434 | Even a quantifier like 'someone' can be used referentially [Sainsbury] |
Full Idea: A large range of expressions can be used with referential intentions, including quantifier phrases (as in 'someone has once again failed to close the door properly'). | |
From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.5) | |
A reaction: This is the pragmatic aspect of reference, where it can be achieved by all sorts of means. But are quantifiers inherently referential in their semantic function? Some of each, it seems. |
10431 | Things are thought to have a function, even when they can't perform them [Sainsbury] |
Full Idea: On one common use of the notion of a function, something can possess a function which it does not, or even cannot, perform. A malformed heart is to pump blood, even if such a heart cannot in fact pump blood. | |
From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.2) | |
A reaction: One might say that the heart in a dead body had the function of pumping blood, but does it still have that function? Do I have the function of breaking the world 100 metres record, even though I can't quite manage it? Not that simple. |
22955 | Einstein took causation to be the bedrock of physics [Einstein, by Coveney/Highfield] |
Full Idea: It is difficult to overplay Einstein's commitment to the concept of causality as the bedrock of physics. | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by P Coveney / R Highfield - The Arrow of Time 3 'problem' | |
A reaction: I normally avoid arguments from authority, but this carries a bit of weight (e.g. when Russell tries to oppose it). What happens to Einstein's theories if you remove causation from them? |
20638 | General relativity assumes laws of nature are the same in all frames of reference [Einstein, by Close] |
Full Idea: Einstein came to general relativity from the principles that the laws of nature are the same in all frames of reference. | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Frank Close - Theories of Everything 5 'Cosmological' | |
A reaction: I wish physicists would tell us a bit more about the ontological status of the 'laws of nature'. Presumably they are not supernatural, so there is an aspect of nature which is constant in all frames of reference. Explanation please. |
20636 | Newton is a special case of Einstein's general theory, with an infinite speed of light [Einstein, by Close] |
Full Idea: Einstein's general relativity included Newton's theory as a special case: Newton's theory corresponds to the speed of light being infinite relative to the speed of the interacting bodies. | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Frank Close - Theories of Everything 5 'Gravity' | |
A reaction: So Newton's theory was NOT wrong, but he made the false assumption that the speed of light was infinite. |
21230 | The theory is 'special' because it sticks to observers moving straight, at constant speeds [Einstein, by Farmelo] |
Full Idea: Einstein's first theory is 'special' because it only deals with observers who move in a straight line at constant speeds with respect to one another. | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Graham Farmelo - The Strangest Man 03 | |
A reaction: Most theories of this period seem to have focused on the simplest cases, for obvious reasons. |
21231 | Assume the speed of light is constant for all observers, and the laws of physics are the same [Einstein, by Farmelo] |
Full Idea: Einstein assumed that when each observer measures the speed of light in a vacuum, they find the same value, regardless of their speed; and that measurements will lead to agreement on the laws of physics. | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Graham Farmelo - The Strangest Man 03 | |
A reaction: So are the laws of physics constant for all observers, irrespective of their speed? |
20634 | General Relativity says there is no absolute force or acceleration [Einstein, by Close] |
Full Idea: Einstein's General Theory arose from the idea that there is no absolute measure of force and acceleration. | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Frank Close - Theories of Everything 5 'Gravity' | |
A reaction: If absolutely everything is only true relative to something else you wonder what the point of measuring anything is. How big can a 'frame of reference' or 'inertial frame' be. Is the multiverse a frame of reference? |
20648 | Mass is a measure of energy content [Einstein] |
Full Idea: The mass of a body is the measure of its energy content. | |
From: Albert Einstein (works [1915]), quoted by Peter Watson - Convergence 04 'Intro' | |
A reaction: If I knew what energy was, this would be very illuminating. This idea is e=mc^2 in words. We now have the Higgs field to consider when trying to understand mass. |
21232 | Space-time arises from the connection between measurements of space and of time [Einstein, by Farmelo] |
Full Idea: Einstein noted that the measurements of space and time are not independent but inextricably linked, leading to the idea of unified space-time (introduced by his former teacher Minkowski). | |
From: report of Albert Einstein (works [1915]) by Graham Farmelo - The Strangest Man 03 | |
A reaction: Notice the instrumentalist assumptions behind this. |
7626 | I do not believe in a personal God [Einstein] |
Full Idea: I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. | |
From: Albert Einstein (works [1915]), quoted by Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion Ch.1.15 | |
A reaction: This is an important corrective to those who claim Einstein as religious, on the basis of remarks about God not playing dice etc. See the whole of Dawkins's chapter on Einstein for full discussion. |