|
8207
|
The quest for simplicity drove scientists to posit new entities, such as molecules in gases [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is the quest for system and simplicity that has kept driving the scientist to posit further entities as values of his variables. By positing molecules, Boyles' law of gases could be assimilated into a general theory of bodies in motion.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (On Multiplying Entities [1974], p.262)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting that a desire for simplicity might lead to multiplications of entities. In fact, I presume molecules had been proposed elsewhere in science, and were adopted in gas-theory because they were thought to exist, not because simplicity is nice.
|
|
8208
|
In arithmetic, ratios, negatives, irrationals and imaginaries were created in order to generalise [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
In classical arithmetic, ratios were posited to make division generally applicable, negative numbers to make subtraction generally applicable, and irrationals and finally imaginaries to make exponentiation generally applicable.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (On Multiplying Entities [1974], p.263)
|
|
A reaction:
This is part of Quine's proposal (c.f. Idea 8207) that entities have to be multiplied in order to produce simplicity. He is speculating. Maybe they are proposed because they are just obvious, and the generality is a nice side-effect.
|
|
9193
|
ZF set theory has variables which range over sets, 'equals' and 'member', and extensionality [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
ZF set theory is a first-order axiomatization. Variables range over sets, there are no second-order variables, and primitive predicates are just 'equals' and 'member of'. The axiom of extensionality says sets with the same members are identical.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 7)
|
|
A reaction:
If the eleven members of the cricket team are the same as the eleven members of the hockey team, is the cricket team the same as the hockey team? Our cricket team is better than our hockey team, so different predicates apply to them.
|
|
9195
|
Intuitionists reject excluded middle, not for a third value, but for possibility of proof [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
It must not be concluded from the rejection of excluded middle that intuitionistic logic operates with three values: true, false, and neither true nor false. It does not make use of true and false, but only with a construction being a proof.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This just sounds like verificationism to me, with all its problems. It seems to make speculative statements meaningless, which can't be right. Realism has lots of propositions which are assumed to be true or false, but also unknowable.
|
|
9186
|
First-order logic concerns objects; second-order adds properties, kinds, relations and functions [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
First-order logic is distinguished by generalizations (quantification) only over objects: second-order logic admits generalizations or quantification over properties or kinds of objects, and over relations between them, and functions defined over them.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 3.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Second-order logic was introduced by Frege, but is (interestingly) rejected by Quine, because of the ontological commitments involved. I remain unconvinced that quantification entails ontological commitment, so I'm happy.
|
|
9187
|
Logical truths and inference are characterized either syntactically or semantically [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are two ways of characterizing logical truths and correct inference. Proof-theoretic or syntactic characterizations, if the formalization admits of proof or derivation; and model-theoretic or semantic versions, being true in all interpretations.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 3.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Dummett calls this distinction 'fundamental'. The second one involves truth, and hence meaning, where the first one just responds to rules. ..But how can you have a notion of correctly following a rule, without a notion of truth?
|