11 ideas
| 17833 | The first-order ZF axiomatisation is highly non-categorical [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: The first-order Sermelo-Fraenkel axiomatisation is highly non-categorical. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1213) |
| 17834 | Non-categoricity reveals a sort of incompleteness, with sets existing that the axioms don't reveal [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: The non-categoricity of the axioms which Zermelo demonstrates reveals an incompleteness of a sort, ....for this seems to show that there will always be a set (indeed, an unending sequence) that the basic axioms are incapable of revealing to be sets. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1215) | |
| A reaction: Hallett says the incompleteness concerning Zermelo was the (transfinitely) indefinite iterability of the power set operation (which is what drives the 'iterative conception' of sets). |
| 17837 | Zermelo allows ur-elements, to enable the widespread application of set-theory [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: Unlike earlier writers (such as Fraenkel), Zermelo clearly allows that there might be ur-elements (that is, objects other than the empty set, which have no members). Indeed he sees in this the possibility of widespread application of set-theory. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1217) |
| 13536 | Skolem did not believe in the existence of uncountable sets [Skolem] |
| Full Idea: Skolem did not believe in the existence of uncountable sets. | |
| From: Thoralf Skolem (works [1920], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: Kit Fine refers somewhere to 'unrepentent Skolemites' who still hold this view. |
| 17836 | The General Continuum Hypothesis and its negation are both consistent with ZF [Hallett,M] |
| Full Idea: In 1938, Gödel showed that ZF plus the General Continuum Hypothesis is consistent if ZF is. Cohen showed that ZF and not-GCH is also consistent if ZF is, which finally shows that neither GCH nor ¬GCH can be proved from ZF itself. | |
| From: Michael Hallett (Introduction to Zermelo's 1930 paper [1996], p.1217) |
| 16078 | Clay is intrinsically and atomically the same as statue (and that lacks 'modal properties') [Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: Arguments for statue being the clay are: that the clay is intrinsically like the statue, that the clay has the same atoms as the statue', that objects don't have modal properties such as being necessarily F, and the reference of 'property' changes. | |
| From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], II) | |
| A reaction: [my summary of the arguments she identifies - see text for details] Rudder Baker attempts to refute all four of these arguments, in defence of constitution as different from identity. |
| 16077 | The clay is not a statue - it borrows that property from the statue it constitutes [Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: I argue that a lump of clay borrows the property of being a statue from the statue. The lump is a statue because, and only because, there is something that the lump constitutes that is a statue. | |
| From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], n9) | |
| A reaction: It is skating on very thin metaphysical ice to introduce the concept of 'borrowing' a property. I've spent the last ten minutes trying to 'borrow' some properties, but without luck. |
| 16080 | Is it possible for two things that are identical to become two separate things? [Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: A strong intuition shared by many philosophers is that some things that are in fact identical might not have been identical. | |
| From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], IV) | |
| A reaction: This flies in the face of the Kripkean view that if Hesperus=Phosphorus then the identity is necessary. I don't think I have an intuition that some given thing might have been two things - indeed the thought seems totally weird. Amoeba? Statue/clay? |
| 16076 | Constitution is not identity, as consideration of essential predicates shows [Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: I want to resuscitate an essentialist argument against the view that constitution is identity, of the form 'x is essentially F, y is not essentially F, so x is not y'. | |
| From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: The point is that x might be essentially F and y only accidentally F. Thus a statue is essentially so, but a lump if clay is not essentially a statue. Another case where 'necessary' would do instead of 'essentially'. |
| 16081 | The constitution view gives a unified account of the relation of persons/bodies, statues/bronze etc [Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: Constitution-without-identity is superior to constitution-as-identity in that it provides a unified view of the relation between persons and bodies, statues and pieces of bronze, and so on. | |
| From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], IV) | |
| A reaction: I have a problem with the intrinsic dualism of this whole picture. Clay needs shape, statues need matter - there aren't two 'things' here which have a 'relation'. |
| 16082 | Statues essentially have relational properties lacked by lumps [Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: The statue has relational properties which the lump of clay does not have essentially. | |
| From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], V) | |
| A reaction: She has in mind relations to the community of artistic life. I don't think this is convincing. Is something only a statue if it is validated by an artistic community? That sounds like relative identity, which she doesn't like. |