49 ideas
| 16877 | A 'constructive' (as opposed to 'analytic') definition creates a new sign [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We construct a sense out of its constituents and introduce an entirely new sign to express this sense. This may be called a 'constructive definition', but we prefer to call it a 'definition' tout court. It contrasts with an 'analytic' definition. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.210) | |
| A reaction: An analytic definition is evidently a deconstruction of a past constructive definition. Fregean definition is a creative activity. |
| 11219 | Frege suggested that mathematics should only accept stipulative definitions [Frege, by Gupta] |
| Full Idea: Frege has defended the austere view that, in mathematics at least, only stipulative definitions should be countenanced. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914]) by Anil Gupta - Definitions 1.3 | |
| A reaction: This sounds intriguingly at odds with Frege's well-known platonism about numbers (as sets of equinumerous sets). It makes sense for other mathematical concepts. |
| 16878 | We must be clear about every premise and every law used in a proof [Frege] |
| Full Idea: It is so important, if we are to have a clear insight into what is going on, for us to be able to recognise the premises of every inference which occurs in a proof and the law of inference in accordance with which it takes place. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.212) | |
| A reaction: Teachers of logic like natural deduction, because it reduces everything to a few clear laws, which can be stated at each step. |
| 9921 | 'True' is only occasionally useful, as in 'everything Fermat believed was true' [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: In the disquotational view of truth, what saves truth from being wholly redundant and so wholly useless, is mainly that it provides an ability to state generalisations like 'Everything Fermat believed was true'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.2.c) | |
| A reaction: Sounds like the thin end of the wedge. Presumably we can infer that the first thing Fermat believed on his last Christmas Day was true. |
| 9924 | Modal logic gives an account of metalogical possibility, not metaphysical possibility [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: If you want a logic of metaphysical possibility, the existing literature was originally developed to supply a logic of metalogical possibility, and still reflects its origins. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.b) | |
| A reaction: This is a warning shot (which I don't fully understand) to people like me, who were beginning to think they could fill their ontology with possibilia, which could then be incorporated into the wider account of logical thinking. Ah well... |
| 9933 | The paradoxes are only a problem for Frege; Cantor didn't assume every condition determines a set [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The paradoxes only seem to arise in connection with Frege's logical notion of extension or class, not Cantor's mathematical notion of set. Cantor never assumed that every condition determines a set. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This makes the whole issue a parochial episode in the history of philosophy, not a central question. Cantor favoured some sort of abstractionism (see Kit Fine on the subject). |
| 9928 | Mereology implies that acceptance of entities entails acceptance of conglomerates [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Mereology has ontological implications. The acceptance of some initial entities involves the acceptance of many further entities, arbitrary wholes having the entities as parts. It must accept conglomerates. Geometric points imply geometric regions. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: Presumably without the wholes being entailed by the parts, there is no subject called 'mereology'. But if the conglomeration is unrestricted, there is not much left to be said. 'Restricted' composition (by nature?) sounds a nice line. |
| 16867 | Logic not only proves things, but also reveals logical relations between them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: A proof does not only serve to convince us of the truth of what is proved: it also serves to reveal logical relations between truths. Hence we find in Euclid proofs of truths that appear to stand in no need of proof because they are obvious without one. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.204) | |
| A reaction: This is a key idea in Frege's philosophy, and a reason why he is the founder of modern analytic philosophy, with logic placed at the centre of the subject. I take the value of proofs to be raising questions, more than giving answers. |
| 16863 | Does some mathematical reasoning (such as mathematical induction) not belong to logic? [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Are there perhaps modes of inference peculiar to mathematics which …do not belong to logic? Here one may point to inference by mathematical induction from n to n+1. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.203) | |
| A reaction: He replies that it looks as if induction can be reduced to general laws, and those can be reduced to logic. |
| 16862 | The closest subject to logic is mathematics, which does little apart from drawing inferences [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Mathematics has closer ties with logic than does almost any other discipline; for almost the entire activity of the mathematician consists in drawing inferences. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.203) | |
| A reaction: The interesting question is who is in charge - the mathematician or the logician? |
| 9926 | A relation is either a set of sets of sets, or a set of sets [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: While in general a relation is taken to be a set of ordered pairs <u, v> = {{u}, {u, v}}, and hence a set of sets of sets, in special cases a relation can be represented by a set of sets. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.a) | |
| A reaction: [See book for their examples, which are <, symmetric, and arbitrary] The fact that a relation (or anything else) can be represented in a certain way should never ever be taken to mean that you now know what the thing IS. |
| 16865 | 'Theorems' are both proved, and used in proofs [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Usually a truth is only called a 'theorem' when it has not merely been obtained by inference, but is used in turn as a premise for a number of inferences in the science. ….Proofs use non-theorems, which only occur in that proof. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.204) |
| 11115 | 'All horses' either picks out the horses, or the things which are horses [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Two ways to see 'all horses are animals' are as picking out all the horses (so that it is a 'horse-quantifier'), ..or as ranging over lots of things in addition to horses, with 'horses' then restricting the things to those that satisfy 'is a horse'. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 2) | |
| A reaction: Jubien says this gives you two different metaphysical views, of a world of horses etc., or a world of things which 'are horses'. I vote for the first one, as the second seems to invoke an implausible categorical property ('being a horse'). Cf Idea 11116. |
| 16866 | Tracing inference backwards closes in on a small set of axioms and postulates [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We can trace the chains of inference backwards, …and the circle of theorems closes in more and more. ..We must eventually come to an end by arriving at truths can cannot be inferred, …which are the axioms and postulates. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.204) | |
| A reaction: The rival (more modern) view is that that all theorems are equal in status, and axioms are selected for convenience. |
| 16868 | The essence of mathematics is the kernel of primitive truths on which it rests [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Science must endeavour to make the circle of unprovable primitive truths as small as possible, for the whole of mathematics is contained in this kernel. The essence of mathematics has to be defined by this kernel of truths. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.204-5) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] I will make use of this thought, by arguing that mathematics may be 'explained' by this kernel. |
| 16871 | A truth can be an axiom in one system and not in another [Frege] |
| Full Idea: It is possible for a truth to be an axiom in one system and not in another. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.205) | |
| A reaction: Frege aspired to one huge single system, so this is a begrudging concession, one which modern thinkers would probably take for granted. |
| 16870 | Axioms are truths which cannot be doubted, and for which no proof is needed [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The axioms are theorems, but truths for which no proof can be given in our system, and no proof is needed. It follows from this that there are no false axioms, and we cannot accept a thought as an axiom if we are in doubt about its truth. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.205) | |
| A reaction: He struggles to be as objective as possible, but has to concede that whether we can 'doubt' the axiom is one of the criteria. |
| 9932 | The paradoxes no longer seem crucial in critiques of set theory [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Recent commentators have de-emphasised the set paradoxes because they play no prominent part in motivating the most articulate and active opponents of set theory, such as Kronecker (constructivism) or Brouwer (intuitionism), or Weyl (predicativism). | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be a sad illustration of the way most analytical philosophers have to limp along behind the logicians and mathematicians, arguing furiously about problems that have largely been abandoned. |
| 16869 | To create order in mathematics we need a full system, guided by patterns of inference [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We cannot long remain content with the present fragmentation [of mathematics]. Order can be created only by a system. But to construct a system it is necessary that in any step forward we take we should be aware of the logical inferences involved. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.205) |
| 9923 | We should talk about possible existence, rather than actual existence, of numbers [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The modal strategy for numbers is to replace assumptions about the actual existence of numbers by assumptions about the possible existence of numbers | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.a) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be quite a good way of dealing with very large numbers and infinities. It is not clear whether 5 is so regularly actualised that we must consider it as permanent, or whether it is just a prominent permanent possibility. |
| 16864 | If principles are provable, they are theorems; if not, they are axioms [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If the law [of induction] can be proved, it will be included amongst the theorems of mathematics; if it cannot, it will be included amongst the axioms. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.203) | |
| A reaction: This links Frege with the traditional Euclidean view of axioms. The question, then, is how do we know them, given that we can't prove them. |
| 9925 | Structuralism and nominalism are normally rivals, but might work together [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Usually structuralism and nominalism are considered rivals. But structuralism can also be the first step in a strategy of nominalist reconstrual or paraphrase. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.0) | |
| A reaction: Hellman and later Chihara seem to be the main proponents of nominalist structuralism. My sympathies lie with this strategy. Are there objects at the nodes of the structure, or is the structure itself platonic? Mill offers a route. |
| 9934 | Number words became nouns around the time of Plato [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The transition from using number words purely as adjectives to using them extensively as nouns has been traced to 'around the time of Plato'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.2.a) | |
| A reaction: [The cite Kneale and Kneale VI,§2 for this] It is just too tempting to think that in fact Plato (and early Platonists) were totally responsible for this shift, since the whole reification of numbers seems to be inherently platonist. |
| 9918 | Abstract/concrete is a distinction of kind, not degree [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The distinction of abstract and concrete is one of kind and not degree. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.a) | |
| A reaction: I think I must agree with this. If there is a borderline, it would be in particulars that seem to have an abstract aspect to them. A horse involves the abstraction of being a horse, and it involves be one horse. |
| 9929 | Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden' [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.A.1.d) | |
| A reaction: Not just science. In ordinary conversation we continually refer to particulars using so-called 'universal' predicates and object-terms, which are presumably abstractions. 'I've just seen an elephant'. |
| 9927 | Mathematics has ascended to higher and higher levels of abstraction [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: In mathematics, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, there has been an ascent to higher and higher levels of abstraction. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: I am interested in clarifying what this means, which might involve the common sense and psychological view of the matter, as well as some sort of formal definition in terms of equivalence (or whatever). |
| 9930 | Abstraction is on a scale, of sets, to attributes, to type-formulas, to token-formulas [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: There is a scale of abstractness that leads downwards from sets through attributes to formulas as abstract types and on to formulas as abstract tokens. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.B.2.c) | |
| A reaction: Presumably the 'abstract tokens' at the bottom must have some interpretation, to support the system. Presumably one can keep going upwards, through sets of sets of sets. |
| 11116 | Being a physical object is our most fundamental category [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Being a physical object (as opposed to being a horse or a statue) really is our most fundamental category for dealing with the external world. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 2) | |
| A reaction: This raises the interesting question of why any categories should be considered to be more 'fundamental' than others. I can only think that we perceive something to be an object fractionally before we (usually) manage to identify it. |
| 11117 | Haecceities implausibly have no qualities [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Properties of 'being such and such specific entity' are often called 'haecceities', but this term carries the connotation of non-qualitativeness which I don't favour. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 2) | |
| A reaction: The way he defines it makes it sound as if it was a category, but I take it to be more like a bare individual essence. If it has not qualities then it has no causal powers, so there could be no evidence for its existence. |
| 9388 | Every concept must have a sharp boundary; we cannot allow an indeterminate third case [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Of any concept, we must require that it have a sharp boundary. Of any object it must hold either that it falls under the concept or it does not. We may not allow a third case in which it is somehow indeterminate whether an object falls under a concept. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.229), quoted by Ian Rumfitt - The Logic of Boundaryless Concepts p.1 n1 | |
| A reaction: This is the voice of the classical logician, which has echoed by Russell. I'm with them, I think, in the sense that logic can only work with precise concepts. The jury is still out. Maybe we can 'precisify', without achieving total precision. |
| 11119 | De re necessity is just de dicto necessity about object-essences [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: I suggest that the de re is to be analyzed in terms of the de dicto. ...We have a case of modality de re when (and only when) the appropriate property in the de dicto formulation is an object-essence. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 5) |
| 11118 | Modal propositions transcend the concrete, but not the actual [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Where modal propositions may once have seemed to transcend the actual, they now seem only to transcend the concrete. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 4) | |
| A reaction: This is because Jubien has defended a form of platonism. Personally I take modal propositions to be perceptible in the concrete world, by recognising the processes involved, not the mere static stuff. |
| 11108 | Your properties, not some other world, decide your possibilities [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The possibility of your having been a playwright has nothing to do with how people are on other planets, whether in our own or in some other realm. It is only to do with you and the relevant property. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) | |
| A reaction: I'm inclined to think that this simple point is conclusive disproof of possible worlds as an explanation of modality (apart from Jubien's other nice points). What we need to understand are modal properties, not other worlds. |
| 11111 | Modal truths are facts about parts of this world, not about remote maximal entities [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Typical modal truths are just facts about our world, and generally facts about very small parts of it, not facts about some infinitude of complex, maximal entities. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) | |
| A reaction: I think we should embrace this simple fact immediately, and drop all this nonsense about possible worlds, even if they are useful for the semantics of modal logic. |
| 11105 | We have no idea how many 'possible worlds' there might be [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: As soon as we start talking about 'possible world', we beg the question of their relevance to our prior notion of possibility. For all we know, there are just two such realms, or twenty-seven, or uncountably many, or even set-many. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) |
| 11107 | If there are no other possible worlds, do we then exist necessarily? [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Suppose there happen to be no other concrete realms. Would we happily accept the consequence that we exist necessarily? | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) |
| 11106 | If all possible worlds just happened to include stars, their existence would be necessary [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: If all of the possible worlds happened to include stars, how plausible is it to think that if this is how things really are, then we've just been wrong to regard the existence of stars as contingent? | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) |
| 11112 | Possible worlds just give parallel contingencies, with no explanation at all of necessity [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: In the world theory, what passes for 'necessity' is just a bunch of parallel 'contingencies'. The theory provides no basis for understanding why these contingencies repeat unremittingly across the board (while others do not). | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) |
| 11109 | If other worlds exist, then they are scattered parts of the actual world [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Any other realms that happened to exist would just be scattered parts of the actual world, not entire worlds at all. It would just happen that physical reality was fragmented in this remarkable but modally inconsequential way. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) | |
| A reaction: This is aimed explicitly at Lewis's modal realism, and strikes me as correct. Jubien's key point here is that they are irrelevant to modality, just as foreign countries are irrelevant to the modality of this one. |
| 11113 | Worlds don't explain necessity; we use necessity to decide on possible worlds [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The suspicion is that the necessity doesn't arise from how worlds are, but rather that the worlds are taken to be as they are in order to capture the intuitive necessity. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) | |
| A reaction: It has always seemed to me rather glaring that you need a prior notion of 'possible' before you can start to talk about 'possible worlds', but I have always been too timid to disagree with the combination of Saul Kripke and David Lewis. Thank you, Jubien! |
| 11110 | We mustn't confuse a similar person with the same person [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: If someone similar to Humphrey won the election, that nicely establishes the possibility of someone's winning who is similar to Humphrey. But we mustn't confuse this possibility with the intuitively different possibility of Humphrey himself winning. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 1) |
| 16876 | We need definitions to cram retrievable sense into a signed receptacle [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If we need such signs, we also need definitions so that we can cram this sense into the receptacle and also take it out again. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.209) | |
| A reaction: Has anyone noticed that Frege is the originator of the idea of the mental file? Has anyone noticed the role that definition plays in his account? |
| 16875 | We use signs to mark receptacles for complex senses [Frege] |
| Full Idea: We often need to use a sign with which we associate a very complex sense. Such a sign seems a receptacle for the sense, so that we can carry it with us, while being always aware that we can open this receptacle should we need what it contains. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.209) | |
| A reaction: This exactly the concept of a mental file, which I enthusiastically endorse. Frege even talks of 'opening the receptacle'. For Frege a definition (which he has been discussing) is the assigment of a label (the 'definiendum') to the file (the 'definiens'). |
| 9919 | The old debate classified representations as abstract, not entities [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The original debate was over abstract ideas; thus it was mental (or linguistic) representations that were classified as abstract or otherwise, and not the entities represented. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This seems to beg the question of whether there are any such entities. It is equally plausible to talk of the entities that are 'constructed', rather than 'represented'. |
| 16879 | A sign won't gain sense just from being used in sentences with familiar components [Frege] |
| Full Idea: No sense accrues to a sign by the mere fact that it is used in one or more sentences, the other constituents of which are known. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.213) | |
| A reaction: Music to my ears. I've never grasped how meaning could be grasped entirely through use. |
| 16873 | Thoughts are not subjective or psychological, because some thoughts are the same for us all [Frege] |
| Full Idea: A thought is not something subjective, is not the product of any form of mental activity; for the thought that we have in Pythagoras's theorem is the same for everybody. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.206) | |
| A reaction: When such thoughts are treated as if the have objective (platonic) existence, I become bewildered. I take a thought (or proposition) to be entirely psychological, but that doesn't stop two people from having the same thought. |
| 16872 | A thought is the sense expressed by a sentence, and is what we prove [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The sentence is of value to us because of the sense that we grasp in it, which is recognisably the same in a translation. I call this sense the thought. What we prove is not a sentence, but a thought. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.206) | |
| A reaction: The 'sense' is presumably the German 'sinn', and a 'thought' in Frege is what we normally call a 'proposition'. So the sense of a sentence is a proposition, and logic proves propositions. I'm happy with that. |
| 16874 | The parts of a thought map onto the parts of a sentence [Frege] |
| Full Idea: A sentence is generally a complex sign, so the thought expressed by it is complex too: in fact it is put together in such a way that parts of a thought correspond to parts of the sentence. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Logic in Mathematics [1914], p.207) | |
| A reaction: This is the compositional view of propositions, as opposed to the holistic view. |
| 9922 | If space is really just a force-field, then it is a physical entity [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: According to many philosophical commentators, a force-field must be considered to be a physical entity, and as the distinction between space and the force-field may be considered to be merely verbal, space itself may be considered to be a physical entity. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.A.1) | |
| A reaction: The ontology becomes a bit odd if we cheerfully accept that space is physical, but then we can't give the same account of time. I'm not sure how time could be physical. What's it made of? |