Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'works' and 'Of Miracles'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


4 ideas

4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / a. Axioms for sets
Zermelo made 'set' and 'member' undefined axioms [Zermelo, by Chihara]
     Full Idea: The terms 'set' and 'is a member of' are primitives of Zermelo's 1908 axiomatization of set theory. They are not given model-theoretic analyses or definitions.
     From: report of Ernst Zermelo (works [1920]) by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics 7.5
     A reaction: This looks like good practice if you want to work with sets, but not so hot if you are interested in metaphysics.
For Zermelo's set theory the empty set is zero and the successor of each number is its unit set [Zermelo, by Blackburn]
     Full Idea: For Zermelo's set theory the empty set is zero and the successor of each number is its unit set.
     From: report of Ernst Zermelo (works [1920]) by Simon Blackburn - Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy p.280
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 6. Constitution of an Object
If someone squashed a horse to make a dog, something new would now exist [Mnesarchus]
     Full Idea: If, for the sake of argument, someone were to mould a horse, squash it, then make a dog, it would be reasonable for us on seeing this to say that this previously did not exist but now does exist.
     From: Mnesarchus (fragments/reports [c.120 BCE]), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 179.11
     A reaction: Locke would say it is new, because the substance is the same, but a new life now exists. A sword could cease to exist and become a new ploughshare, I would think. Apply this to the Ship of Theseus. Is form more important than substance?
28. God / B. Proving God / 3. Proofs of Evidence / e. Miracles
It can't be more rational to believe in natural laws than miracles if the laws are not rational [Ishaq on Hume]
     Full Idea: In Hume's argument against miracles, how can it be more rational to believe the laws than the miracles, if the laws themselves are not based on reason?
     From: comment on David Hume (Of Miracles [1748]) by Atif Ishaq - talk
     A reaction: A very nice question. Hume never presents his argument with such an overt reliance on reason. But if the argument says you are in the 'habit' of expecting no anomalies in the laws, what is to prevent you changing the habit of a lifetime?