|
14234
|
If you only refer to objects one at a time, you need sets in order to refer to a plurality [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
Full Idea:
A 'singularist', who refers to objects one at a time, must resort to the language of sets in order to replace plural reference to members ('Henry VIII's wives') by singular reference to a set ('the set of Henry VIII's wives').
|
|
From:
Oliver,A/Smiley,T (What are Sets and What are they For? [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
A simple and illuminating point about the motivation for plural reference. Null sets and singletons give me the creeps, so I would personally prefer to avoid set theory when dealing with ontology.
|
|
14237
|
We can use plural language to refer to the set theory domain, to avoid calling it a 'set' [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Plurals earn their keep in set theory, to answer Skolem's remark that 'in order to treat of 'sets', we must begin with 'domains' that are constituted in a certain way'. We can speak in the plural of 'the objects', not a 'domain' of objects.
|
|
From:
Oliver,A/Smiley,T (What are Sets and What are they For? [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[Skolem 1922:291 in van Heijenoort] Zermelo has said that the domain cannot be a set, because every set belongs to it.
|
|
14246
|
If mathematics purely concerned mathematical objects, there would be no applied mathematics [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
Full Idea:
If mathematics was purely concerned with mathematical objects, there would be no room for applied mathematics.
|
|
From:
Oliver,A/Smiley,T (What are Sets and What are they For? [2006], 5.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Love it! Of course, they are using 'objects' in the rather Fregean sense of genuine abstract entities. I don't see why fictionalism shouldn't allow maths to be wholly 'pure', although we have invented fictions which actually have application.
|
|
14247
|
Sets might either represent the numbers, or be the numbers, or replace the numbers [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Identifying numbers with sets may mean one of three quite different things: 1) the sets represent the numbers, or ii) they are the numbers, or iii) they replace the numbers.
|
|
From:
Oliver,A/Smiley,T (What are Sets and What are they For? [2006], 5.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Option one sounds the most plausible to me. I will take numbers to be patterns embedded in nature, and sets are one way of presenting them in shorthand form, in order to bring out what is repeated.
|
|
5060
|
All substances analyse down to simple substances, which are souls, or 'monads' [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
What (in the analysis of substances) exist ultimately are simple substances - namely, souls, or, if you prefer a more general terms, 'monads', which are without parts.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Metaphysical conseqs of principle of reason [1712], §7)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to me to be atomistic panpsychism. He is opposed to physical atomism, because infinite divisibility seems obvious, but unity is claimed to be equally obvious in the world of the mental. Does this mean bricks are made of souls? Odd.
|
|
6019
|
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?
|
|
5059
|
Power rules in efficient causes, but wisdom rules in connecting them to final causes [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
In all of nature efficient causes correspond to final causes, because everything proceeds from a cause which is not only powerful, but wise; and with the rule of power through efficient causes, there is involved the rule of wisdom through final causes.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Metaphysical conseqs of principle of reason [1712], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
Nowadays this carrot-and-stick view of causation is unfashionable, but I won't rule it out. The deepest 'why?' we can ask won't just go away. This unity by a divine mind strikes me as too simple, but Leibniz is right to try to unify Aristotelian causes.
|