44 ideas
16241 | The metaphysics of nature should focus on physics [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics, insofar as it is concerned with the natural world, can do no better than to reflect on physics. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], Intro) | |
A reaction: I suppose so. Physics only works at one level of description. Metaphysics often works with concepts which only emerge at a more general level than physics. There are also many metaphysical problems which are of no interest to most physicists. |
16257 | Kant survives in seeing metaphysics as analysing our conceptual system, which is a priori [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The Kantian strain survives in the notion that metaphysics is not about the world, but about our 'conceptual system', especially as what structures our thought about the world. This keeps it a priori, and so not about the world itself. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 3) | |
A reaction: Strawson would embody this view, I suppose. I take our conceptual system to be largely a reflection of (and even creation of) the world, and not just an arbitrary conventional attempt to grasp the world. Analysing concepts partly analyses the world. |
16276 | Wide metaphysical possibility may reduce metaphysics to analysis of fantasies [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: If metaphysical possibility extends more widely than physical possibility, this may make metaphysics out to be nothing but the analysis of fantastical descriptions produced by philosophers. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 7 Epilogue) | |
A reaction: Maudlin wants metaphysics to be firmly constrained in its possibilities by what scientific undestanding permits, and he is right. Metaphysics must integrate into science, or wither away on the margins. |
16244 | If the universe is profligate, the Razor leads us astray [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: If the universe has been profligate, then Ockham's Razor will lead us astray. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], Intro) | |
A reaction: That is, there may be a vast number of entities which exist beyond what seems to be 'necessary'. |
16255 | The Razor rightly prefers one cause of multiple events to coincidences of causes [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The Razor is good when it councils higher credence to explanations which posit a single cause to multiple events that occur in a striking pattern, over explanations involving coincidental multiple causes. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 2.5) | |
A reaction: This is in the context of Maudlin warning against embracing the Razor too strongly. Presumably inductive success suggests that the world supports this particular use of the Razor. |
21704 | 'Impredictative' definitions fix a class in terms of the greater class to which it belongs [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The ban on 'impredicative' definitions says you can't define a class in terms of a totality to which that class must be seen as belonging. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 1) | |
A reaction: So that would be defining 'citizen' in terms of the community to which the citizen belongs? If you are asked to define 'community' and 'citizen' together, where do you start? But how else can it be done? Russell's Reducibility aimed to block this. |
21705 | Reducibility says any impredicative function has an appropriate predicative replacement [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The Axiom of Reducibility avoids impredicativity, by asserting that for any predicate of given arguments defined by quantifying over higher-order functions or classes, there is another co-extensive but predicative function of the same type of arguments. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 1) | |
A reaction: Eventually the axiom seemed too arbitrary, and was dropped. Linsky's book explores it. |
21727 | Definite descriptions theory eliminates the King of France, but not the Queen of England [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The theory of definite descriptions may eliminate apparent commitment to such entities as the present King of France, but certainly not to the present Queen of England. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 7.3) |
21719 | Extensionalism means what is true of a function is true of coextensive functions [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: With the principle of extensionality anything true of one propositional functions will be true of every coextensive one. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 6.3) |
21723 | The task of logicism was to define by logic the concepts 'number', 'successor' and '0' [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The problem for logicism was to find definitions of the primitive notions of Peano's theory, number, successor and 0, in terms of logical notions, so that the postulates could then be derived by logic alone. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 7) | |
A reaction: Both Frege and Russell defined numbers as equivalence classes. Successor is easily defined (in various ways) in set theory. An impossible set can exemplify zero. The trouble for logicism is this all relies on sets. |
21721 | Higher types are needed to distinguished intensional phenomena which are coextensive [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The higher types are needed for intensional phenomena, cases where the same class is picked out by distinct propositional functions. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 6.4) | |
A reaction: I take it that in this way 'x is renate' can be distinguished from 'x is cordate', a task nowadays performed by possible worlds. |
21703 | Types are 'ramified' when there are further differences between the type of quantifier and its range [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The types is 'ramified' because there are further differences between the type of a function defined in terms of a quantifier ranging over other functions and the type of those other functions, despite the functions applying to the same simple type. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 1) | |
A reaction: Not sure I understand this, but it evidently created difficulties for dealing with actual mathematics, and Ramsey showed how you could manage without the ramifications. |
21714 | The ramified theory subdivides each type, according to the range of the variables [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: The original ramified theory of types ...furthern subdivides each of the types of the 'simple' theory according to the range of the bound variables used in the definition of each propositional function. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 6) | |
A reaction: For a non-intiate like me it certainly sounds disappointing that such a bold and neat theory because a tangle of complications. Ramsey and Russell in the 1920s seem to have dropped the ramifications. |
21713 | Did logicism fail, when Russell added three nonlogical axioms, to save mathematics? [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: It is often thought that Logicism was a failure, because after Frege's contradiction, Russell required obviously nonlogical principles, in order to develop mathematics. The axioms of Reducibility, Infinity and Choice are cited. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 6) | |
A reaction: Infinity and Choice remain as axioms of the standard ZFC system of set theory, which is why set theory is always assumed to be 'up to its neck' in ontological commitments. Linsky argues that Russell saw ontology in logic. |
21715 | For those who abandon logicism, standard set theory is a rival option [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: ZF set theory is seen as a rival to logicism as a foundational scheme. Set theory is for those who have given up the project of reducing mathematics to logic. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 6.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably there are other rivals. Set theory has lots of ontological commitments. One could start at the other end, and investigate the basic ontological commitments of arithmetic. I have no idea what those might be. |
16243 | The Humean view is wrong; laws and direction of time are primitive, and atoms are decided by physics [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The Humean project is unjustified, in that both the laws of nature and the direction of time require no analysis, and is misconceived, in that the atoms it employs do not correspond to present physical ontology. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], Intro) | |
A reaction: I certainly find it strange, or excessively empirical, that Lewis thinks our account of reality should rest on 'qualities'. Maudlin's whole books is an implicit attack on David Lewis. |
16271 | Lewis says it supervenes on the Mosaic, but actually thinks the Mosaic is all there is [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: At base it is not merely, as Lewis says, that everything else supervenes on the Mosaic; but rather that anything that exists at all is just a feature or element or generic property of the Mosaic. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 6) | |
A reaction: [Maudlin has just quoted Idea 16210] Correct about Lewis, but Lewis just has a normal view of supervenience. Only 'emergentists' would think the supervenience allowed anything more, and they are deeply misguided, and in need of help. |
16273 | If the Humean Mosaic is ontological bedrock, there can be no explanation of its structure [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The Humean Mosaic appears to admit of no further explanation. Since it is the ontological bedrock, …none of the further things can account for the structure of the Mosaic itself. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 6) | |
A reaction: A very nice point, reminiscent of Popper's objection to essentialism, that he thought it blocked further enquiry, when actually further enquiry was possible. Lewis and Hume seem too mesmerised by epistemology. They need best explanation. |
16275 | The 'spinning disc' is just impossible, because there cannot be 'homogeneous matter' [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The 'spinning disc' is not metaphysically possible. We have every reason to believe that there is no such thing as 'perfectly homogeneous matter'. The atomic theory of matter is as well established as any scientific theory is likely to be. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 7 Epilogue) | |
A reaction: This is a key case for Maudlin, and his contempt for metaphysics which is not scientifically informed. I agree with him. Extreme thought experiments are worth considering, but impossible ones are pointless. |
16258 | To get an ontology from ontological commitment, just add that some theory is actually true [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The doctrine of ontological commitment becomes a central element in a theory of ontology if one merely adds that a particular theory is, in fact, true | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 3.1) | |
A reaction: Helpful. I don't think the truth of a theory entails the actual existence of every component mentioned in the theory, as some of them may be generalisations, abstractions, vague, or even convenient linking fictions. |
16259 | Naïve translation from natural to formal language can hide or multiply the ontology [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: Naïve translation from natural language into formal language can obscure necessary ontology as easily as it can create superfluous ontological commitment. …The lion's share of metaphysical work is done when settling on the right translation. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 3.1) | |
A reaction: I suspect this is more than a mere problem of 'naivety', but may be endemic to the whole enterprise. If you hammer a square peg into a round hole, you expect to lose something. Language is subtle, logic is crude. |
16253 | A property is fundamental if two objects can differ in only that respect [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: Fragility is not a fundamental physical property, in that two pieces of glass cannot be physically identical save for their fragility. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 2.5) | |
A reaction: Nice. The best idea I have found in Maudlin, so far! This gives a very nice test for picking out the fundamental physical and intrinsic properties. |
21729 | Construct properties as sets of objects, or say an object must be in the set to have the property [Linsky,B] |
Full Idea: Rather than directly constructing properties as sets of objects and proving neat facts about properties by proxy, we can assert biconditionals, such as that an object has a property if and only if it is in a certain set. | |
From: Bernard Linsky (Russell's Metaphysical Logic [1999], 7.6) | |
A reaction: Linsky is describing Russell's method of logical construction. I'm not clear what is gained by this move, but at least it is a variant of the usual irritating expression of properties as sets of objects. |
16263 | Fundamental physics seems to suggest there are no such things as properties [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: If one believes that fundamental physics is the place to look for the truths about universals (or tropes or natural sets), then one may find that physics is telling us there are no such things. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 3.2) | |
A reaction: His prior discussion of quantum chromodynamics suggests, to me, merely that properties can be described in terms of vectors etc., and remains neutral on the ontology - but then I am blinded by science. |
16260 | Existence of universals may just be decided by acceptance, or not, of second-order logic [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: On one line of thought, the question of whether universals exist seems to reduce to the question of the utility, or necessity, of using second-order rather than first-order logic. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 3.1) | |
A reaction: Second-order logic quantifies over properties, where first-order logic just quantifies over objects. This is an extreme example of doing your metaphysics largely through logic. Not my approach. |
16277 | Logically impossible is metaphysically impossible, but logically possible is not metaphysically possible [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: While logical impossibility is a species of metaphysical impossibility, logical possibility is not a species of metaphysical possibility. The logically impeccable description 'Cicero was not Tully' describes a metaphysically impossible situation. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 7 Epilogue) | |
A reaction: The context of this is Maudlin attack on daft notions of metaphysical possibility that are at variance with the limits set by science, but he is still conceding that there are types of metaphysical modality. |
16249 | A counterfactual antecedent commands the redescription of a selected moment [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The purpose of the antecedent of a counterfactual is to provide instructions on how to pick a Cauchy surface (pick a moment in time) and how to generate an altered description of that moment. It is more of a command than an indicative sentence. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 1.5) | |
A reaction: Quite plausible, but the antecedent might contain no description. 'If things had gone differently, we wouldn't be in this mess'. The antecedent might be timeless. 'If pigs had wings, they still wouldn't fly'. |
16254 | Induction leaps into the unknown, but usually lands safely [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: Induction is always a leap beyond the known, but we are constantly assured by later experience that we have landed safely. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 2.5) | |
A reaction: Not philosophically very interesting, but a nice remark for capturing the lived aspect of inductive thought, as practised by the humblest of animals. |
16245 | Laws should help explain the things they govern, or that manifest them [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: A law ought to be capable of playing some role in explaining the phenomena that are governed by or are manifestations of it. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 1.2) | |
A reaction: I find this attitude bewildering. 'Why do electrons have spin?' 'Because they all do!' The word 'governed' is the clue. What on earth is a law, if it can 'govern' nature? What is its ontological status? Natures of things are basic, not 'laws'. |
13304 | Learned men gain more in one day than others do in a lifetime [Posidonius] |
Full Idea: In a single day there lies open to men of learning more than there ever does to the unenlightened in the longest of lifetimes. | |
From: Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]), quoted by Seneca the Younger - Letters from a Stoic 078 | |
A reaction: These remarks endorsing the infinite superiority of the educated to the uneducated seem to have been popular in late antiquity. It tends to be the religions which discourage great learning, especially in their emphasis on a single book. |
16248 | Evaluating counterfactuals involves context and interests [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The evaluation of counterfactual claims is widely recognised as being influenced by context and interest. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 1.5) | |
A reaction: Such evaluation certainly seems to involve imagination, and so the pragmatics can creep in there. I don't quite see why it should be deeply contextual. |
16250 | We don't pick a similar world from many - we construct one possibility from the description [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: It seems unlikely the psychological process could mirror Lewis's semantics: people don't imagine a multiplicity of worlds and the pick out the most similar. Rather we construct representations of possible worlds from counterfactual descriptions. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 1.5) | |
A reaction: I approve of fitting such theories into a psychology, but this may be unfair to Lewis, who aims for a logical model, not an account of how we actually approach the problem. |
16268 | The counterfactual is ruined if some other cause steps in when the antecedent fails [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: A counterexample to the counterfactual approach is that perhaps the effect would have occurred despite the absence of the cause since another cause would have stepped in to bring it about. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 5) | |
A reaction: …Hence you cannot say 'if C had not occurred, E would definitely not have occurred'. You have to add 'ceteris paribus', which ruins the neatness of the theory. |
16267 | If we know the cause of an event, we seem to assent to the counterfactual [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: When we think we know the cause of an event, we typically assent to the corresponding Hume counterfactual. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 5) | |
A reaction: This is the correct grounding of the counterfactual approach - not that we think counterfactuals are causation, but that knowledge of causation will map neatly onto a network of counterfactuals, thus providing a logic for the whole process. |
16269 | If the effect hadn't occurred the cause wouldn't have happened, so counterfactuals are two-way [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: If Kennedy had still been President in Dec 1963, he would not have been assassinated in Nov 1963, so the counterfactual goes both ways (where the cause seems to only go one way). | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 5) | |
A reaction: Maudlin says a lot of fine-tuning has sort of addressed these problems, but that counterfactual causation is basically wrong-headed anyway, and I incline to agree, though one must understand what the theory is (and is not) trying to do. |
16242 | Laws of nature are ontological bedrock, and beyond analysis [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The laws of nature stand in no need of 'philosophical analysis'; they ought to be posited as ontological bedrock. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], Intro) | |
A reaction: This is Maudlin's most basic principle, and I don't agree with it. The notion that laws are more deeply embedded in reality than the physical stuff they control is a sort of 'law-mysticism' that needs to be challenged. |
16247 | Laws are primitive, so two indiscernible worlds could have the same laws [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: Laws are ontologically primitives at least in that two worlds could differ in their laws but not in any observable respect. ….[21] I take content of the laws to be expressed by equations. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 1.4) | |
A reaction: At least that spells out his view fairly dramatically, but I am baffled as to what he thinks a law could be. He is arguing against the Lewis regularity-axioms view, and the Armstrong universal-relations view. He ignores the essentialist view. |
16272 | Fundamental laws say how nature will, or might, evolve from some initial state [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: The fundamental laws of nature appear to be laws of temporal evolution: they specify how the state of the universe will, or might, evolve from a given intial state. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 6) | |
A reaction: Maudlin takes both laws of nature and the passage of time to be primitive facts, and this is how they are connected. I think (this week) that I take time and causation to be primitive, but not laws. |
16251 | 'Humans with prime house numbers are mortal' is not a law, because not a natural kind [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: 'All humans who live in houses with prime house numbers are mortal' is not a law because the class referred to is not a natural kind. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 1.6) | |
A reaction: Maudlin wants laws to be primitive, but he now needs a primitive notion of a natural kind to make it work. If kinds generate laws, you can ditch the laws, and build your theory on the kinds. He also says no death is explained by 'all humans are mortal'. |
16270 | If laws are just regularities, then there have to be laws [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: On the Mill-Ramsey-Lewis account of laws, I take it that if the world is extensive and variegated enough, then there must be laws. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 5.2) | |
A reaction: A nice point. If there is any sort of pattern discernible in the surface waves on the sea, then there must be a law to cover it, not matter how vague or complex. |
16264 | I believe the passing of time is a fundamental fact about the world [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: I believe that it is a fundamental, irreducible fact about the spatio-temporal structure of the world that time passes. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 4) | |
A reaction: Worth quoting because it comes from a philosopher fully informed about, and heavily committed to, the physicist's approach to reality. One fears that physicists steeped in Einstein are all B-series Eternalists. Get a life! |
20820 | Time is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed [Posidonius, by Stobaeus] |
Full Idea: Posidonius defined time thus: it is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed and slowness. | |
From: report of Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]) by John Stobaeus - Anthology 1.08.42 | |
A reaction: Hm. Can we define motion or speed without alluding to time? Looks like we have to define them as a conjoined pair, which means we cannot fully understand either of them. |
16265 | If time passes, presumably it passes at one second per second [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: It is necessary and, I suppose, a priori that if time passes at all it passes at one second per second. …Similarly, the fair exchange rate for a dollar must be a dollar. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 4.1) | |
A reaction: [He is discussing Huw Price on time] This is a reply to the claim that if time passes it has to pass at some rate, and 'one second per second' is ridiculous. Not very convincing, even with the dollar analogy. |
16266 | There is one ordered B series, but an infinitude of A series, depending on when the present is [Maudlin] |
Full Idea: Given events ordered in a B series, one defines an infinitude of different A series that correspond to taking different events as 'now' or 'present'. McTaggart talks of 'the A series' when there is an infinitude of such. | |
From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], 4.3 n11) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as a rather mathematical (and distorted) claim about the A series view. The A-series is one dynamic happening. Not an infinity of static times lines, each focused on a different 'now'. |