Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Preface to 'Principles of Philosophy'', 'Commentary on 'Posterior Analytics'' and 'The Art of the Infinite'

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


11 ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 4. Metaphysics as Science
Metaphysics is the roots of the tree of science [Descartes]
     Full Idea: The whole of philosophy is like a tree. The roots are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emerging from the trunk are all the other sciences.
     From: René Descartes (Preface to 'Principles of Philosophy' [1647]), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 01.2
     A reaction: If Descartes had not believed this he would not have bothered with metaphysics, and philosophy might have been dead by 1650.
2. Reason / F. Fallacies / 4. Circularity
I know the truth that God exists and is the author of truth [Descartes]
     Full Idea: I have very clearly deduced the following truths, that there is a God who is the author of all that is in the world, and who is the source of all truth.
     From: René Descartes (Preface to 'Principles of Philosophy' [1647], p.180)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / j. Axiom of Choice IX
Using Choice, you can cut up a small ball and make an enormous one from the pieces [Kaplan/Kaplan]
     Full Idea: The problem with the Axiom of Choice is that it allows an initiate (by an ingenious train of reasoning) to cut a golf ball into a finite number of pieces and put them together again to make a globe as big as the sun.
     From: R Kaplan / E Kaplan (The Art of the Infinite [2003], 9)
     A reaction: I'm not sure how this works (and I think it was proposed by the young Tarski), but it sounds like a real problem to me, for all the modern assumptions that Choice is fine.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / b. Types of number
1 and 0, then add for naturals, subtract for negatives, divide for rationals, take roots for irrationals [Kaplan/Kaplan]
     Full Idea: You have 1 and 0, something and nothing. Adding gives us the naturals. Subtracting brings the negatives into light; dividing, the rationals; only with a new operation, taking of roots, do the irrationals show themselves.
     From: R Kaplan / E Kaplan (The Art of the Infinite [2003], 1 'Mind')
     A reaction: The suggestion is constructivist, I suppose - that it is only operations that produce numbers. They go on to show that complex numbers don't quite fit the pattern.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / g. Real numbers
The rationals are everywhere - the irrationals are everywhere else [Kaplan/Kaplan]
     Full Idea: The rationals are everywhere - the irrationals are everywhere else.
     From: R Kaplan / E Kaplan (The Art of the Infinite [2003], 1 'Nameless')
     A reaction: Nice. That is, the rationals may be dense (you can always find another one in any gap), but the irrationals are continuous (no gaps).
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 4. Using Numbers / f. Arithmetic
'Commutative' laws say order makes no difference; 'associative' laws say groupings make no difference [Kaplan/Kaplan]
     Full Idea: The 'commutative' laws say the order in which you add or multiply two numbers makes no difference; ...the 'associative' laws declare that regrouping couldn't change a sum or product (e.g. a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c ).
     From: R Kaplan / E Kaplan (The Art of the Infinite [2003], 2 'Tablets')
     A reaction: This seem utterly self-evident, but in more complex systems they can break down, so it is worth being conscious of them.
'Distributive' laws say if you add then multiply, or multiply then add, you get the same result [Kaplan/Kaplan]
     Full Idea: The 'distributive' law says you will get the same result if you first add two numbers, and then multiply them by a third, or first multiply each by the third and then add the results (i.e. a · (b+c) = a · b + a · c ).
     From: R Kaplan / E Kaplan (The Art of the Infinite [2003], 2 'Tablets')
     A reaction: Obviously this will depend on getting the brackets right, to ensure you are indeed doing the same operations both ways.
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 2. Substance / b. Need for substance
By comparing qualities and features, reason can gradually infer the nature of substance [Grosseteste]
     Full Idea: Awakened reason distinguishes color from size and shape from body and then shape and size from the substance of body, and so by drawing distinctions and abstracting, it arrives at a grasp of the substance of body, which supports size, shape and color.
     From: Robert Grosseteste (Commentary on 'Posterior Analytics' [1226], I.14), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 07.4
     A reaction: This optimistic view influenced Aquinas, and is called 'incrementalism' by Pasnau. It is the spirit of scientific essentialism, and a nice instance of inference to the best explanation (though 'substance' in itself explains virtually nothing).
11. Knowledge Aims / B. Certain Knowledge / 1. Certainty
Understanding, not the senses, gives certainty [Descartes]
     Full Idea: Certainty is not in the sense but in the understanding alone, when it has evident perceptions.
     From: René Descartes (Preface to 'Principles of Philosophy' [1647], p.177)
14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction
The first million numbers confirm that no number is greater than a million [Kaplan/Kaplan]
     Full Idea: The claim that no number is greater than a million is confirmed by the first million test cases.
     From: R Kaplan / E Kaplan (The Art of the Infinite [2003], 2 'Intro')
     A reaction: Extrapolate from this, and you can have as large a number of cases as you could possibly think of failing to do the inductive job. Love it! Induction isn't about accumulations of cases. It is about explanation, which is about essence. Yes!
28. God / C. Attitudes to God / 5. Atheism
Atheism arises from empiricism, because God is intangible [Descartes]
     Full Idea: The existence of God has been doubted by some, because they attributed too much to the perceptions of the senses, and God can be neither seen nor touched.
     From: René Descartes (Preface to 'Principles of Philosophy' [1647], p.180)