Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Metaphysics: a very short introduction', 'Reals by Abstraction' and 'Presidential Address of Am. Math. Soc'

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


6 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 2. History of Logic
We have no adequate logic at the moment, so mathematicians must create one [Veblen]
     Full Idea: Formal logic has to be taken over by mathematicians. The fact is that there does not exist an adequate logic at the present time, and unless the mathematicians create one, no one else is likely to do so.
     From: Oswald Veblen (Presidential Address of Am. Math. Soc [1924], 141), quoted by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics
     A reaction: This remark was made well after Frege, but before the advent of Gödel and Tarski. That implies that he was really thinking of meta-logic.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / g. Real numbers
The real numbers may be introduced by abstraction as ratios of quantities [Hale, by Hale/Wright]
     Full Idea: The real numbers may be introduced by abstraction as ratios of quantities. ..They are not defined by Dedekind cuts; rather, the cuts constitute a domain with the properties that are a necessary precondition.
     From: report of Bob Hale (Reals by Abstraction [1998]) by B Hale / C Wright - Intro to 'The Reason's Proper Study' 3.3
     A reaction: This is Hale's neo-logicist attempt to derive the real numbers from Hume's Principle.
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 2. Substance / a. Substance
Substances, unlike aggregates, can survive a change of parts [Mumford]
     Full Idea: Substances can survive a change in their parts in a way that a mere aggregate of parts.
     From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 3)
     A reaction: A simple but very important idea. If we then distinguish between 'substances' and 'aggregates' we get a much clearer grip on things. Is the Ship of Theseus a substance or an aggregate? There is no factual answer to that. What do you want to explain?
10. Modality / B. Possibility / 3. Combinatorial possibility
Maybe possibilities are recombinations of the existing elements of reality [Mumford]
     Full Idea: It has been suggested that we could think of possibilities as recombinations of all the existing elements of reality.
     From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 8)
     A reaction: [Armstrong 1989 is the source] The obvious problem would be that the existence of an entirely different reality would be impossible, if this was all possibility could be. It seems to cramp the style of the possible too much. Are properties elements?
Combinatorial possibility has to allow all elements to be combinable, which seems unlikely [Mumford]
     Full Idea: The combinatorial account only works if you allow that the elements are recombinable. ...But could Lincoln really have been green? It seems possible that you could jump to the moon, unless we impose some restrictions.
     From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 8)
     A reaction: Mumford suggests different combination rules for logical and natural possibility. The general objection is that combinatorial possibility is too permissive - which it clearly is.
Combinatorial possibility relies on what actually exists (even over time), but there could be more [Mumford]
     Full Idea: Can combinatorial possibility deliver enough possibilities? It uses the existing elements, but there might have been one more particular or one more property. Even extended over time, the elements seem finite, yet there could have been more.
     From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 8)
     A reaction: [compressed] One objection is that the theory allows too much, and now the objection is that it allows too little. Both objections are correct, so that's the end of that. But I admire the attempt to base modality on actuality.