|
8729
|
Intuitionists deny excluded middle, because it is committed to transcendent truth or objects [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
Intuitionists in mathematics deny excluded middle, because it is symptomatic of faith in the transcendent existence of mathematical objects and/or the truth of mathematical statements.
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
There are other problems with excluded middle, such as vagueness, but on the whole I, as a card-carrying 'realist', am committed to the law of excluded middle.
|
|
8763
|
The number 3 is presumably identical as a natural, an integer, a rational, a real, and complex [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is surely wise to identify the positions in the natural numbers structure with their counterparts in the integer, rational, real and complex number structures.
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.2)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that this might be denied, since 3, 3/1, 3.00.., and -3*i^2 are all arrived at by different methods of construction. Natural 3 has a predecessor, but real 3 doesn't. I agree, intuitively, with Shapiro. Russell (1919) disagreed.
|
|
8762
|
Two definitions of 3 in terms of sets disagree over whether 1 is a member of 3 [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
Zermelo said that for each number n, its successor is the singleton of n, so 3 is {{{null}}}, and 1 is not a member of 3. Von Neumann said each number n is the set of numbers less than n, so 3 is {null,{null},{null,{null}}}, and 1 is a member of 3.
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.2)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 645 - Zermelo could save Plato from the criticisms of Aristotle! These two accounts are cited by opponents of the set-theoretical account of numbers, because it seems impossible to arbitrate between them.
|
|
8749
|
Term Formalism says mathematics is just about symbols - but real numbers have no names [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
Term Formalism is the view that mathematics is just about characters or symbols - the systems of numerals and other linguistic forms. ...This will cover integers and rational numbers, but what are real numbers supposed to be, if they lack names?
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 6.1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Real numbers (such as pi and root-2) have infinite decimal expansions, so we can start naming those. We could also start giving names like 'Harry' to other reals, though it might take a while. OK, I give up.
|
|
8750
|
Game Formalism is just a matter of rules, like chess - but then why is it useful in science? [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
Game Formalism likens mathematics to chess, where the 'content' of mathematics is exhausted by the rules of operating with its language. ...This, however, leaves the problem of why the mathematical games are so useful to the sciences.
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 6.1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
This thought pushes us towards structuralism. It could still be a game, but one we learned from observing nature, which plays its own games. Chess is, after all, modelled on warfare.
|
|
8753
|
Critics resent the way intuitionism cripples mathematics, but it allows new important distinctions [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
Critics commonly complain that the intuitionist restrictions cripple the mathematician. On the other hand, intuitionist mathematics allows for many potentially important distinctions not available in classical mathematics, and is often more subtle.
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 7.1)
|
|
A reaction:
The main way in which it cripples is its restriction on talk of infinity ('Cantor's heaven'), which was resented by Hilbert. Since high-level infinities are interesting, it would be odd if we were not allowed to discuss them.
|
|
8731
|
Conceptualist are just realists or idealist or nominalists, depending on their view of concepts [Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
I classify conceptualists according to what they say about properties or concepts. If someone classified properties as existing independent of language I would classify her as a realist in ontology of mathematics. Or they may be idealists or nominalists.
|
|
From:
Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 2.2.1)
|
|
A reaction:
In other words, Shapiro wants to eliminate 'conceptualist' as a useful label in philosophy of mathematics. He's probably right. All thought involves concepts, but that doesn't produce a conceptualist theory of, say, football.
|
|
12759
|
There are atoms of substance, but no atoms of bulk or extension [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk [moles], that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §11)
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz has a constant battle for the rest of his career to explain what these 'atoms of substance' are, since they have location but no extension, they are self-sufficient yet generate force, and are non-physical but interact with matter.
|
|
12718
|
Secondary matter is active and complete; primary matter is passive and incomplete [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
I understand matter as either secondary or primary. Secondary matter is, indeed, a complete substance, but it is not merely passive; primary matter is merely passive, but it is not a complete substance. So we must add a soul or form...
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §12), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 4
|
|
A reaction:
It sounds as if primary matter is redundant, but Garber suggests that secondary matter is just the combination of primary matter with form.
|
|
11854
|
If there is some trace of God in things, that would explain their natural force [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the law of God does indeed leave some vestige of him expressed in things...then it must be granted that there is a certain efficacy residing in things, a form or force such as we usually designate by the name of nature, from which the phenomena follow.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §06)
|
|
A reaction:
I wouldn't rate this as a very promising theory of powers, but it seems to me important that Leibniz recognises the innate power in things as needing explanation. If you remove divine power, you are left with unexplained intrinsic powers.
|
|
12758
|
It is plausible to think substances contain the same immanent force seen in our free will [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we attribute an inherent force to our mind, a force acting immanently, then nothing forbids us to suppose that the same force would be found in other souls or forms, or, if you prefer, in the nature of substances.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §10)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the kind of bizarre idea that you are driven to, once you start thinking that God must have a will outside nature, and then that we have the same thing. Why shouldn't such a thing pop up all over the place? Only Leibniz spots the slippery slope.
|
|
19408
|
To say that nature or the one universal substance is God is a pernicious doctrine [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
To say that nature itself or the substance of all things is God is a pernicious doctrine, recently introduced into the world or renewed by a subtle or profane author.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
The dastardly profane author is, of course, Spinoza, whom Leibniz had met in 1676. The doctrine may be pernicious to religious orthodoxy, but to me it is rather baffling, since in my understanding nature and God have almost nothing in common.
|