49 ideas
9847 | A contextual definition permits the elimination of the expression by a substitution [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The standard sense of a 'contextual definition' permits the eliminating of the defined expression, by transforming any sentence containing it into an equivalent one not containing it. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.11) | |
A reaction: So the whole definition might be eliminated by a single word, which is not equivalent to the target word, which is embedded in the original expression. Clearly contextual definitions have some problems |
9570 | In Field's Platonist view, set theory is false because it asserts existence for non-existent things [Field,H, by Chihara] |
Full Idea: Field commits himself to a Platonic view of mathematics. The theorems of set theory are held to imply or presuppose the existence of things that don't in fact exist. That is why he believes that these theorems are false. | |
From: report of Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980]) by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics 11.1 | |
A reaction: I am sympathetic to Field, but this sounds wrong. A response that looks appealing is that maths is hypothetical ('if-thenism') - the truth is in the logical consequences, not in the ontological presuppositions. |
9820 | In classical logic, logical truths are valid formulas; in higher-order logics they are purely logical [Dummett] |
Full Idea: For sentential or first-order logic, the logical truths are represented by valid formulas; in higher-order logics, by sentences formulated in purely logical terms. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch. 3) |
10260 | Logical consequence is defined by the impossibility of P and ¬q [Field,H, by Shapiro] |
Full Idea: Field defines logical consequence by taking the notion of 'logical possibility' as primitive. Hence q is a consequence of P if the conjunction of the items in P with the negation of q is not possible. | |
From: report of Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 7.2 | |
A reaction: The question would then be whether it is plausible to take logical possibility as primitive. Presumably only intuition could support it. But then intuition will equally support natural and metaphysical possibilities. |
8958 | In Field's version of science, space-time points replace real numbers [Field,H, by Szabó] |
Full Idea: Field's nominalist version of science develops a version of Newtonian gravitational theory, where no quantifiers range over mathematical entities, and space-time points and regions play the role of surrogates for real numbers. | |
From: report of Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980]) by Zoltán Gendler Szabó - Nominalism 5.1 | |
A reaction: This seems to be a very artificial contrivance, but Field has launched a programme for rewriting science so that numbers can be omitted. All of this is Field's rebellion against the Indispensability Argument for mathematics. I sympathise. |
9896 | A prime number is one which is measured by a unit alone [Dummett] |
Full Idea: A prime number is one which is measured by a unit alone. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], 7 Def 11) | |
A reaction: We might say that the only way of 'reaching' or 'constructing' a prime is by incrementing by one till you reach it. That seems a pretty good definition. 64, for example, can be reached by a large number of different routes. |
18255 | Addition of quantities is prior to ordering, as shown in cyclic domains like angles [Dummett] |
Full Idea: It is essential to a quantitative domain of any kind that there should be an operation of adding its elements; that this is more fundamental thaat that they should be linearly ordered by magnitude is apparent from cyclic domains like that of angles. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], 22 'Quantit') |
9895 | A number is a multitude composed of units [Dummett] |
Full Idea: A number is a multitude composed of units. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], 7 Def 2) | |
A reaction: This is outdated by the assumption that 0 and 1 are also numbers, but if we say one is really just the 'unit' which is preliminary to numbers, and 0 is as bogus a number as i is, we might stick with the original Greek distinction. |
9852 | We understand 'there are as many nuts as apples' as easily by pairing them as by counting them [Dummett] |
Full Idea: A child understands 'there are just as many nuts as apples' as easily by pairing them off as by counting them. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.12) | |
A reaction: I find it very intriguing that you could know that two sets have the same number, without knowing any numbers. Is it like knowing two foreigners spoke the same words, without understanding them? Or is 'equinumerous' conceptually prior to 'number'? |
18221 | 'Metric' axioms uses functions, points and numbers; 'synthetic' axioms give facts about space [Field,H] |
Full Idea: There are two approaches to axiomatising geometry. The 'metric' approach uses a function which maps a pair of points into the real numbers. The 'synthetic' approach is that of Euclid and Hilbert, which does without real numbers and functions. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 5) |
9829 | The identity of a number may be fixed by something outside structure - by counting [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The identity of a mathematical object may sometimes be fixed by its relation to what lies outside the structure to which it belongs. It is more fundamental to '3' that if certain objects are counted, there are three of them. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch. 5) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as Dummett being pushed (by his dislike of the purely abstract picture given by structuralism) back to a rather empiricist and physical view of numbers, though he would totally deny that. |
9828 | Numbers aren't fixed by position in a structure; it won't tell you whether to start with 0 or 1 [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The number 0 is not differentiated from 1 by its position in a progression, otherwise there would be no difference between starting with 0 and starting with 1. That is enough to show that numbers are not identifiable just as positions in structures. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch. 5) | |
A reaction: This sounds conclusive, but doesn't feel right. If numbers are a structure, then where you 'start' seems unimportant. Where do you 'start' in St Paul's Cathedral? Starting sounds like a constructivist concept for number theory. |
8757 | The Indispensability Argument is the only serious ground for the existence of mathematical entities [Field,H] |
Full Idea: There is one and only one serious argument for the existence of mathematical entities, and that is the Indispensability Argument of Putnam and Quine. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], p.5), quoted by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 9.1 | |
A reaction: Personally I don't believe (and nor does Field) that this gives a good enough reason to believe in such things. Quine (who likes 'desert landscapes' in ontology) ends up believing that sets are real because of his argument. Not for me. |
18212 | Nominalists try to only refer to physical objects, or language, or mental constructions [Field,H] |
Full Idea: The most popular approach of nominalistically inclined philosophers is to try to reinterpret mathematics, so that its terms and quantifiers only make reference to, say, physical objects, or linguistic expressions, or mental constructions. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], Prelim) | |
A reaction: I am keen on naturalism and empiricism, but only referring to physical objects is a non-starter. I think I favour constructions, derived from the experience of patterns, and abstracted, idealised and generalised. Field says application is the problem. |
10261 | The application of mathematics only needs its possibility, not its truth [Field,H, by Shapiro] |
Full Idea: Field argues that to account for the applicability of mathematics, we need to assume little more than the possibility of the mathematics, not its truth. | |
From: report of Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 7.2 | |
A reaction: Very persuasive. We can apply chess to real military situations, provided that chess isn't self-contradictory (or even naturally impossible?). |
18218 | Hilbert explains geometry, by non-numerical facts about space [Field,H] |
Full Idea: Facts about geometric laws receive satisfying explanations, by the intrinsic facts about physical space, i.e. those laid down without reference to numbers in Hilbert's axioms. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 3) | |
A reaction: Hilbert's axioms mention points, betweenness, segment-congruence and angle-congruence (Field 25-26). Field cites arithmetic and geometry (as well as Newtonian mechanics) as not being dependent on number. |
9623 | Field needs a semantical notion of second-order consequence, and that needs sets [Brown,JR on Field,H] |
Full Idea: Field needs the notion of logical consequence in second-order logic, but (since this is not recursively axiomatizable) this is a semantical notion, which involves the idea of 'true in all models', a set-theoretic idea if there ever was one. | |
From: comment on Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], Ch.4) by James Robert Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics | |
A reaction: Brown here summarises a group of critics. Field was arguing for modern nominalism, that actual numbers could (in principle) be written out of the story, as useful fictions. Popper's attempt to dump induction seemed to need induction. |
18215 | It seems impossible to explain the idea that the conclusion is contained in the premises [Field,H] |
Full Idea: No clear explanation of the idea that the conclusion was 'implicitly contained in' the premises was ever given, and I do not believe that any clear explanation is possible. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 1) |
9876 | Set theory isn't part of logic, and why reduce to something more complex? [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The two frequent modern objects to logicism are that set theory is not part of logic, or that it is of no interest to 'reduce' a mathematical theory to another, more complex, one. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.18) | |
A reaction: Dummett says these are irrelevant (see context). The first one seems a good objection. The second one less so, because whether something is 'complex' is a quite different issue from whether it is ontologically more fundamental. |
18216 | Abstractions can form useful counterparts to concrete statements [Field,H] |
Full Idea: Abstract entities are useful because we can use them to formulate abstract counterparts of concrete statements. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 3) | |
A reaction: He defends the abstract statements as short cuts. If the concrete statements were 'true', then it seems likely that the abstract counterparts will also be true, which is not what fictionalism claims. |
18214 | Mathematics is only empirical as regards which theory is useful [Field,H] |
Full Idea: Mathematics is in a sense empirical, but only in the rather Pickwickian sense that is an empirical question as to which mathematical theory is useful. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 1) | |
A reaction: Field wants mathematics to be fictions, and not to be truths. But can he give an account of 'useful' that does not imply truth? Only in a rather dubiously pragmatist way. A novel is not useful. |
18210 | Why regard standard mathematics as truths, rather than as interesting fictions? [Field,H] |
Full Idea: Why regard the axioms of standard mathematics as truths, rather than as fictions that for a variety of reasons mathematicians have become interested in? | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], p.viii) |
9884 | The distinction of concrete/abstract, or actual/non-actual, is a scale, not a dichotomy [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The distinction between concrete and abstract objects, or Frege's corresponding distinction between actual and non-actual objects, is not a sharp dichotomy, but resembles a scale upon which objects occupy a range of positions. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.18) | |
A reaction: This might seem right if you live (as Dummett chooses to) in the fog of language, but it surely can't be right if you think about reality. Is the Equator supposed to be near the middle of his scale? Either there is an equator, or there isn't. |
9869 | Realism is just the application of two-valued semantics to sentences [Dummett] |
Full Idea: Fully fledged realism depends on - indeed, may be identified with - an undiluted application to sentences of the relevant kind of straightforwards two-valued semantics. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: This is the sort of account you get from a whole-heartedly linguistic philosopher. Personally I would say that Dummett has got it precisely the wrong way round: I adopt a two-valued semantics because my metaphysics is realist. |
18211 | You can reduce ontological commitment by expanding the logic [Field,H] |
Full Idea: One can often reduce one's ontological commitments by expanding one's logic. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], p.ix) | |
A reaction: I don't actually understand this idea, but that's never stopped me before. Clearly, this sounds like an extremely interesting thought, and hence I should aspire to understand it. So I do aspire to understand it. First, how do you 'expand' a logic? |
8959 | Field presumes properties can be eliminated from science [Field,H, by Szabó] |
Full Idea: Field regards the eliminability of apparent reference to properties from the language of science as a foregone result. | |
From: report of Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980]) by Zoltán Gendler Szabó - Nominalism 5.1 n50 | |
A reaction: Field is a nominalist who also denies the existence of mathematics as part of science. He has a taste for ontological 'desert landscapes'. I have no idea what a property really is, so I think he is on to something. |
9880 | Nominalism assumes unmediated mental contact with objects [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The nominalist superstition is based ultimately on the myth of the unmediated presentation of genuine concrete objects to the mind. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.18) | |
A reaction: Personally I am inclined to favour nominalism and a representative theory of perception, which acknowledges some 'mediation', but of a non-linguistic form. Any good theory here had better include animals, which seem to form concepts. |
9885 | The existence of abstract objects is a pseudo-problem [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The existence of abstract objects is a pseudo-problem. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.18) | |
A reaction: This remark follows after Idea 9884, which says the abstract/concrete distinction is a sliding scale. Personally I take the distinction to be fairly sharp, and it is therefore probably the single most important problem in the whole of human thought. |
9858 | Abstract objects nowadays are those which are objective but not actual [Dummett] |
Full Idea: Objects which are objective but not actual are precisely what are now called abstract objects. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: Why can there not be subjective abstract objects? 'My favourites are x, y and z'. 'I'll decide later what my favourites are'. 'I only buy my favourites - nothing else'. |
9859 | It is absurd to deny the Equator, on the grounds that it lacks causal powers [Dummett] |
Full Idea: If someone argued that assuming the existence of the Equator explains nothing, and it has no causal powers, so everything would be the same if it didn't exist, so we needn't accept its existence, we should gape at the crudity of the misunderstanding. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: Not me. I would gape if someone argued that latitude 55° 14' (and an infinity of other lines) exists for the same reasons (whatever they may be) that the Equator exists. A mode of description can't create an object. |
9860 | 'We've crossed the Equator' has truth-conditions, so accept the Equator - and it's an object [Dummett] |
Full Idea: 'We've crossed the Equator' is judged true if we are nearer the other Pole, so it not for philosophers to deny that the Earth has an equator, and we see that the Equator is not a concept or relation or function, so it must be classified as an object. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: A lovely example of linguistic philosophy in action (and so much the worse for that, I would say). A useful label here, I suggest (unoriginally, I think), is that we should label such an item a 'semantic object', rather than a real object in our ontology. |
9872 | Abstract objects need the context principle, since they can't be encountered directly [Dummett] |
Full Idea: To recognise that there is no objection in principle to abstract objects requires acknowledgement that some form of the context principle is correct, since abstract objects can neither be encountered nor presented. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.16) | |
A reaction: I take this to be an immensely important idea. I consider myself to be a philosopher of thought rather than a philosopher of language (Dummett's distinction, he being one of the latter). Thought connects to the world, but does it connect to abstracta? |
18213 | Abstract objects are only applicable to the world if they are impure, and connect to the physical [Field,H] |
Full Idea: To be able to apply any postulated abstract entities to the physical world, we need impure abstact entities, e.g. functions that map physical objects into pure abstract objects. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 1) | |
A reaction: I am a fan of 'impure metaphysics', and this pinpoints my reason very nicely. |
9848 | Content is replaceable if identical, so replaceability can't define identity [Dummett, by Dummett] |
Full Idea: Husserl says the only ground for assuming the replaceability of one content by another is their identity; we are therefore not entitled to define their identity as consisting in their replaceability. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.12 | |
A reaction: This is a direct challenge to Frege. Tricky to arbitrate, as it is an issue of conceptual priority. My intuition is with Husserl, but maybe the two are just benignly inerdefinable. |
9842 | Frege introduced criteria for identity, but thought defining identity was circular [Dummett] |
Full Idea: In his middle period Frege rated identity indefinable, on the ground that every definition must take the form of an identity-statement. Frege introduced the notion of criterion of identity, which has been widely used by analytical philosophers. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.10) | |
A reaction: The objection that attempts to define identity would be circular sounds quite plausible. It sounds right to seek a criterion for type-identity (in shared properties or predicates), but token-identity looks too fundamental to give clear criteria. |
18222 | Beneath every extrinsic explanation there is an intrinsic explanation [Field,H] |
Full Idea: A plausible methodological principle is that underlying every good extrinsic explanation there is an intrinsic explanation. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 5) | |
A reaction: I'm thinking that Hartry Field is an Aristotelian essentialist, though I bet he would never admit it. |
9849 | Maybe a concept is 'prior' to another if it can be defined without the second concept [Dummett] |
Full Idea: One powerful argument for a thesis that one notion is conceptually prior to another is the possibility of defining the first without reference to the second. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.12) | |
A reaction: You'd better check whether you can't also define the second without reference to the first before you rank their priority. And maybe 'conceptual priority' is conceptually prior to 'definition' (i.e. definition needs a knowledge of priority). Help! |
9850 | An argument for conceptual priority is greater simplicity in explanation [Dummett] |
Full Idea: An argument for conceptual priority is greater simplicity in explanation. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.12) | |
A reaction: One might still have to decide priority between two equally simple (or complex) concepts. I begin to wonder whether 'priority' has any other than an instrumental meaning (according to which direction you wish to travel - is London before Edinburgh?). |
9873 | Abstract terms are acceptable as long as we know how they function linguistically [Dummett] |
Full Idea: To recognise abstract terms as perfectly proper items of a vocabulary depends upon allowing that all that is necessary for the lawful introduction of a range of expressions into the language is a coherent account of how they are to function in sentences. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.16) | |
A reaction: Why can't the 'coherent account' of the sentences include the fact that there must be something there for the terms to refer to? How else are we to eliminate nonsense words which obey good syntactical rules? Cf. Idea 9872. |
9917 | 'Abstract' is unclear, but numbers, functions and sets are clearly abstract [Field,H] |
Full Idea: The term 'abstract entities' may not be entirely clear, but one thing that does seem clear is that such alleged entities as numbers, functions and sets are abstract. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], p.1), quoted by JP Burgess / G Rosen - A Subject with No Object I.A.1.a | |
A reaction: Field firmly denies the existence of such things. Sets don't seem a great problem, if the set is a herd of elephants, but the null and singleton sets show up the difficulties. |
9993 | There is no reason why abstraction by equivalence classes should be called 'logical' [Dummett, by Tait] |
Full Idea: Dummett uses the term 'logical abstraction' for the construction of the abstract objects as equivalence classes, but it is not clear why we should call this construction 'logical'. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991]) by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind n 14 | |
A reaction: This is a good objection, and Tait offers a much better notion of 'logical abstraction' (as involving preconditions for successful inference), in Idea 9981. |
9857 | We arrive at the concept 'suicide' by comparing 'Cato killed Cato' with 'Brutus killed Brutus' [Dummett] |
Full Idea: We arrive at the concept of suicide by considering both occurrences in the sentence 'Cato killed Cato' of the proper name 'Cato' as simultaneously replaceable by another name, say 'Brutus', and so apprehending the pattern common to both sentences. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This is intended to illustrate Frege's 'logical abstraction' technique, as opposed to wicked psychological abstraction. The concept of suicide is the pattern 'x killed x'. This is a crucial example if we are to understand abstraction... |
9833 | To abstract from spoons (to get the same number as the forks), the spoons must be indistinguishable too [Dummett] |
Full Idea: To get units by abstraction, units arrived at by abstraction from forks must the identical to that abstracted from spoons, with no trace of individuality. But if spoons can no longer be differentiated from forks, they can't differ from one another either. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch. 8) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Dummett makes the point better than Frege did. Can we 'think of a fork insofar as it is countable, ignoring its other features'? What are we left thinking of? Frege says it must still be the whole fork. 'Nice fork, apart from the colour'. |
9836 | Fregean semantics assumes a domain articulated into individual objects [Dummett] |
Full Idea: A Fregean semantics assumes a domain already determinately articulated into individual objects. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], Ch. 8) | |
A reaction: A more interesting criticism than most of Dummett's other challenges to the Frege/Davidson view. I am beginning to doubt whether the semantics and the ontology can ever be divorced from the psychology, of thought, interests, focus etc. |
19216 | Propositions (such as 'that dog is barking') only exist if their items exist [Williamson] |
Full Idea: A proposition about an item exists only if that item exists... how could something be the proposition that that dog is barking in circumstances in which that dog does not exist? | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Necessary Existents [2002], p.240), quoted by Trenton Merricks - Propositions | |
A reaction: This is a view of propositions I can't make sense of. If I'm under an illusion that there is a dog barking nearby, when there isn't one, can I not say 'that dog is barking'? If I haven't expressed a proposition, what have I done? |
18223 | In theories of fields, space-time points or regions are causal agents [Field,H] |
Full Idea: According to theories that take the notion of a field seriously, space-time points or regions are fully-fledge causal agents. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], n 23) |
18257 | Why should the limit of measurement be points, not intervals? [Dummett] |
Full Idea: By what right do we assume that the limit of measurement is a point, and not an interval? | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege philosophy of mathematics [1991], 22 'Quantit') |
18220 | Both philosophy and physics now make substantivalism more attractive [Field,H] |
Full Idea: In general, it seems to me that recent developments in both philosophy and physics have made substantivalism a much more attractive position than it once was. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 4) | |
A reaction: I'm intrigued as to what philosophical developments are involved in this. The arrival of fields is the development in physics. |
18219 | Relational space is problematic if you take the idea of a field seriously [Field,H] |
Full Idea: The problem of the relational view of space is especially acute in the context of physical theories that take the notion of a field seriously, e.g. classical electromagnetic theory. | |
From: Hartry Field (Science without Numbers [1980], 4) | |
A reaction: In the Leibniz-Clarke debate I sided with the Newtonian Clarke (defending absolute space), and it looks like modern science agrees with me. Nothing exists purely as relations. |