|
6343
|
For Russell, both propositions and facts are arrangements of objects, so obviously they correspond [Horwich on Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Given Russell's notion of a proposition, as an arrangement of objects and properties, it is hard to see how there could be any difference at all between such a proposition and the fact corresponding to it, since they each involve the same arrangement.
|
|
From:
comment on Bertrand Russell (On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood [1910]) by Paul Horwich - Truth (2nd edn) Ch.7.35
|
|
A reaction:
This seems a little unfair, given that Russell (in 1912) uses the notion now referred to as 'congruence', so that the correspondence is not in the objects and properties, but in how they are 'ordered', which may differ between proposition and fact.
|
|
7534
|
In 1906, Russell decided that propositions did not, after all, exist [Russell, by Monk]
|
|
Full Idea:
With a characteristic readiness to abandon views that he had previously considered definitively correct, Russell declared in 1906 that there were, after all, no such 'things' as propositions. It is judgements that are true or false.
|
|
From:
report of Bertrand Russell (On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood [1910]) by Ray Monk - Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude Ch.6
|
|
A reaction:
Written 1906. Russell developed a 'multiple relation theory of judgement'. But if a judgement is an assessment of truth or falsehood, what is it that is being assessed?
|
|
8412
|
A causal interaction is when two processes intersect, and correlated modifications persist afterwards [Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
When two processes intersect, and they undergo correlated modifications which persist after the intersection, I shall say that the intersection is a causal interaction. I take this as a fundamental causal concept.
|
|
From:
Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
There may be a problem individuating processes, just as there is for events. I like this approach to causation, which is ontologically sparse, and fits in with the scientific worldview. Change of properties sounds precise, but isn't. Stick to processes.
|
|
8413
|
Cause must come first in propagations of causal interactions, but interactions are simultaneous [Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
In a typical cause-effect situation (a 'propagation') cause must precede effect, for propagation over a finite time interval is an essential feature. In an 'interaction', an intersection of processes resulting in change, we have simultaneity.
|
|
From:
Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
This takes the direction of time as axiomatic, and quite right too. Salmon isn't addressing the real difficulty, though, which is that the resultant laws are usually held to be time-reversible, which is a bit of a puzzle.
|
|
8411
|
Instead of localised events, I take enduring and extended processes as basic to causation [Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
I propose to approach causality by taking processes rather than events as basic entities. Events are relatively localised in space and time, while processes have much greater temporal duration, and, in many cases, much greater spatial extent.
|
|
From:
Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as an incredibly promising proposal, not just in our understanding of causation, but for our general metaphysics and understanding of nature. See Idea 4931, for example. Vague events and processes blend into one another.
|