14 ideas
| 23623 | Predicativism says only predicated sets exist [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Predicativists doubt the existence of sets with no predicative definition. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 02.3) | |
| A reaction: This would imply that sets which encounter paradoxes when they try to be predicative do not therefore exist. Surely you can have a set of random objects which don't fall under a single predicate? |
| 23624 | The iterative conception has to appropriate Replacement, to justify the ordinals [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The iterative conception justifies Power Set, but cannot justify a satisfactory theory of von Neumann ordinals, so ZFC appropriates Replacement from NBG set theory. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 09.9) | |
| A reaction: The modern approach to axioms, where we want to prove something so we just add an axiom that does the job. |
| 23625 | Limitation of Size justifies Replacement, but then has to appropriate Power Set [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The limitation of size conception of sets justifies the axiom of Replacement, but cannot justify Power Set, so NBG set theory appropriates the Power Set axiom from ZFC. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 09.9) | |
| A reaction: Which suggests that the Power Set axiom is not as indispensable as it at first appears to be. |
| 11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
| A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
| 12220 | Is it the sentence-token or the sentence-type that has a logical form? [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Do we attribute a logical form to a sentence token because it is a token of a type with that form, or do we attribute a logical form to a sentence type because it is a type of a token with that form? | |
| From: Kit Fine (Quine on Quantifying In [1990], p.110) | |
| A reaction: Since I believe in propositions (as the unambiguous thought that lies behind a sentence), I take it that logical form concerns propositions, though strict logicians don't like this, for fear that logic spills into psychology. |
| 11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
| 11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
| 23628 | The connective 'and' can have an order-sensitive meaning, as 'and then' [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The sentence connective 'and' also has an order-sensitive meaning, when it means something like 'and then'. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 10.4) | |
| A reaction: This is support the idea that orders are a feature of reality, just as much as possible concatenation. Relational predicates, he says, refer to series rather than to individuals. Nice point. |
| 23627 | 'Before' and 'after' are not two relations, but one relation with two orders [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The reason the two predicates 'before' and 'after' are needed is not to express different relations, but to indicate its order. Since there can be difference of order without difference of relation, the nature of relations is not the source of order. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 10.3) | |
| A reaction: This point is to refute Russell's 1903 claim that order arises from the nature of relations. Hossack claims that it is ordered series which are basic. I'm inclined to agree with him. |
| 12222 | Substitutional quantification is referential quantification over expressions [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Substitutional quantification may be regarded as referential quantification over expressions. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Quine on Quantifying In [1990], p.124) | |
| A reaction: This is an illuminating gloss. Does such quantification involve some ontological commitment to expressions? I feel an infinite regress looming. |
| 23626 | Transfinite ordinals are needed in proof theory, and for recursive functions and computability [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: The transfinite ordinal numbers are important in the theory of proofs, and essential in the theory of recursive functions and computability. Mathematics would be incomplete without them. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: Hossack offers this as proof that the numbers are not human conceptual creations, but must exist beyond the range of our intellects. Hm. |
| 23621 | Numbers are properties, not sets (because numbers are magnitudes) [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: I propose that numbers are properties, not sets. Magnitudes are a kind of property, and numbers are magnitudes. …Natural numbers are properties of pluralities, positive reals of continua, and ordinals of series. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Interesting! Since time can have a magnitude (three weeks) just as liquids can (three litres), it is not clear that there is a single natural property we can label 'magnitude'. Anything we can manage to measure has a magnitude. |
| 23622 | We can only mentally construct potential infinities, but maths needs actual infinities [Hossack] |
| Full Idea: Numbers cannot be mental objects constructed by our own minds: there exists at most a potential infinity of mental constructions, whereas the axioms of mathematics require an actual infinity of numbers. | |
| From: Keith Hossack (Knowledge and the Philosophy of Number [2020], Intro 2) | |
| A reaction: Doubt this, but don't know enough to refute it. Actual infinities were a fairly late addition to maths, I think. I would think treating fictional complete infinities as real would be sufficient for the job. Like journeys which include imagined roads. |
| 11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |