18 ideas
10807 | Mathematics reduces to set theory, which reduces, with some mereology, to the singleton function [Lewis] |
Full Idea: It is generally accepted that mathematics reduces to set theory, and I argue that set theory in turn reduces, with some aid of mereology, to the theory of the singleton function. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) |
10809 | We can accept the null set, but not a null class, a class lacking members [Lewis] |
Full Idea: In my usage of 'class', there is no such things as the null class. I don't mind calling some memberless thing - some individual - the null set. But that doesn't make it a memberless class. Rather, that makes it a 'set' that is not a class. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.05) | |
A reaction: Lewis calls this usage 'idiosyncratic', but it strikes me as excellent. Set theorists can have their vital null class, and sensible people can be left to say, with Lewis, that classes of things must have members. |
10811 | The null set plays the role of last resort, for class abstracts and for existence [Lewis] |
Full Idea: The null set serves two useful purposes. It is a denotation of last resort for class abstracts that denote no nonempty class. And it is an individual of last resort: we can count on its existence, and fearlessly build the hierarchy of sets from it. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.09) | |
A reaction: This passage assuages my major reservation about the existence of the null set, but at the expense of confirming that it must be taken as an entirely fictional entity. |
10812 | The null set is not a little speck of sheer nothingness, a black hole in Reality [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Should we accept the null set as a most extraordinary individual, a little speck of sheer nothingness, a sort of black hole in the fabric of Reality itself? Not that either, I think. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.09) | |
A reaction: Correct! |
10813 | What on earth is the relationship between a singleton and an element? [Lewis] |
Full Idea: A new student of set theory has just one thing, the element, and he has another single thing, the singleton, and not the slightest guidance about what one thing has to do with the other. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.12) |
10814 | Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.13) |
10806 | Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification to mereology [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification, as advocated by George Boolos, to the language of mereology. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) |
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. |
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. |
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. |
10816 | We can use mereology to simulate quantification over relations [Lewis] |
Full Idea: We can simulate quantification over relations using megethology. Roughly, a quantifier over relations is a plural quantifier over things that encode ordered pairs by mereological means. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.18) | |
A reaction: [He credits this idea to Burgess and Haven] The point is to avoid second-order logic, which quantifies over relations as ordered n-tuple sets. |
10808 | Mathematics is generalisations about singleton functions [Lewis] |
Full Idea: We can take the theory of singleton functions, and hence set theory, and hence mathematics, to consist of generalisations about all singleton functions. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) | |
A reaction: At first glance this sounds like a fancy version of the somewhat discredited Greek idea that mathematics is built on the concept of a 'unit'. |
10815 | We don't need 'abstract structures' to have structural truths about successor functions [Lewis] |
Full Idea: We needn't believe in 'abstract structures' to have general structural truths about all successor functions. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.16) |
6900 | A prior understanding of beauty is needed to assert that the Form of the Beautiful is beautiful [Westaway] |
Full Idea: If it were asserted that the Form of the Beautiful was itself beautiful, such a statement would require a prior understanding of the concept of beauty, so would immediately lead to an infinite regress, so the Forms can't be self-predicating. | |
From: Luke Westaway (talk [2005]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: This is a nice clear statement of the mess that Plato gets himself into if he wants the Forms to be self-predicating. Clearly the Form of the Beautiful can't be beautiful, but must be that which gives other things their beauty. |
10810 | I say that absolutely any things can have a mereological fusion [Lewis] |
Full Idea: I accept the principle of Unrestricted Composition: whenever there are some things, no matter how many or how unrelated or how disparate in character they may be, they have a mereological fusion. ...The trout-turkey is part fish and part fowl. | |
From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.07) | |
A reaction: This nicely ducks the question of when things form natural wholes and when they don't, but I would have thought that that might be one of the central issues of metaphysicals, so I think I'll give Lewis's principle a miss. |
6956 | At what point does an object become 'whole'? [Westaway] |
Full Idea: At what point does an object become 'whole'? | |
From: Luke Westaway (talk [2005]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: This nice question strikes me as the central one in mereology. It is tempting to reply that the matter is entirely conventional, but there seems an obvious fact about something missing if one piece is absent from a jigsaw, or a cube is chipped. |
7335 | The Chinese Room should be able to ask itself questions in Mandarin [Westaway] |
Full Idea: If the Chinese Room is functionally equivalent to a Mandarin speaker, it ought to be able to ask itself questions in Mandarin (and it can't). | |
From: Luke Westaway (talk [2005]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: Searle might triumphantly say that this proves there is no understanding in the room, but the objection won't go away, because the room is presumably functionally equivalent to a speaker, and not just a mere translator (who might use mechanical tricks). |
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). |