98 ideas
| 10237 | Coherence is a primitive, intuitive notion, not reduced to something formal [Shapiro] |
| 10204 | An 'implicit definition' gives a direct description of the relations of an entity [Shapiro] |
| 10206 | Modal operators are usually treated as quantifiers [Shapiro] |
| 10208 | Axiom of Choice: some function has a value for every set in a given set [Shapiro] |
| 10252 | The Axiom of Choice seems to license an infinite amount of choosing [Shapiro] |
| 10207 | Anti-realists reject set theory [Shapiro] |
| 10259 | The two standard explanations of consequence are semantic (in models) and deductive [Shapiro] |
| 10257 | Intuitionism only sanctions modus ponens if all three components are proved [Shapiro] |
| 10253 | Either logic determines objects, or objects determine logic, or they are separate [Shapiro] |
| 10251 | The law of excluded middle might be seen as a principle of omniscience [Shapiro] |
| 10212 | Classical connectives differ from their ordinary language counterparts; '∧' is timeless, unlike 'and' [Shapiro] |
| 10209 | A function is just an arbitrary correspondence between collections [Shapiro] |
| 10268 | Maybe plural quantifiers should be understood in terms of classes or sets [Shapiro] |
| 10235 | A sentence is 'satisfiable' if it has a model [Shapiro] |
| 10240 | Model theory deals with relations, reference and extensions [Shapiro] |
| 10239 | The central notion of model theory is the relation of 'satisfaction' [Shapiro] |
| 10214 | Theory ontology is never complete, but is only determined 'up to isomorphism' [Shapiro] |
| 10238 | The set-theoretical hierarchy contains as many isomorphism types as possible [Shapiro] |
| 10234 | Any theory with an infinite model has a model of every infinite cardinality [Shapiro] |
| 10201 | Virtually all of mathematics can be modeled in set theory [Shapiro] |
| 10213 | Real numbers are thought of as either Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts [Shapiro] |
| 18243 | Understanding the real-number structure is knowing usage of the axiomatic language of analysis [Shapiro] |
| 18245 | Cuts are made by the smallest upper or largest lower number, some of them not rational [Shapiro] |
| 10236 | There is no grounding for mathematics that is more secure than mathematics [Shapiro] |
| 10256 | For intuitionists, proof is inherently informal [Shapiro] |
| 10202 | Natural numbers just need an initial object, successors, and an induction principle [Shapiro] |
| 10205 | Mathematics originally concerned the continuous (geometry) and the discrete (arithmetic) [Shapiro] |
| 10222 | Mathematical foundations may not be sets; categories are a popular rival [Shapiro] |
| 10218 | Baseball positions and chess pieces depend entirely on context [Shapiro] |
| 10224 | The even numbers have the natural-number structure, with 6 playing the role of 3 [Shapiro] |
| 10228 | Could infinite structures be apprehended by pattern recognition? [Shapiro] |
| 10230 | The 4-pattern is the structure common to all collections of four objects [Shapiro] |
| 10249 | The main mathematical structures are algebraic, ordered, and topological [Shapiro] |
| 10273 | Some structures are exemplified by both abstract and concrete [Shapiro] |
| 10276 | Mathematical structures are defined by axioms, or in set theory [Shapiro] |
| 10270 | The main versions of structuralism are all definitionally equivalent [Shapiro] |
| 10221 | Is there is no more to structures than the systems that exemplify them? [Shapiro] |
| 10248 | Number statements are generalizations about number sequences, and are bound variables [Shapiro] |
| 10220 | Because one structure exemplifies several systems, a structure is a one-over-many [Shapiro] |
| 10223 | There is no 'structure of all structures', just as there is no set of all sets [Shapiro] |
| 8703 | Shapiro's structuralism says model theory (comparing structures) is the essence of mathematics [Shapiro, by Friend] |
| 10274 | Does someone using small numbers really need to know the infinite structure of arithmetic? [Shapiro] |
| 10200 | We distinguish realism 'in ontology' (for objects), and 'in truth-value' (for being either true or false) [Shapiro] |
| 10210 | If mathematical objects are accepted, then a number of standard principles will follow [Shapiro] |
| 10215 | Platonists claim we can state the essence of a number without reference to the others [Shapiro] |
| 10233 | Platonism must accept that the Peano Axioms could all be false [Shapiro] |
| 10244 | Intuition is an outright hindrance to five-dimensional geometry [Shapiro] |
| 10280 | A stone is a position in some pattern, and can be viewed as an object, or as a location [Shapiro] |
| 10254 | Can the ideal constructor also destroy objects? [Shapiro] |
| 10255 | Presumably nothing can block a possible dynamic operation? [Shapiro] |
| 10279 | Can we discover whether a deck is fifty-two cards, or a person is time-slices or molecules? [Shapiro] |
| 10227 | The abstract/concrete boundary now seems blurred, and would need a defence [Shapiro] |
| 10226 | Mathematicians regard arithmetic as concrete, and group theory as abstract [Shapiro] |
| 10262 | Fictionalism eschews the abstract, but it still needs the possible (without model theory) [Shapiro] |
| 10277 | Structuralism blurs the distinction between mathematical and ordinary objects [Shapiro] |
| 16185 | Causality indicates which properties are real [Cartwright,N] |
| 15435 | If you think universals are immanent, you must believe them to be sparse, and not every related predicate [Lewis] |
| 15451 | I assume there could be natural properties that are not instantiated in our world [Lewis] |
| 15433 | Tropes are particular properties, which cannot recur, but can be exact duplicates [Lewis] |
| 15436 | Universals are meant to give an account of resemblance [Lewis] |
| 15438 | We can add a primitive natural/unnatural distinction to class nominalism [Lewis] |
| 10272 | The notion of 'object' is at least partially structural and mathematical [Shapiro] |
| 10275 | A blurry border is still a border [Shapiro] |
| 15448 | The 'magical' view of structural universals says they are atoms, even though they have parts [Lewis] |
| 15449 | If 'methane' is an atomic structural universal, it has nothing to connect it to its carbon universals [Lewis] |
| 15439 | The 'pictorial' view of structural universals says they are wholes made of universals as parts [Lewis] |
| 15441 | The structural universal 'methane' needs the universal 'hydrogen' four times over [Lewis] |
| 15445 | Butane and Isobutane have the same atoms, but different structures [Lewis] |
| 15434 | Structural universals have a necessary connection to the universals forming its parts [Lewis] |
| 15437 | We can't get rid of structural universals if there are no simple universals [Lewis] |
| 15446 | Composition is not just making new things from old; there are too many counterexamples [Lewis] |
| 15440 | A whole is distinct from its parts, but is not a further addition in ontology [Lewis] |
| 15444 | Different things (a toy house and toy car) can be made of the same parts at different times [Lewis] |
| 10258 | Logical modalities may be acceptable, because they are reducible to satisfaction in models [Shapiro] |
| 10266 | Why does the 'myth' of possible worlds produce correct modal logic? [Shapiro] |
| 16182 | Two main types of explanation are by causes, or by citing a theoretical framework [Cartwright,N] |
| 16184 | An explanation is a model that fits a theory and predicts the phenomenological laws [Cartwright,N] |
| 16167 | Laws get the facts wrong, and explanation rests on improvements and qualifications of laws [Cartwright,N] |
| 16169 | Laws apply to separate domains, but real explanations apply to intersecting domains [Cartwright,N] |
| 16176 | Covering-law explanation lets us explain storms by falling barometers [Cartwright,N] |
| 16177 | I disagree with the covering-law view that there is a law to cover every single case [Cartwright,N] |
| 16180 | You can't explain one quail's behaviour by just saying that all quails do it [Cartwright,N] |
| 16171 | The covering law view assumes that each phenomenon has a 'right' explanation [Cartwright,N] |
| 16183 | In science, best explanations have regularly turned out to be false [Cartwright,N] |
| 15450 | Maybe abstraction is just mereological subtraction [Lewis] |
| 10203 | We apprehend small, finite mathematical structures by abstraction from patterns [Shapiro] |
| 10229 | Simple types can be apprehended through their tokens, via abstraction [Shapiro] |
| 10217 | We can apprehend structures by focusing on or ignoring features of patterns [Shapiro] |
| 9554 | We can focus on relations between objects (like baseballers), ignoring their other features [Shapiro] |
| 15443 | Mathematicians abstract by equivalence classes, but that doesn't turn a many into one [Lewis] |
| 10231 | Abstract objects might come by abstraction over an equivalence class of base entities [Shapiro] |
| 16175 | A cause won't increase the effect frequency if other causes keep interfering [Cartwright,N] |
| 6781 | There are fundamental explanatory laws (false!), and phenomenological laws (regularities) [Cartwright,N, by Bird] |
| 16166 | Laws of appearances are 'phenomenological'; laws of reality are 'theoretical' [Cartwright,N] |
| 16179 | Good organisation may not be true, and the truth may not organise very much [Cartwright,N] |
| 16170 | To get from facts to equations, we need a prepared descriptions suited to mathematics [Cartwright,N] |
| 16181 | Simple laws have quite different outcomes when they act in combinations [Cartwright,N] |
| 16178 | There are few laws for when one theory meets another [Cartwright,N] |