84 ideas
17774 | Definitions make our intuitions mathematically useful [Mayberry] |
17773 | Proof shows that it is true, but also why it must be true [Mayberry] |
17795 | Set theory can't be axiomatic, because it is needed to express the very notion of axiomatisation [Mayberry] |
17796 | There is a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory [Mayberry] |
17800 | The misnamed Axiom of Infinity says the natural numbers are finite in size [Mayberry] |
17801 | The set hierarchy doesn't rely on the dubious notion of 'generating' them [Mayberry] |
17803 | Limitation of size is part of the very conception of a set [Mayberry] |
17786 | The mainstream of modern logic sees it as a branch of mathematics [Mayberry] |
17788 | First-order logic only has its main theorems because it is so weak [Mayberry] |
17791 | Only second-order logic can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism [Mayberry] |
17787 | Big logic has one fixed domain, but standard logic has a domain for each interpretation [Mayberry] |
17790 | No Löwenheim-Skolem logic can axiomatise real analysis [Mayberry] |
17779 | 'Classificatory' axioms aim at revealing similarity in morphology of structures [Mayberry] |
17778 | Axiomatiation relies on isomorphic structures being essentially the same [Mayberry] |
17780 | 'Eliminatory' axioms get rid of traditional ideal and abstract objects [Mayberry] |
17789 | No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete [Mayberry] |
17784 | Real numbers can be eliminated, by axiom systems for complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
17782 | Greek quantities were concrete, and ratio and proportion were their science [Mayberry] |
17781 | Real numbers were invented, as objects, to simplify and generalise 'quantity' [Mayberry] |
17799 | Cantor's infinite is an absolute, of all the sets or all the ordinal numbers [Mayberry] |
17797 | Cantor extended the finite (rather than 'taming the infinite') [Mayberry] |
17775 | If proof and definition are central, then mathematics needs and possesses foundations [Mayberry] |
17776 | The ultimate principles and concepts of mathematics are presumed, or grasped directly [Mayberry] |
17777 | Foundations need concepts, definition rules, premises, and proof rules [Mayberry] |
17804 | Axiom theories can't give foundations for mathematics - that's using axioms to explain axioms [Mayberry] |
17792 | 1st-order PA is only interesting because of results which use 2nd-order PA [Mayberry] |
17793 | It is only 2nd-order isomorphism which suggested first-order PA completeness [Mayberry] |
17794 | Set theory is not just first-order ZF, because that is inadequate for mathematics [Mayberry] |
17802 | We don't translate mathematics into set theory, because it comes embodied in that way [Mayberry] |
17805 | Set theory is not just another axiomatised part of mathematics [Mayberry] |
2392 | Properties supervene if you can't have one without the other [Chalmers] |
2393 | Logical supervenience is when one set of properties must be accompanied by another set [Chalmers] |
2394 | Natural supervenience is when one set of properties is always accompanied by another set [Chalmers] |
2398 | Reduction requires logical supervenience [Chalmers] |
16048 | Physicalism says in any two physically indiscernible worlds the positive facts are the same [Chalmers, by Bennett,K] |
2401 | All facts are either physical, experiential, laws of nature, second-order final facts, or indexical facts about me [Chalmers] |
17785 | Real numbers as abstracted objects are now treated as complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
16424 | Strong metaphysical necessity allows fewer possible worlds than logical necessity [Chalmers] |
16425 | Metaphysical necessity is a bizarre, brute and inexplicable constraint on possibilities [Chalmers] |
16426 | How can we know the metaphysical impossibilities; the a posteriori only concerns this world [Chalmers] |
13956 | Kripke is often taken to be challenging a priori insights into necessity [Chalmers] |
13963 | Maybe logical possibility does imply conceivability - by an ideal mind [Chalmers] |
2407 | One can wrongly imagine two things being non-identical even though they are the same (morning/evening star) [Chalmers] |
2390 | We attribute beliefs to people in order to explain their behaviour [Chalmers] |
2397 | 'Perception' means either an action or a mental state [Chalmers] |
2422 | The structure of the retina has already simplified the colour information which hits it [Chalmers] |
1556 | By nature people are close to one another, but culture drives them apart [Hippias] |
2396 | Reductive explanation is not the be-all and the end-all of explanation [Chalmers] |
2426 | Why are minds homogeneous and brains fine-grained? [Chalmers] |
2391 | Can we be aware but not conscious? [Chalmers] |
2412 | Can we explain behaviour without consciousness? [Chalmers] |
2386 | Hard Problem: why brains experience things [Chalmers] |
2416 | What turns awareness into consciousness? [Chalmers] |
2423 | Going down the scale, where would consciousness vanish? [Chalmers] |
2403 | Nothing in physics even suggests consciousness [Chalmers] |
2400 | Is intentionality just causal connections? [Chalmers] |
2389 | Sometimes we don't notice our pains [Chalmers] |
2419 | Why should qualia fade during silicon replacement? [Chalmers] |
2402 | It seems possible to invert qualia [Chalmers] |
2415 | In blindsight both qualia and intentionality are missing [Chalmers] |
2414 | When distracted we can totally misjudge our own experiences [Chalmers] |
2409 | Maybe dualist interaction is possible at the quantum level? [Chalmers] |
2411 | Supervenience makes interaction laws possible [Chalmers] |
2424 | It is odd if experience is a very recent development [Chalmers] |
2413 | If I can have a zombie twin, my own behaviour doesn't need consciousness [Chalmers] |
2417 | Does consciousness arise from fine-grained non-reductive functional organisation? [Chalmers] |
2428 | Maybe the whole Chinese Room understands Chinese, though the person doesn't [Chalmers] |
2418 | The Chinese Mind doesn't seem conscious, but then nor do brains from outside [Chalmers] |
2406 | H2O causes liquidity, but no one is a dualist about that [Chalmers] |
2405 | Perhaps consciousness is physically based, but not logically required by that base [Chalmers] |
2395 | Zombies imply natural but not logical supervenience [Chalmers] |
9318 | Phenomenal consciousness is fundamental, with no possible nonphenomenal explanation [Chalmers, by Kriegel/Williford] |
2404 | Nothing external shows whether a mouse is conscious [Chalmers] |
2429 | Temperature (etc.) is agreed to be reducible, but it is multiply realisable [Chalmers] |
18403 | Indexicals may not be objective, but they are a fact about the world as I see it [Chalmers] |
14708 | Rationalist 2D semantics posits necessary relations between meaning, apriority, and possibility [Chalmers, by Schroeter] |
13958 | The 'primary intension' is non-empirical, and fixes extensions based on the actual-world reference [Chalmers] |
2399 | Meaning has split into primary ("watery stuff"), and secondary counterfactual meaning ("H2O") [Chalmers] |
13959 | The 'secondary intension' is determined by rigidifying (as H2O) the 'water' picked out in the actual world [Chalmers] |
13957 | Primary and secondary intensions are the a priori (actual) and a posteriori (counterfactual) aspects of meaning [Chalmers] |
13961 | We have 'primary' truth-conditions for the actual world, and derived 'secondary' ones for counterfactual worlds [Chalmers] |
13962 | Two-dimensional semantics gives a 'primary' and 'secondary' proposition for each statement [Chalmers] |
13960 | In two-dimensional semantics we have two aspects to truth in virtue of meaning [Chalmers] |
16427 | Presumably God can do anything which is logically possible [Chalmers] |