103 ideas
| 13634 | Satisfaction is 'truth in a model', which is a model of 'truth' [Shapiro] |
| 13643 | Aristotelian logic is complete [Shapiro] |
| 13651 | A set is 'transitive' if contains every member of each of its members [Shapiro] |
| 13647 | Choice is essential for proving downward Löwenheim-Skolem [Shapiro] |
| 13631 | Are sets part of logic, or part of mathematics? [Shapiro] |
| 13654 | It is central to the iterative conception that membership is well-founded, with no infinite descending chains [Shapiro] |
| 13640 | Russell's paradox shows that there are classes which are not iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| 13666 | Iterative sets are not Boolean; the complement of an iterative set is not an iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| 13653 | 'Well-ordering' of a set is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation with a least element [Shapiro] |
| 13627 | There is no 'correct' logic for natural languages [Shapiro] |
| 13642 | Logic is the ideal for learning new propositions on the basis of others [Shapiro] |
| 13668 | Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic [Shapiro] |
| 13669 | Can one develop set theory first, then derive numbers, or are numbers more basic? [Shapiro] |
| 13667 | Skolem and Gödel championed first-order, and Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays championed higher-order [Shapiro] |
| 13662 | First-order logic was an afterthought in the development of modern logic [Shapiro] |
| 13624 | The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to logicism and the Hilbert programme, which failed [Shapiro] |
| 13660 | Maybe compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are desirable [Shapiro] |
| 13673 | The notion of finitude is actually built into first-order languages [Shapiro] |
| 15944 | Second-order logic is better than set theory, since it only adds relations and operations, and nothing else [Shapiro, by Lavine] |
| 13629 | Broad standard semantics, or Henkin semantics with a subclass, or many-sorted first-order semantics? [Shapiro] |
| 13650 | Henkin semantics has separate variables ranging over the relations and over the functions [Shapiro] |
| 13645 | In standard semantics for second-order logic, a single domain fixes the ranges for the variables [Shapiro] |
| 13649 | Completeness, Compactness and Löwenheim-Skolem fail in second-order standard semantics [Shapiro] |
| 13626 | Semantic consequence is ineffective in second-order logic [Shapiro] |
| 13637 | If a logic is incomplete, its semantic consequence relation is not effective [Shapiro] |
| 13632 | Finding the logical form of a sentence is difficult, and there are no criteria of correctness [Shapiro] |
| 13674 | We might reduce ontology by using truth of sentences and terms, instead of using objects satisfying models [Shapiro] |
| 13633 | 'Satisfaction' is a function from models, assignments, and formulas to {true,false} [Shapiro] |
| 13644 | Semantics for models uses set-theory [Shapiro] |
| 13636 | An axiomatization is 'categorical' if its models are isomorphic, so there is really only one interpretation [Shapiro] |
| 13670 | Categoricity can't be reached in a first-order language [Shapiro] |
| 13658 | Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: each satisfiable countable set always has countable models [Shapiro] |
| 13659 | Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: each infinite model has infinite models of all sizes [Shapiro] |
| 13648 | The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems show an explosion of infinite models, so 1st-order is useless for infinity [Shapiro] |
| 13675 | Substitutional semantics only has countably many terms, so Upward Löwenheim-Skolem trivially fails [Shapiro] |
| 13635 | 'Weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth; 'sound' if every deduction is a semantic consequence [Shapiro] |
| 13628 | We can live well without completeness in logic [Shapiro] |
| 13630 | Non-compactness is a strength of second-order logic, enabling characterisation of infinite structures [Shapiro] |
| 13646 | Compactness is derived from soundness and completeness [Shapiro] |
| 13661 | A language is 'semantically effective' if its logical truths are recursively enumerable [Shapiro] |
| 13641 | Complex numbers can be defined as reals, which are defined as rationals, then integers, then naturals [Shapiro] |
| 13676 | Only higher-order languages can specify that 0,1,2,... are all the natural numbers that there are [Shapiro] |
| 13677 | Natural numbers are the finite ordinals, and integers are equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals [Shapiro] |
| 13652 | The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set [Shapiro] |
| 13657 | First-order arithmetic can't even represent basic number theory [Shapiro] |
| 13656 | Some sets of natural numbers are definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic [Shapiro] |
| 13664 | Logicism is distinctive in seeking a universal language, and denying that logic is a series of abstractions [Shapiro] |
| 13625 | Mathematics and logic have no border, and logic must involve mathematics and its ontology [Shapiro] |
| 13663 | Some reject formal properties if they are not defined, or defined impredicatively [Shapiro] |
| 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] |
| 13638 | Properties are often seen as intensional; equiangular and equilateral are different, despite identity of objects [Shapiro] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 4316 | Either all action is rational, or reason dominates, or reason is only concerned with means [Cottingham] |
| 16427 | Presumably God can do anything which is logically possible [Chalmers] |