39 ideas
| 18194 | 'Forcing' can produce new models of ZFC from old models [Maddy] |
| 18195 | A Large Cardinal Axiom would assert ever-increasing stages in the hierarchy [Maddy] |
| 18191 | Axiom of Infinity: completed infinite collections can be treated mathematically [Maddy] |
| 18193 | The Axiom of Foundation says every set exists at a level in the set hierarchy [Maddy] |
| 18169 | Axiom of Reducibility: propositional functions are extensionally predicative [Maddy] |
| 18168 | 'Propositional functions' are propositions with a variable as subject or predicate [Maddy] |
| 18171 | Cantor and Dedekind brought completed infinities into mathematics [Maddy] |
| 18190 | Completed infinities resulted from giving foundations to calculus [Maddy] |
| 18175 | For any cardinal there is always a larger one (so there is no set of all sets) [Maddy] |
| 18196 | An 'inaccessible' cardinal cannot be reached by union sets or power sets [Maddy] |
| 18172 | Infinity has degrees, and large cardinals are the heart of set theory [Maddy] |
| 18187 | Theorems about limits could only be proved once the real numbers were understood [Maddy] |
| 18182 | The extension of concepts is not important to me [Maddy] |
| 18177 | In the ZFC hierarchy it is impossible to form Frege's set of all three-element sets [Maddy] |
| 18164 | Frege solves the Caesar problem by explicitly defining each number [Maddy] |
| 18163 | Mathematics rests on the logic of proofs, and on the set theoretic axioms [Maddy] |
| 18185 | Unified set theory gives a final court of appeal for mathematics [Maddy] |
| 18183 | Set theory brings mathematics into one arena, where interrelations become clearer [Maddy] |
| 18186 | Identifying geometric points with real numbers revealed the power of set theory [Maddy] |
| 18184 | Making set theory foundational to mathematics leads to very fruitful axioms [Maddy] |
| 18188 | The line of rationals has gaps, but set theory provided an ordered continuum [Maddy] |
| 18207 | Maybe applications of continuum mathematics are all idealisations [Maddy] |
| 18204 | Scientists posit as few entities as possible, but set theorist posit as many as possible [Maddy] |
| 18167 | We can get arithmetic directly from HP; Law V was used to get HP from the definition of number [Maddy] |
| 18205 | The theoretical indispensability of atoms did not at first convince scientists that they were real [Maddy] |
| 19553 | Commitment to 'I have a hand' only makes sense in a context where it has been doubted [Hawthorne] |
| 19551 | How can we know the heavyweight implications of normal knowledge? Must we distort 'knowledge'? [Hawthorne] |
| 19552 | We wouldn't know the logical implications of our knowledge if small risks added up to big risks [Hawthorne] |
| 19554 | Denying closure is denying we know P when we know P and Q, which is absurd in simple cases [Hawthorne] |
| 18206 | Science idealises the earth's surface, the oceans, continuities, and liquids [Maddy] |
| 8388 | Causation is either direct realism, Humean reduction, non-Humean reduction or theoretical realism [Tooley] |
| 8389 | Causation distinctions: reductionism/realism; Humean/non-Humean states; observable/non-observable [Tooley] |
| 8393 | We can only reduce the direction of causation to the direction of time if we are realist about the latter [Tooley] |
| 8390 | Causation is directly observable in pressure on one's body, and in willed action [Tooley] |
| 8392 | Probabilist laws are compatible with effects always or never happening [Tooley] |
| 8399 | The actual cause may not be the most efficacious one [Tooley] |
| 8391 | In counterfactual worlds there are laws with no instances, so laws aren't supervenient on actuality [Tooley] |
| 8394 | Explaining causation in terms of laws can't explain the direction of causation [Tooley] |
| 8398 | Causation is a concept of a relation the same in all worlds, so it can't be a physical process [Tooley] |