45 ideas
| 17275 | Realist metaphysics concerns what is real; naive metaphysics concerns natures of things [Fine,K] |
| 17282 | Truths need not always have their source in what exists [Fine,K] |
| 17283 | If the truth-making relation is modal, then modal truths will be grounded in anything [Fine,K] |
| 17749 | Post proved the consistency of propositional logic in 1921 [Walicki] |
| 17765 | Propositional language can only relate statements as the same or as different [Walicki] |
| 17764 | Boolean connectives are interpreted as functions on the set {1,0} [Walicki] |
| 17752 | The empty set is useful for defining sets by properties, when the members are not yet known [Walicki] |
| 17753 | The empty set avoids having to take special precautions in case members vanish [Walicki] |
| 17759 | Ordinals play the central role in set theory, providing the model of well-ordering [Walicki] |
| 17741 | To determine the patterns in logic, one must identify its 'building blocks' [Walicki] |
| 17286 | Logical consequence is verification by a possible world within a truth-set [Fine,K] |
| 12394 | If the result is bad, we change the rule; if we like the rule, we reject the result [Goodman] |
| 17747 | A 'model' of a theory specifies interpreting a language in a domain to make all theorems true [Walicki] |
| 17748 | The L-S Theorem says no theory (even of reals) says more than a natural number theory [Walicki] |
| 17761 | A compact axiomatisation makes it possible to understand a field as a whole [Walicki] |
| 17763 | Axiomatic systems are purely syntactic, and do not presuppose any interpretation [Walicki] |
| 17758 | Ordinals are transitive sets of transitive sets; or transitive sets totally ordered by inclusion [Walicki] |
| 17755 | Ordinals are the empty set, union with the singleton, and any arbitrary union of ordinals [Walicki] |
| 17756 | The union of finite ordinals is the first 'limit ordinal'; 2ω is the second... [Walicki] |
| 17760 | Two infinite ordinals can represent a single infinite cardinal [Walicki] |
| 17757 | Members of ordinals are ordinals, and also subsets of ordinals [Walicki] |
| 17762 | In non-Euclidean geometry, all Euclidean theorems are valid that avoid the fifth postulate [Walicki] |
| 17754 | Inductive proof depends on the choice of the ordering [Walicki] |
| 17272 | 2+2=4 is necessary if it is snowing, but not true in virtue of the fact that it is snowing [Fine,K] |
| 17276 | If you say one thing causes another, that leaves open that the 'other' has its own distinct reality [Fine,K] |
| 17284 | An immediate ground is the next lower level, which gives the concept of a hierarchy [Fine,K] |
| 17285 | 'Strict' ground moves down the explanations, but 'weak' ground can move sideways [Fine,K] |
| 17288 | We learn grounding from what is grounded, not what does the grounding [Fine,K] |
| 17281 | If grounding is a relation it must be between entities of the same type, preferably between facts [Fine,K] |
| 17280 | Ground is best understood as a sentence operator, rather than a relation between predicates [Fine,K] |
| 17290 | Only metaphysical grounding must be explained by essence [Fine,K] |
| 17274 | Philosophical explanation is largely by ground (just as cause is used in science) [Fine,K] |
| 17278 | We can only explain how a reduction is possible if we accept the concept of ground [Fine,K] |
| 17287 | Facts, such as redness and roundness of a ball, can be 'fused' into one fact [Fine,K] |
| 14292 | Dispositions seem more ethereal than behaviour; a non-occult account of them would be nice [Goodman] |
| 17279 | Even a three-dimensionalist might identify temporal parts, in their thinking [Fine,K] |
| 17742 | Scotus based modality on semantic consistency, instead of on what the future could allow [Walicki] |
| 17273 | Each basic modality has its 'own' explanatory relation [Fine,K] |
| 17289 | Every necessary truth is grounded in the nature of something [Fine,K] |
| 18749 | Goodman argued that the confirmation relation can never be formalised [Goodman, by Horsten/Pettigrew] |
| 17646 | Goodman showed that every sound inductive argument has an unsound one of the same form [Goodman, by Putnam] |
| 17291 | We explain by identity (what it is), or by truth (how things are) [Fine,K] |
| 17271 | Is there metaphysical explanation (as well as causal), involving a constitutive form of determination? [Fine,K] |
| 17277 | If mind supervenes on the physical, it may also explain the physical (and not vice versa) [Fine,K] |
| 4794 | We don't use laws to make predictions, we call things laws if we make predictions with them [Goodman] |