18 ideas
10653 | Maybe set theory need not be well-founded [Varzi] |
10648 | Mereology need not be nominalist, though it is often taken to be so [Varzi] |
10655 | Are there mereological atoms, and are all objects made of them? [Varzi] |
10659 | There is something of which everything is part, but no null-thing which is part of everything [Varzi] |
17818 | How many? must first partition an aggregate into sets, and then logic fixes its number [Yourgrau] |
17822 | Nothing is 'intrinsically' numbered [Yourgrau] |
17817 | Defining 'three' as the principle of collection or property of threes explains set theory definitions [Yourgrau] |
17815 | We can't use sets as foundations for mathematics if we must await results from the upper reaches [Yourgrau] |
17821 | You can ask all sorts of numerical questions about any one given set [Yourgrau] |
8978 | Events are made of other things, and are not fundamental to ontology [Bennett] |
10661 | 'Composition is identity' says multitudes are the reality, loosely composing single things [Varzi] |
10647 | Parts may or may not be attached, demarcated, arbitrary, material, extended, spatial or temporal [Varzi] |
10651 | If 'part' is reflexive, then identity is a limit case of parthood [Varzi] |
10649 | 'Part' stands for a reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive relation [Varzi] |
10654 | The parthood relation will help to define at least seven basic predicates [Varzi] |
10658 | Sameness of parts won't guarantee identity if their arrangement matters [Varzi] |
10652 | Conceivability may indicate possibility, but literary fantasy does not [Varzi] |
10364 | Facts are about the world, not in it, so they can't cause anything [Bennett] |