20 ideas
17824 | The master science is physical objects divided into sets [Maddy] |
17825 | Set theory (unlike the Peano postulates) can explain why multiplication is commutative [Maddy] |
17826 | Standardly, numbers are said to be sets, which is neat ontology and epistemology [Maddy] |
17828 | Numbers are properties of sets, just as lengths are properties of physical objects [Maddy] |
17827 | Sets exist where their elements are, but numbers are more like universals [Maddy] |
17830 | Number theory doesn't 'reduce' to set theory, because sets have number properties [Maddy] |
17823 | If mathematical objects exist, how can we know them, and which objects are they? [Maddy] |
17829 | Number words are unusual as adjectives; we don't say 'is five', and numbers always come first [Maddy] |
12790 | Generalisations must be invariant to explain anything [Leuridan] |
12789 | Biological functions are explained by disposition, or by causal role [Leuridan] |
14388 | Mechanisms must produce macro-level regularities, but that needs micro-level regularities [Leuridan] |
14386 | Mechanisms are ontologically dependent on regularities [Leuridan] |
12787 | Mechanisms can't explain on their own, as their models rest on pragmatic regularities [Leuridan] |
14384 | We can show that regularities and pragmatic laws are more basic than mechanisms [Leuridan] |
14389 | There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress of mechanisms and regularities [Leuridan] |
20422 | The experience of expression and communication are intermingled in art [Croce] |
14387 | Rather than dispositions, functions may be the element that brought a thing into existence [Leuridan] |
14382 | Pragmatic laws allow prediction and explanation, to the extent that reality is stable [Leuridan] |
14385 | Strict regularities are rarely discovered in life sciences [Leuridan] |
14383 | A 'law of nature' is just a regularity, not some entity that causes the regularity [Leuridan] |