37 ideas
| 13152 | We can talk of 'innumerable number', about the infinite points on a line [Newton] |
| 9912 | There are no such things as numbers [Benacerraf] |
| 9901 | Numbers can't be sets if there is no agreement on which sets they are [Benacerraf] |
| 9151 | Benacerraf says numbers are defined by their natural ordering [Benacerraf, by Fine,K] |
| 13891 | To understand finite cardinals, it is necessary and sufficient to understand progressions [Benacerraf, by Wright,C] |
| 17904 | A set has k members if it one-one corresponds with the numbers less than or equal to k [Benacerraf] |
| 17906 | To explain numbers you must also explain cardinality, the counting of things [Benacerraf] |
| 9898 | We can count intransitively (reciting numbers) without understanding transitive counting of items [Benacerraf] |
| 17903 | Someone can recite numbers but not know how to count things; but not vice versa [Benacerraf] |
| 9897 | The application of a system of numbers is counting and measurement [Benacerraf] |
| 13151 | Not all infinites are equal [Newton] |
| 9900 | For Zermelo 3 belongs to 17, but for Von Neumann it does not [Benacerraf] |
| 9899 | The successor of x is either x and all its members, or just the unit set of x [Benacerraf] |
| 8697 | Disputes about mathematical objects seem irrelevant, and mathematicians cannot resolve them [Benacerraf, by Friend] |
| 8304 | No particular pair of sets can tell us what 'two' is, just by one-to-one correlation [Benacerraf, by Lowe] |
| 9906 | If ordinal numbers are 'reducible to' some set-theory, then which is which? [Benacerraf] |
| 9907 | If any recursive sequence will explain ordinals, then it seems to be the structure which matters [Benacerraf] |
| 9908 | The job is done by the whole system of numbers, so numbers are not objects [Benacerraf] |
| 9909 | The number 3 defines the role of being third in a progression [Benacerraf] |
| 9911 | Number words no more have referents than do the parts of a ruler [Benacerraf] |
| 8925 | Mathematical objects only have properties relating them to other 'elements' of the same structure [Benacerraf] |
| 9938 | How can numbers be objects if order is their only property? [Benacerraf, by Putnam] |
| 9910 | Number-as-objects works wholesale, but fails utterly object by object [Benacerraf] |
| 9903 | Number words are not predicates, as they function very differently from adjectives [Benacerraf] |
| 9904 | The set-theory paradoxes mean that 17 can't be the class of all classes with 17 members [Benacerraf] |
| 9905 | Identity statements make sense only if there are possible individuating conditions [Benacerraf] |
| 17488 | Empiricist theories are sets of laws, which give explanations and reductions [Glennan] |
| 17493 | Modern mechanism need parts with spatial, temporal and function facts, and diagrams [Glennan] |
| 17487 | Mechanistic philosophy of science is an alternative to the empiricist law-based tradition [Glennan] |
| 17489 | Mechanisms are either systems of parts or sequences of activities [Glennan] |
| 17490 | 17th century mechanists explained everything by the kinetic physical fundamentals [Glennan] |
| 17491 | Unlike the lawlike approach, mechanistic explanation can allow for exceptions [Glennan] |
| 17494 | Since causal events are related by mechanisms, causation can be analysed in that way [Glennan] |
| 15863 | The principles of my treatise are designed to fit with a belief in God [Newton] |
| 8340 | I do not pretend to know the cause of gravity [Newton] |
| 13150 | The motions of the planets could only derive from an intelligent agent [Newton] |
| 12178 | That gravity should be innate and essential to matter is absurd [Newton] |