75 ideas
| 14721 | Metaphysical enquiry can survive if its conclusions are tentative [Sider] |
| 8721 | An 'impredicative' definition seems circular, because it uses the term being defined [Friend] |
| 8680 | Classical definitions attempt to refer, but intuitionist/constructivist definitions actually create objects [Friend] |
| 3678 | Reductio ad absurdum proves an idea by showing that its denial produces contradiction [Friend] |
| 8705 | Anti-realists see truth as our servant, and epistemically contrained [Friend] |
| 8713 | In classical/realist logic the connectives are defined by truth-tables [Friend] |
| 8708 | Double negation elimination is not valid in intuitionist logic [Friend] |
| 8694 | Free logic was developed for fictional or non-existent objects [Friend] |
| 8665 | A 'proper subset' of A contains only members of A, but not all of them [Friend] |
| 8672 | A 'powerset' is all the subsets of a set [Friend] |
| 8677 | Set theory makes a minimum ontological claim, that the empty set exists [Friend] |
| 8666 | Infinite sets correspond one-to-one with a subset [Friend] |
| 8682 | Major set theories differ in their axioms, and also over the additional axioms of choice and infinity [Friend] |
| 8709 | The law of excluded middle is syntactic; it just says A or not-A, not whether they are true or false [Friend] |
| 8711 | Intuitionists read the universal quantifier as "we have a procedure for checking every..." [Friend] |
| 8675 | Paradoxes can be solved by talking more loosely of 'classes' instead of 'sets' [Friend] |
| 8674 | The Burali-Forti paradox asks whether the set of all ordinals is itself an ordinal [Friend] |
| 8667 | The 'integers' are the positive and negative natural numbers, plus zero [Friend] |
| 8668 | The 'rational' numbers are those representable as fractions [Friend] |
| 8670 | A number is 'irrational' if it cannot be represented as a fraction [Friend] |
| 8661 | The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction [Friend] |
| 8664 | Cardinal numbers answer 'how many?', with the order being irrelevant [Friend] |
| 8671 | The 'real' numbers (rationals and irrationals combined) is the Continuum, which has no gaps [Friend] |
| 8663 | Raising omega to successive powers of omega reveal an infinity of infinities [Friend] |
| 8662 | The first limit ordinal is omega (greater, but without predecessor), and the second is twice-omega [Friend] |
| 8669 | Between any two rational numbers there is an infinite number of rational numbers [Friend] |
| 8676 | Is mathematics based on sets, types, categories, models or topology? [Friend] |
| 8678 | Most mathematical theories can be translated into the language of set theory [Friend] |
| 8701 | The number 8 in isolation from the other numbers is of no interest [Friend] |
| 8702 | In structuralism the number 8 is not quite the same in different structures, only equivalent [Friend] |
| 8699 | Are structures 'ante rem' (before reality), or are they 'in re' (grounded in physics)? [Friend] |
| 8696 | Structuralist says maths concerns concepts about base objects, not base objects themselves [Friend] |
| 8695 | Structuralism focuses on relations, predicates and functions, with objects being inessential [Friend] |
| 8700 | 'In re' structuralism says that the process of abstraction is pattern-spotting [Friend] |
| 8681 | The big problem for platonists is epistemic: how do we perceive, intuit, know or detect mathematical facts? [Friend] |
| 8712 | Mathematics should be treated as true whenever it is indispensable to our best physical theory [Friend] |
| 8716 | Formalism is unconstrained, so cannot indicate importance, or directions for research [Friend] |
| 8706 | Constructivism rejects too much mathematics [Friend] |
| 8707 | Intuitionists typically retain bivalence but reject the law of excluded middle [Friend] |
| 14760 | Four-dimensionalism sees things and processes as belonging in the same category [Sider] |
| 14194 | Proper ontology should only use categorical (actual) properties, not hypothetical ones [Sider] |
| 8704 | Structuralists call a mathematical 'object' simply a 'place in a structure' [Friend] |
| 14745 | If sortal terms fix the kind and the persistence conditions, we need to know what kinds there are [Sider] |
| 14740 | If Tib is all of Tibbles bar her tail, when Tibbles loses her tail, two different things become one [Sider] |
| 14752 | Artists 'create' statues because they are essentially statues, and so lack identity with the lump of clay [Sider] |
| 14743 | The stage view of objects is best for dealing with coincident entities [Sider] |
| 14747 | 'Composition as identity' says that an object just is the objects which compose it [Sider] |
| 14757 | Mereological essentialism says an object's parts are necessary for its existence [Sider] |
| 14727 | Three-dimensionalists assert 'enduring', being wholly present at each moment, and deny 'temporal parts' [Sider] |
| 14738 | Some might say that its inconsistency with time travel is a reason to favour three-dimensionalism [Sider] |
| 14726 | Four-dimensionalists assert 'temporal parts', 'perduring', and being spread out over time [Sider] |
| 14728 | 4D says intrinsic change is difference between successive parts [Sider] |
| 14729 | 4D says each spatiotemporal object must have a temporal part at every moment at which it exists [Sider] |
| 14730 | Temporal parts exist, but are not prior building blocks for objects [Sider] |
| 14731 | Temporal parts are instantaneous [Sider] |
| 14758 | How can an instantaneous stage believe anything, if beliefs take time? [Sider] |
| 14762 | Four-dimensionalism says temporal parts are caused (through laws of motion) by previous temporal parts [Sider] |
| 14741 | The ship undergoes 'asymmetric' fission, where one candidate is seen as stronger [Sider] |
| 14754 | If you say Leibniz's Law doesn't apply to 'timebound' properties, you are no longer discussing identity [Sider] |
| 12432 | Explanation of necessity must rest on something necessary or something contingent [Hale] |
| 12434 | Why is this necessary, and what is necessity in general; why is this necessary truth true, and why necessary? [Hale] |
| 12435 | The explanation of a necessity can be by a truth (which may only happen to be a necessary truth) [Hale] |
| 12433 | If necessity rests on linguistic conventions, those are contingent, so there is no necessity [Hale] |
| 12436 | Concept-identities explain how we know necessities, not why they are necessary [Hale] |
| 14763 | Counterparts rest on similarity, so there are many such relations in different contexts [Sider] |
| 8685 | Studying biology presumes the laws of chemistry, and it could never contradict them [Friend] |
| 8688 | Concepts can be presented extensionally (as objects) or intensionally (as a characterization) [Friend] |
| 14725 | Maybe motion is a dynamical quantity intrinsic to a thing at a particular time [Sider] |
| 14735 | Space is 3D and lacks a direction; time seems connected to causation [Sider] |
| 14722 | Between presentism and eternalism is the 'growing block' view - the past is real, the future is not [Sider] |
| 14756 | For Presentists there must always be a temporal vantage point for any description [Sider] |
| 14724 | Presentists must deny truths about multiple times [Sider] |
| 14723 | Talk using tenses can be eliminated, by reducing it to indexical connections for an utterance [Sider] |
| 14736 | The B-theory is adequate, except that it omits to say which time is present [Sider] |
| 14734 | The B-series involves eternalism, and the reduction of tense [Sider] |