73 ideas
17774 | Definitions make our intuitions mathematically useful [Mayberry] |
17773 | Proof shows that it is true, but also why it must be true [Mayberry] |
17795 | Set theory can't be axiomatic, because it is needed to express the very notion of axiomatisation [Mayberry] |
17796 | There is a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory [Mayberry] |
17800 | The misnamed Axiom of Infinity says the natural numbers are finite in size [Mayberry] |
17801 | The set hierarchy doesn't rely on the dubious notion of 'generating' them [Mayberry] |
17803 | Limitation of size is part of the very conception of a set [Mayberry] |
17786 | The mainstream of modern logic sees it as a branch of mathematics [Mayberry] |
17788 | First-order logic only has its main theorems because it is so weak [Mayberry] |
17791 | Only second-order logic can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism [Mayberry] |
17787 | Big logic has one fixed domain, but standard logic has a domain for each interpretation [Mayberry] |
17790 | No Löwenheim-Skolem logic can axiomatise real analysis [Mayberry] |
17779 | 'Classificatory' axioms aim at revealing similarity in morphology of structures [Mayberry] |
17778 | Axiomatiation relies on isomorphic structures being essentially the same [Mayberry] |
17780 | 'Eliminatory' axioms get rid of traditional ideal and abstract objects [Mayberry] |
17789 | No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete [Mayberry] |
17784 | Real numbers can be eliminated, by axiom systems for complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
17782 | Greek quantities were concrete, and ratio and proportion were their science [Mayberry] |
17781 | Real numbers were invented, as objects, to simplify and generalise 'quantity' [Mayberry] |
17799 | Cantor's infinite is an absolute, of all the sets or all the ordinal numbers [Mayberry] |
17797 | Cantor extended the finite (rather than 'taming the infinite') [Mayberry] |
17775 | If proof and definition are central, then mathematics needs and possesses foundations [Mayberry] |
17776 | The ultimate principles and concepts of mathematics are presumed, or grasped directly [Mayberry] |
17777 | Foundations need concepts, definition rules, premises, and proof rules [Mayberry] |
17804 | Axiom theories can't give foundations for mathematics - that's using axioms to explain axioms [Mayberry] |
17792 | 1st-order PA is only interesting because of results which use 2nd-order PA [Mayberry] |
17793 | It is only 2nd-order isomorphism which suggested first-order PA completeness [Mayberry] |
17794 | Set theory is not just first-order ZF, because that is inadequate for mathematics [Mayberry] |
17802 | We don't translate mathematics into set theory, because it comes embodied in that way [Mayberry] |
17805 | Set theory is not just another axiomatised part of mathematics [Mayberry] |
14334 | Modest realism says there is a reality; the presumptuous view says we can accurately describe it [Mumford] |
14306 | Anti-realists deny truth-values to all statements, and say evidence and ontology are inseparable [Mumford] |
14333 | Dispositions and categorical properties are two modes of presentation of the same thing [Mumford] |
14336 | Categorical predicates are those unconnected to functions [Mumford] |
14315 | Categorical properties and dispositions appear to explain one another [Mumford] |
14332 | There are four reasons for seeing categorical properties as the most fundamental [Mumford] |
14302 | A lead molecule is not leaden, and macroscopic properties need not be microscopically present [Mumford] |
14294 | Dispositions are attacked as mere regularities of events, or place-holders for unknown properties [Mumford] |
14310 | Dispositions are classifications of properties by functional role [Mumford] |
14317 | I say the categorical base causes the disposition manifestation [Mumford] |
14316 | If dispositions have several categorical realisations, that makes the two separate [Mumford] |
14313 | All properties must be causal powers (since they wouldn't exist otherwise) [Mumford] |
14318 | Intrinsic properties are just causal powers, and identifying a property as causal is then analytic [Mumford] |
14293 | Dispositions are ascribed to at least objects, substances and persons [Mumford] |
14326 | Unlike categorical bases, dispositions necessarily occupy a particular causal role [Mumford] |
14298 | Dispositions can be contrasted either with occurrences, or with categorical properties [Mumford] |
14314 | If dispositions are powers, background conditions makes it hard to say what they do [Mumford] |
14325 | Maybe dispositions can replace powers in metaphysics, as what induces property change [Mumford] |
14312 | Orthodoxy says dispositions entail conditionals (rather than being equivalent to them) [Mumford] |
14291 | Dispositions are not just possibilities - they are features of actual things [Mumford] |
14299 | There could be dispositions that are never manifested [Mumford] |
14323 | If every event has a cause, it is easy to invent a power to explain each case [Mumford] |
14328 | Traditional powers initiate change, but are mysterious between those changes [Mumford] |
14331 | Categorical eliminativists say there are no dispositions, just categorical states or mechanisms [Mumford] |
17785 | Real numbers as abstracted objects are now treated as complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
14295 | Many artefacts have dispositional essences, which make them what they are [Mumford] |
14309 | Truth-functional conditionals can't distinguish whether they are causal or accidental [Mumford] |
14311 | Dispositions are not equivalent to stronger-than-material conditionals [Mumford] |
14319 | Nomothetic explanations cite laws, and structural explanations cite mechanisms [Mumford] |
14342 | General laws depend upon the capacities of particulars, not the other way around [Mumford] |
14322 | If fragile just means 'breaks when dropped', it won't explain a breakage [Mumford] |
14320 | Subatomic particles may terminate explanation, if they lack structure [Mumford] |
14337 | Maybe dispositions can replace the 'laws of nature' as the basis of explanation [Mumford] |
14343 | To avoid a regress in explanations, ungrounded dispositions will always have to be posited [Mumford] |
14324 | Ontology is unrelated to explanation, which concerns modes of presentation and states of knowledge [Mumford] |
19216 | Propositions (such as 'that dog is barking') only exist if their items exist [Williamson] |
14344 | Natural kinds, such as electrons, all behave the same way because we divide them by dispositions [Mumford] |
14338 | In the 'laws' view events are basic, and properties are categorical, only existing when manifested [Mumford] |
14339 | Without laws, how can a dispositionalist explain general behaviour within kinds? [Mumford] |
14340 | It is a regularity that whenever a person sneezes, someone (somewhere) promptly coughs [Mumford] |
14341 | Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford] |
14345 | The necessity of an electron being an electron is conceptual, and won't ground necessary laws [Mumford] |
14307 | Some dispositions are so far unknown, until we learn how to manifest them [Mumford] |