86 ideas
| 18835 | Logic doesn't have a metaphysical basis, but nor can logic give rise to the metaphysics [Rumfitt] |
| 21900 | Deleuze relies on Spinoza (immanence), Bergson (duration), and difference (Nietzsche) [May] |
| 18819 | The idea that there are unrecognised truths is basic to our concept of truth [Rumfitt] |
| 18826 | 'True at a possibility' means necessarily true if what is said had obtained [Rumfitt] |
| 18803 | Semantics for propositions: 1) validity preserves truth 2) non-contradition 3) bivalence 4) truth tables [Rumfitt] |
| 18814 | 'Absolute necessity' would have to rest on S5 [Rumfitt] |
| 18798 | It is the second-order part of intuitionistic logic which actually negates some classical theorems [Rumfitt] |
| 18799 | Intuitionists can accept Double Negation Elimination for decidable propositions [Rumfitt] |
| 18830 | Most set theorists doubt bivalence for the Continuum Hypothesis, but still use classical logic [Rumfitt] |
| 18843 | The iterated conception of set requires continual increase in axiom strength [Rumfitt] |
| 18836 | A set may well not consist of its members; the empty set, for example, is a problem [Rumfitt] |
| 18837 | A set can be determinate, because of its concept, and still have vague membership [Rumfitt] |
| 18845 | If the totality of sets is not well-defined, there must be doubt about the Power Set Axiom [Rumfitt] |
| 18815 | Logic is higher-order laws which can expand the range of any sort of deduction [Rumfitt] |
| 18804 | The case for classical logic rests on its rules, much more than on the Principle of Bivalence [Rumfitt] |
| 18805 | Classical logic rules cannot be proved, but various lines of attack can be repelled [Rumfitt] |
| 18827 | If truth-tables specify the connectives, classical logic must rely on Bivalence [Rumfitt] |
| 18813 | Logical consequence is a relation that can extended into further statements [Rumfitt] |
| 18808 | Normal deduction presupposes the Cut Law [Rumfitt] |
| 18840 | When faced with vague statements, Bivalence is not a compelling principle [Rumfitt] |
| 18802 | In specifying a logical constant, use of that constant is quite unavoidable [Rumfitt] |
| 18800 | Introduction rules give deduction conditions, and Elimination says what can be deduced [Rumfitt] |
| 18809 | Logical truths are just the assumption-free by-products of logical rules [Rumfitt] |
| 18807 | Monotonicity means there is a guarantee, rather than mere inductive support [Rumfitt] |
| 18842 | Maybe an ordinal is a property of isomorphic well-ordered sets, and not itself a set [Rumfitt] |
| 18834 | Infinitesimals do not stand in a determinate order relation to zero [Rumfitt] |
| 18846 | Cantor and Dedekind aimed to give analysis a foundation in set theory (rather than geometry) [Rumfitt] |
| 14562 | A process is unified as an expression of a collection of causal powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14541 | Events are essentially changes; property exemplifications are just states of affairs [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14553 | Weak emergence is just unexpected, and strong emergence is beyond all deduction [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14538 | Powers explain properties, causes, modality, events, and perhaps even particulars [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14555 | Powers offer no more explanation of nature than laws do [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14557 | Powers are not just basic forces, since they combine to make new powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14583 | Dispositionality is a natural selection function, picking outcomes from the range of possibilities [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14536 | We say 'power' and 'disposition' are equivalent, but some say dispositions are manifestable [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14584 | The simple conditional analysis of dispositions doesn't allow for possible prevention [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14582 | Might dispositions be reduced to normativity, or to intentionality? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14542 | If statue and clay fall and crush someone, the event is not overdetermined [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 18839 | An object that is not clearly red or orange can still be red-or-orange, which sweeps up problem cases [Rumfitt] |
| 18838 | The extension of a colour is decided by a concept's place in a network of contraries [Rumfitt] |
| 14535 | Pandispositionalists say structures are clusters of causal powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14561 | Perdurantism imposes no order on temporal parts, so sequences of events are contingent [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14579 | Dispositionality is the core modality, with possibility and necessity as its extreme cases [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14580 | Dispositions may suggest modality to us - as what might not have been, and what could have been [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 18816 | Metaphysical modalities respect the actual identities of things [Rumfitt] |
| 18825 | S5 is the logic of logical necessity [Rumfitt] |
| 14552 | Relations are naturally necessary when they are generated by the essential mechanisms of the world [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14578 | Possibility might be non-contradiction, or recombinations of the actual, or truth in possible worlds [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 18824 | Since possibilities are properties of the world, calling 'red' the determination of a determinable seems right [Rumfitt] |
| 18828 | If two possibilities can't share a determiner, they are incompatible [Rumfitt] |
| 14549 | Maybe truths are necessitated by the facts which are their truthmakers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 18821 | Possibilities are like possible worlds, but not fully determinate or complete [Rumfitt] |
| 18831 | Medieval logicians said understanding A also involved understanding not-A [Rumfitt] |
| 14585 | We have more than five senses; balance and proprioception, for example [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 18820 | In English 'evidence' is a mass term, qualified by 'little' and 'more' [Rumfitt] |
| 14576 | Smoking disposes towards cancer; smokers without cancer do not falsify this claim [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14551 | If causation were necessary, the past would fix the future, and induction would be simple [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14571 | The only full uniformities in nature occur from the essences of fundamental things [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14570 | Nature is not completely uniform, and some regular causes sometimes fail to produce their effects [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14569 | It is tempting to think that only entailment provides a full explanation [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14568 | A structure won't give a causal explanation unless we know the powers of the structure [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14556 | Strong emergence seems to imply top-down causation, originating in consciousness [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 18817 | We understand conditionals, but disagree over their truth-conditions [Rumfitt] |
| 18829 | The truth grounds for 'not A' are the possibilities incompatible with truth grounds for A [Rumfitt] |
| 21898 | For existentialists the present is empty without the pull of the future and weight of the past [May] |
| 21905 | Liberal theory starts from the governed, not from the governor [May] |
| 14566 | Causation by absence is not real causation, but part of our explanatory practices [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14577 | Causation may not be transitive. Does a fire cause itself to be extinguished by the sprinklers? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14563 | Causation is the passing around of powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14587 | We take causation to be primitive, as it is hard to see how it could be further reduced [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14533 | Causation doesn't have two distinct relata; it is a single unfolding process [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14558 | A collision is a process, which involves simultaneous happenings, but not instantaneous ones [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14559 | Does causation need a third tying ingredient, or just two that meet, or might there be a single process? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14565 | Sugar dissolving is a process taking time, not one event and then another [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14567 | Privileging one cause is just an epistemic or pragmatic matter, not an ontological one [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14537 | Coincidence is conjunction without causation; smoking causing cancer is the reverse [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14573 | Occasionally a cause makes no difference (pre-emption, perhaps) so the counterfactual is false [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14572 | Is a cause because of counterfactual dependence, or is the dependence because there is a cause? [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14574 | Cases of preventing a prevention may give counterfactual dependence without causation [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14539 | Nature can be interfered with, so a cause never necessitates its effects [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14550 | We assert causes without asserting that they necessitate their effects [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14546 | Necessary causation should survive antecedent strengthening, but no cause can always survive that [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14575 | A 'ceteris paribus' clause implies that a conditional only has dispositional force [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14548 | There may be necessitation in the world, but causation does not supply it [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14554 | Laws are nothing more than descriptions of the behaviour of powers [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 14564 | If laws are equations, cause and effect must be simultaneous (or the law would be falsified)! [Mumford/Anjum] |