96 ideas
| 15169 | Metaphysics is clarifying how we speak and think (and possibly improving it) [Sidelle] |
| 15164 | We seem to base necessities on thought experiments and imagination [Sidelle] |
| 9535 | 'Contradictory' propositions always differ in truth-value [Lemmon] |
| 9511 | We write the conditional 'if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent)' as P→Q [Lemmon] |
| 9510 | That proposition that either P or Q is their 'disjunction', written P∨Q [Lemmon] |
| 9512 | We write the 'negation' of P (not-P) as ¬ [Lemmon] |
| 9513 | We write 'P if and only if Q' as P↔Q; it is also P iff Q, or (P→Q)∧(Q→P) [Lemmon] |
| 9514 | If A and B are 'interderivable' from one another we may write A -||- B [Lemmon] |
| 9509 | That proposition that both P and Q is their 'conjunction', written P∧Q [Lemmon] |
| 9508 | The sign |- may be read as 'therefore' [Lemmon] |
| 9516 | A 'well-formed formula' follows the rules for variables, ¬, →, ∧, ∨, and ↔ [Lemmon] |
| 9517 | The 'scope' of a connective is the connective, the linked formulae, and the brackets [Lemmon] |
| 9519 | A 'substitution-instance' is a wff formed by consistent replacing variables with wffs [Lemmon] |
| 9529 | A wff is 'inconsistent' if all assignments to variables result in the value F [Lemmon] |
| 9531 | 'Contrary' propositions are never both true, so that ¬(A∧B) is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9534 | Two propositions are 'equivalent' if they mirror one another's truth-value [Lemmon] |
| 9530 | A wff is 'contingent' if produces at least one T and at least one F [Lemmon] |
| 9532 | 'Subcontrary' propositions are never both false, so that A∨B is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9533 | A 'implies' B if B is true whenever A is true (so that A→B is tautologous) [Lemmon] |
| 9528 | A wff is a 'tautology' if all assignments to variables result in the value T [Lemmon] |
| 9518 | A 'theorem' is the conclusion of a provable sequent with zero assumptions [Lemmon] |
| 9398 | ∧I: Given A and B, we may derive A∧B [Lemmon] |
| 9397 | CP: Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B [Lemmon] |
| 9394 | MPP: Given A and A→B, we may derive B [Lemmon] |
| 9402 | RAA: If assuming A will prove B∧¬B, then derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9395 | MTT: Given ¬B and A→B, we derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9400 | ∨I: Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B [Lemmon] |
| 9401 | ∨E: Derive C from A∨B, if C can be derived both from A and from B [Lemmon] |
| 9396 | DN: Given A, we may derive ¬¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9393 | A: we may assume any proposition at any stage [Lemmon] |
| 9399 | ∧E: Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately [Lemmon] |
| 9521 | 'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says ¬P, P ∨ Q |- Q [Lemmon] |
| 9522 | 'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says P, ¬(P ∧ Q) |- ¬Q [Lemmon] |
| 9525 | We can change conditionals into negated conjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| 9524 | We can change conditionals into disjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬P ∨ Q [Lemmon] |
| 9523 | De Morgan's Laws make negated conjunctions/disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions/conjunctions [Lemmon] |
| 9527 | The Distributive Laws can rearrange a pair of conjunctions or disjunctions [Lemmon] |
| 9526 | We can change conjunctions into negated conditionals with P→Q -||- ¬(P → ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| 9537 | Truth-tables are good for showing invalidity [Lemmon] |
| 9538 | A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, but this won't work for more complex logic [Lemmon] |
| 9536 | If any of the nine rules of propositional logic are applied to tautologies, the result is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9539 | Propositional logic is complete, since all of its tautologous sequents are derivable [Lemmon] |
| 13909 | Write '(∀x)(...)' to mean 'take any x: then...', and '(∃x)(...)' to mean 'there is an x such that....' [Lemmon] |
| 13902 | 'Gm' says m has property G, and 'Pmn' says m has relation P to n [Lemmon] |
| 13911 | The 'symbols' are bracket, connective, term, variable, predicate letter, reverse-E [Lemmon] |
| 13910 | Our notation uses 'predicate-letters' (for 'properties'), 'variables', 'proper names', 'connectives' and 'quantifiers' [Lemmon] |
| 13904 | Universal Elimination (UE) lets us infer that an object has F, from all things having F [Lemmon] |
| 13906 | With finite named objects, we can generalise with &-Intro, but otherwise we need ∀-Intro [Lemmon] |
| 13908 | UE all-to-one; UI one-to-all; EI arbitrary-to-one; EE proof-to-one [Lemmon] |
| 13901 | Predicate logic uses propositional connectives and variables, plus new introduction and elimination rules [Lemmon] |
| 13903 | Universal elimination if you start with the universal, introduction if you want to end with it [Lemmon] |
| 13905 | If there is a finite domain and all objects have names, complex conjunctions can replace universal quantifiers [Lemmon] |
| 13900 | 'Some Frenchmen are generous' is rendered by (∃x)(Fx→Gx), and not with the conditional → [Lemmon] |
| 9520 | The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and ¬P |- P → Q [Lemmon] |
| 458 | Nothing could come out of nothing, and existence could never completely cease [Empedocles] |
| 5112 | Empedocles says things are at rest, unless love unites them, or hatred splits them [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
| 15180 | There doesn't seem to be anything in the actual world that can determine modal facts [Sidelle] |
| 13209 | There is no coming-to-be of anything, but only mixing and separating [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
| 15184 | Causal reference presupposes essentialism if it refers to modally extended entities [Sidelle] |
| 15172 | Clearly, essential predications express necessary properties [Sidelle] |
| 15181 | Being a deepest explanatory feature is an actual, not a modal property [Sidelle] |
| 15173 | That the essence of water is its microstructure is a convention, not a discovery [Sidelle] |
| 457 | Substance is not created or destroyed in mortals, but there is only mixing and exchange [Empedocles] |
| 15185 | We aren't clear about 'same stuff as this', so a principle of individuation is needed to identify it [Sidelle] |
| 15175 | Evaluation of de dicto modalities does not depend on the identity of its objects [Sidelle] |
| 15032 | Necessary a posteriori is conventional for necessity and nonmodal for a posteriority [Sidelle, by Sider] |
| 15179 | To know empirical necessities, we need empirical facts, plus conventions about which are necessary [Sidelle] |
| 15171 | The necessary a posteriori is statements either of identity or of essence [Sidelle] |
| 15167 | Empiricism explores necessities and concept-limits by imagining negations of truths [Sidelle] |
| 15177 | Contradictoriness limits what is possible and what is imaginable [Sidelle] |
| 15176 | The individuals and kinds involved in modality are also a matter of convention [Sidelle] |
| 15174 | A thing doesn't need transworld identity prior to rigid reference - that could be a convention of the reference [Sidelle] |
| 15183 | 'Dthat' operates to make a singular term into a rigid term [Sidelle] |
| 15165 | A priori knowledge is entirely of analytic truths [Sidelle] |
| 462 | One vision is produced by both eyes [Empedocles] |
| 22765 | Wisdom and thought are shared by all things [Empedocles] |
| 1524 | For Empedocles thinking is almost identical to perception [Empedocles, by Theophrastus] |
| 15168 | That water is essentially H2O in some way concerns how we use 'water' [Sidelle] |
| 15166 | Causal reference seems to get directly at the object, thus leaving its nature open [Sidelle] |
| 15182 | Because some entities overlap, reference must have analytic individuation principles [Sidelle] |
| 552 | Empedocles said good and evil were the basic principles [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
| 589 | 'Nature' is just a word invented by people [Empedocles] |
| 21823 | The principle of 'Friendship' in Empedocles is the One, and is bodiless [Empedocles, by Plotinus] |
| 2680 | Empedocles said that there are four material elements, and two further creative elements [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
| 6002 | Empedocles says bone is water, fire and earth in ratio 2:4:2 [Empedocles, by Inwood] |
| 13207 | Fire, Water, Air and Earth are elements, being simple as well as homoeomerous [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
| 459 | All change is unity through love or division through hate [Empedocles] |
| 13218 | The elements combine in coming-to-be, but how do the elements themselves come-to-be? [Aristotle on Empedocles] |
| 13225 | Love and Strife only explain movement if their effects are distinctive [Aristotle on Empedocles] |
| 460 | If the one Being ever diminishes it would no longer exist, and what could ever increase it? [Empedocles] |
| 15178 | Can anything in science reveal the necessity of what it discovers? [Sidelle] |
| 5090 | Maybe bodies are designed by accident, and the creatures that don't work are destroyed [Empedocles, by Aristotle] |
| 461 | God is a pure, solitary, and eternal sphere [Empedocles] |
| 466 | God is pure mind permeating the universe [Empedocles] |
| 1719 | In Empedocles' theory God is ignorant because, unlike humans, he doesn't know one of the elements (strife) [Aristotle on Empedocles] |
| 1522 | It is wretched not to want to think clearly about the gods [Empedocles] |