116 ideas
| 9408 | Science studies phenomena, but only metaphysics tells us what exists [Mumford] |
| 9429 | Many forms of reasoning, such as extrapolation and analogy, are useful but deductively invalid [Mumford] |
| 10073 | There cannot be a set theory which is complete [Smith,P] |
| 10616 | Second-order arithmetic can prove new sentences of first-order [Smith,P] |
| 10075 | A 'partial function' maps only some elements to another set [Smith,P] |
| 10074 | A 'total function' maps every element to one element in another set [Smith,P] |
| 10612 | An argument is a 'fixed point' for a function if it is mapped back to itself [Smith,P] |
| 10076 | The 'range' of a function is the set of elements in the output set created by the function [Smith,P] |
| 10605 | Two functions are the same if they have the same extension [Smith,P] |
| 10615 | The Comprehension Schema says there is a property only had by things satisfying a condition [Smith,P] |
| 10595 | A 'theorem' of a theory is a sentence derived from the axioms using the proof system [Smith,P] |
| 10602 | A 'natural deduction system' has no axioms but many rules [Smith,P] |
| 10613 | No nice theory can define truth for its own language [Smith,P] |
| 10078 | An 'injective' ('one-to-one') function creates a distinct output element from each original [Smith,P] |
| 10077 | A 'surjective' ('onto') function creates every element of the output set [Smith,P] |
| 10079 | A 'bijective' function has one-to-one correspondence in both directions [Smith,P] |
| 10070 | If everything that a theory proves is true, then it is 'sound' [Smith,P] |
| 10086 | Soundness is true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system [Smith,P] |
| 10596 | A theory is 'sound' iff every theorem is true (usually from true axioms and truth-preservation) [Smith,P] |
| 10598 | A theory is 'negation complete' if it proves all sentences or their negation [Smith,P] |
| 10597 | 'Complete' applies both to whole logics, and to theories within them [Smith,P] |
| 10069 | A theory is 'negation complete' if one of its sentences or its negation can always be proved [Smith,P] |
| 10609 | Two routes to Incompleteness: semantics of sound/expressible, or syntax of consistency/proof [Smith,P] |
| 10080 | 'Effective' means simple, unintuitive, independent, controlled, dumb, and terminating [Smith,P] |
| 10087 | A theory is 'decidable' if all of its sentences could be mechanically proved [Smith,P] |
| 10088 | Any consistent, axiomatized, negation-complete formal theory is decidable [Smith,P] |
| 10081 | A set is 'enumerable' is all of its elements can result from a natural number function [Smith,P] |
| 10083 | A set is 'effectively enumerable' if a computer could eventually list every member [Smith,P] |
| 10084 | A finite set of finitely specifiable objects is always effectively enumerable (e.g. primes) [Smith,P] |
| 10085 | The set of ordered pairs of natural numbers <i,j> is effectively enumerable [Smith,P] |
| 10601 | The thorems of a nice arithmetic can be enumerated, but not the truths (so they're diffferent) [Smith,P] |
| 10600 | Being 'expressible' depends on language; being 'capture/represented' depends on axioms and proof system [Smith,P] |
| 10599 | For primes we write (x not= 1 ∧ ∀u∀v(u x v = x → (u = 1 ∨ v = 1))) [Smith,P] |
| 10610 | The reals contain the naturals, but the theory of reals doesn't contain the theory of naturals [Smith,P] |
| 10619 | The truths of arithmetic are just true equations and their universally quantified versions [Smith,P] |
| 10618 | All numbers are related to zero by the ancestral of the successor relation [Smith,P] |
| 10608 | The number of Fs is the 'successor' of the Gs if there is a single F that isn't G [Smith,P] |
| 10849 | Baby arithmetic covers addition and multiplication, but no general facts about numbers [Smith,P] |
| 10850 | Baby Arithmetic is complete, but not very expressive [Smith,P] |
| 10852 | Robinson Arithmetic (Q) is not negation complete [Smith,P] |
| 10851 | Robinson Arithmetic 'Q' has basic axioms, quantifiers and first-order logic [Smith,P] |
| 10068 | Natural numbers have zero, unique successors, unending, no circling back, and no strays [Smith,P] |
| 10603 | The logic of arithmetic must quantify over properties of numbers to handle induction [Smith,P] |
| 10848 | Multiplication only generates incompleteness if combined with addition and successor [Smith,P] |
| 10604 | Incompleteness results in arithmetic from combining addition and successor with multiplication [Smith,P] |
| 9427 | For Humeans the world is a world primarily of events [Mumford] |
| 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] |
| 10617 | The 'ancestral' of a relation is a new relation which creates a long chain of the original relation [Smith,P] |
| 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] |
| 9446 | Properties are just natural clusters of powers [Mumford] |
| 14316 | If dispositions have several categorical realisations, that makes the two separate [Mumford] |
| 14310 | Dispositions are classifications of properties by functional role [Mumford] |
| 14317 | I say the categorical base causes the disposition manifestation [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] |
| 14298 | Dispositions can be contrasted either with occurrences, or with categorical properties [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] |
| 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] |
| 9435 | A 'porridge' nominalist thinks we just divide reality in any way that suits us [Mumford] |
| 9447 | If properties are clusters of powers, this can explain why properties resemble in degrees [Mumford] |
| 18617 | Substances, unlike aggregates, can survive a change of parts [Mumford] |
| 14295 | Many artefacts have dispositional essences, which make them what they are [Mumford] |
| 12248 | How can we show that a universally possessed property is an essential property? [Mumford] |
| 18618 | Maybe possibilities are recombinations of the existing elements of reality [Mumford] |
| 18619 | Combinatorial possibility has to allow all elements to be combinable, which seems unlikely [Mumford] |
| 18620 | Combinatorial possibility relies on what actually exists (even over time), but there could be more [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] |
| 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] |
| 14320 | Subatomic particles may terminate explanation, if they lack structure [Mumford] |
| 14324 | Ontology is unrelated to explanation, which concerns modes of presentation and states of knowledge [Mumford] |
| 22745 | Pherecydes said the first principle and element is earth [Pherecydes, by Sext.Empiricus] |
| 14344 | Natural kinds, such as electrons, all behave the same way because we divide them by dispositions [Mumford] |
| 19068 | Causation interests us because we want to explain change [Mumford] |
| 9430 | Singular causes, and identities, might be necessary without falling under a law [Mumford] |
| 9445 | We can give up the counterfactual account if we take causal language at face value [Mumford] |
| 9443 | It is only properties which are the source of necessity in the world [Mumford] |
| 14338 | In the 'laws' view events are basic, and properties are categorical, only existing when manifested [Mumford] |
| 9444 | There are four candidates for the logical form of law statements [Mumford] |
| 14339 | Without laws, how can a dispositionalist explain general behaviour within kinds? [Mumford] |
| 14341 | Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford] |
| 9431 | Pure regularities are rare, usually only found in idealized conditions [Mumford] |
| 9441 | Regularity laws don't explain, because they have no governing role [Mumford] |
| 14340 | It is a regularity that whenever a person sneezes, someone (somewhere) promptly coughs [Mumford] |
| 9415 | Would it count as a regularity if the only five As were also B? [Mumford] |
| 9416 | Regularities are more likely with few instances, and guaranteed with no instances! [Mumford] |
| 9422 | If the best system describes a nomological system, the laws are in nature, not in the description [Mumford] |
| 9421 | The best systems theory says regularities derive from laws, rather than constituting them [Mumford] |
| 9432 | Laws of nature are necessary relations between universal properties, rather than about particulars [Mumford] |
| 9433 | If laws can be uninstantiated, this favours the view of them as connecting universals [Mumford] |
| 14345 | The necessity of an electron being an electron is conceptual, and won't ground necessary laws [Mumford] |
| 9434 | Laws of nature are just the possession of essential properties by natural kinds [Mumford] |
| 14307 | Some dispositions are so far unknown, until we learn how to manifest them [Mumford] |
| 9437 | To distinguish accidental from essential properties, we must include possible members of kinds [Mumford] |
| 9439 | The Central Dilemma is how to explain an internal or external view of laws which govern [Mumford] |
| 9412 | You only need laws if you (erroneously) think the world is otherwise inert [Mumford] |
| 9411 | There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton [Mumford] |
| 5883 | Pherecydes was the first to say that the soul is eternal [Pherecydes, by Cicero] |