18 ideas
| 10807 | Mathematics reduces to set theory, which reduces, with some mereology, to the singleton function [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is generally accepted that mathematics reduces to set theory, and I argue that set theory in turn reduces, with some aid of mereology, to the theory of the singleton function. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) |
| 10809 | We can accept the null set, but not a null class, a class lacking members [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In my usage of 'class', there is no such things as the null class. I don't mind calling some memberless thing - some individual - the null set. But that doesn't make it a memberless class. Rather, that makes it a 'set' that is not a class. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.05) | |
| A reaction: Lewis calls this usage 'idiosyncratic', but it strikes me as excellent. Set theorists can have their vital null class, and sensible people can be left to say, with Lewis, that classes of things must have members. |
| 10811 | The null set plays the role of last resort, for class abstracts and for existence [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The null set serves two useful purposes. It is a denotation of last resort for class abstracts that denote no nonempty class. And it is an individual of last resort: we can count on its existence, and fearlessly build the hierarchy of sets from it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.09) | |
| A reaction: This passage assuages my major reservation about the existence of the null set, but at the expense of confirming that it must be taken as an entirely fictional entity. |
| 10812 | The null set is not a little speck of sheer nothingness, a black hole in Reality [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Should we accept the null set as a most extraordinary individual, a little speck of sheer nothingness, a sort of black hole in the fabric of Reality itself? Not that either, I think. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.09) | |
| A reaction: Correct! |
| 10813 | What on earth is the relationship between a singleton and an element? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A new student of set theory has just one thing, the element, and he has another single thing, the singleton, and not the slightest guidance about what one thing has to do with the other. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.12) |
| 10814 | Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.13) |
| 10806 | Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification to mereology [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification, as advocated by George Boolos, to the language of mereology. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) |
| 10816 | We can use mereology to simulate quantification over relations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can simulate quantification over relations using megethology. Roughly, a quantifier over relations is a plural quantifier over things that encode ordered pairs by mereological means. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.18) | |
| A reaction: [He credits this idea to Burgess and Haven] The point is to avoid second-order logic, which quantifies over relations as ordered n-tuple sets. |
| 10808 | Mathematics is generalisations about singleton functions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can take the theory of singleton functions, and hence set theory, and hence mathematics, to consist of generalisations about all singleton functions. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) | |
| A reaction: At first glance this sounds like a fancy version of the somewhat discredited Greek idea that mathematics is built on the concept of a 'unit'. |
| 10815 | We don't need 'abstract structures' to have structural truths about successor functions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We needn't believe in 'abstract structures' to have general structural truths about all successor functions. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.16) |
| 14217 | The 'standard' view of relations is that they hold of several objects in a given order [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: The 'standard' view of relations, held by philosophers and logicians alike, is that we may meaningfully talk of a relation holding of several objects in a given order (which works for examples like 'loves' and 'between'). | |
| From: Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], Intro) | |
| A reaction: The point of Fine's paper is that there are many relations for which this model seems to fail. |
| 14216 | The 'positionalist' view of relations says the number of places is fixed, but not the order [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: The 'positionalist' view of relations is that each relation is taken to be endowed with a given number of argument places, or positions, in no specified order. [...The argument-places are specific entities, such as 'lover' and 'beloved'] | |
| From: Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Fine offers this as an alternative to the 'standard' view of relations, in which the order of the objects matters. He then adds, and favours, the 'anti-positionalist' view, where there are not even a fixed number of places. |
| 14218 | A block on top of another contains one relation, not both 'on top of' and 'beneath' [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: If block a is on block b, it is hard to see how this state of affairs might consist of both 'on top of' and 'beneath'. Surely if the state is a genuine relational complex, there must be a single relation for these relata? | |
| From: Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], 1) | |
| A reaction: He has already shown that if such relations imply their converses, then that gives you two separate relations. He goes on to observe that you cannot pick one of the two as correct, because of symmetry. He later offers the 'vertical placement' relation. |
| 14219 | Language imposes a direction on a road which is not really part of the road [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Roads in the directional sense (A-to-B or B-to-A) are merely roads in the adirectional sense up which a direction has been imposed. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], 1) | |
| A reaction: This is Fine's linguistic objection to the standard view of relations. It is undeniable that language imposes an order where it may not exist ('Bob and Jane play tennis'), and this fact is very significant in discussing relations. |
| 14220 | Explain biased relations as orderings of the unbiased, or the unbiased as permutation classes of the biased? [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: A 'biased' relation can be taken to be the result of imposing ordering on the argument-places of an unbiased relation, ..or we can take an unbiased relation to be a 'permutation class' of biased relations. This is a familiar metaphysic predicament. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], 3) | |
| A reaction: 'Biased' relations such as 'on top of' have an ordering to their places, but 'unbiased' relations such as 'vertical placement' do not. This is a nice question in the metaphysics of grounding relations between key concepts. |
| 10810 | I say that absolutely any things can have a mereological fusion [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I accept the principle of Unrestricted Composition: whenever there are some things, no matter how many or how unrelated or how disparate in character they may be, they have a mereological fusion. ...The trout-turkey is part fish and part fowl. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.07) | |
| A reaction: This nicely ducks the question of when things form natural wholes and when they don't, but I would have thought that that might be one of the central issues of metaphysicals, so I think I'll give Lewis's principle a miss. |
| 1748 | Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3 |
| 5989 | Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea. |