78 ideas
15945 | Second-order set theory just adds a version of Replacement that quantifies over functions [Lavine] |
15914 | An 'upper bound' is the greatest member of a subset; there may be several of these, so there is a 'least' one [Lavine] |
15921 | Collections of things can't be too big, but collections by a rule seem unlimited in size [Lavine] |
15937 | Those who reject infinite collections also want to reject the Axiom of Choice [Lavine] |
15936 | The Power Set is just the collection of functions from one collection to another [Lavine] |
15899 | Replacement was immediately accepted, despite having very few implications [Lavine] |
15930 | Foundation says descending chains are of finite length, blocking circularity, or ungrounded sets [Lavine] |
15920 | Pure collections of things obey Choice, but collections defined by a rule may not [Lavine] |
15898 | The controversy was not about the Axiom of Choice, but about functions as arbitrary, or given by rules [Lavine] |
15919 | The 'logical' notion of class has some kind of definition or rule to characterise the class [Lavine] |
15900 | The iterative conception of set wasn't suggested until 1947 [Lavine] |
15931 | The iterative conception needs the Axiom of Infinity, to show how far we can iterate [Lavine] |
15932 | The iterative conception doesn't unify the axioms, and has had little impact on mathematical proofs [Lavine] |
15933 | Limitation of Size: if it's the same size as a set, it's a set; it uses Replacement [Lavine] |
15913 | A collection is 'well-ordered' if there is a least element, and all of its successors can be identified [Lavine] |
15926 | Second-order logic presupposes a set of relations already fixed by the first-order domain [Lavine] |
15934 | Mathematical proof by contradiction needs the law of excluded middle [Lavine] |
15907 | Mathematics is nowadays (thanks to set theory) regarded as the study of structure, not of quantity [Lavine] |
15942 | Every rational number, unlike every natural number, is divisible by some other number [Lavine] |
15922 | For the real numbers to form a set, we need the Continuum Hypothesis to be true [Lavine] |
18250 | Cauchy gave a necessary condition for the convergence of a sequence [Lavine] |
15904 | The two sides of the Cut are, roughly, the bounding commensurable ratios [Lavine] |
15912 | Counting results in well-ordering, and well-ordering makes counting possible [Lavine] |
15949 | The theory of infinity must rest on our inability to distinguish between very large sizes [Lavine] |
15947 | The infinite is extrapolation from the experience of indefinitely large size [Lavine] |
15940 | The intuitionist endorses only the potential infinite [Lavine] |
15909 | 'Aleph-0' is cardinality of the naturals, 'aleph-1' the next cardinal, 'aleph-ω' the ω-th cardinal [Lavine] |
15915 | Ordinals are basic to Cantor's transfinite, to count the sets [Lavine] |
15917 | Paradox: the class of all ordinals is well-ordered, so must have an ordinal as type - giving a bigger ordinal [Lavine] |
15918 | Paradox: there is no largest cardinal, but the class of everything seems to be the largest [Lavine] |
15929 | Set theory will found all of mathematics - except for the notion of proof [Lavine] |
15935 | Modern mathematics works up to isomorphism, and doesn't care what things 'really are' [Lavine] |
15928 | Intuitionism rejects set-theory to found mathematics [Lavine] |
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] |
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] |
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] |
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] |
6012 | We must choose in which of the virtues we wish to excel [Panaetius] |
6013 | Panaetius said we should live according to our natural starting-points [Panaetius, by Asmis] |
6014 | Panaetius identified courage with great-mindedness, preferring civic courage to military [Panaetius, by Asmis] |
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] |
14341 | Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford] |
14340 | It is a regularity that whenever a person sneezes, someone (somewhere) promptly coughs [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] |
5888 | Souls are born, since they are sensitive and inherited, so they must perish [Panaetius, by Cicero] |