tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post5464294867269049920..comments2017-03-28T11:17:10.898+01:00Comments on M-Phi: A List of Achievements of Analytic MetaphysicsJeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-24836909501975251662016-01-22T14:52:38.656+00:002016-01-22T14:52:38.656+00:00Well post and its give good info and easy way to s...Well post and its give good info and easy way to solve the equation in Metaphysics thanks for sharing <a href="http://www.endocrinologyfellowship.net/endocrinology-fellowship-personal-statement-services/pediatric-endocrinology-fellowships-personal-statement/" rel="nofollow">sample personal statement for endocrinology fellowship</a> .Allen jeleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10312119051975318074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-70968807893073602322014-08-22T10:44:49.615+01:002014-08-22T10:44:49.615+01:00I would definitely also include the vast area of n...I would definitely also include the vast area of nonmonotonic reasoning/logic which has been investigated in applied logic and knowledge representation for 35 years. It may be called non-classical, but it is rather different from what is usually running under this heading (multivalued, paraconsistent, relevance, ... logics.). It includes inference notions where the addition of new premises may force the withdrawal of previous conclusions. It is a characteristic of plausible or autoepistemic inference. The loss of monotonicity can be partly compensated by imposing other principles, like cumulativity. Milesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-76303085573441760572013-06-11T17:39:41.897+01:002013-06-11T17:39:41.897+01:00Most of these achievements is better classified as...Most of these achievements is better classified as logic, instead metaphysics. Some were made in a metaphysical environment or discussion or motivation and in this sense they are also metaphysic. However, we do not need metaphysics in order to see the logical relevance of these achievements. Metaphysics works sometimes as motivation, but the logical achievements subsist by themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-15186554892008748442012-07-26T04:01:58.427+01:002012-07-26T04:01:58.427+01:00Hello Jamie, many thanks for the comments.
A coup...Hello Jamie, many thanks for the comments. <br />A couple of more recent posts may answer your questions.<br /><br />"But you also said your list was somewhat tongue in cheek, so I'm not sure which of your assertions, if any, were not made seriously."<br /><br />All of them. I am deadly serious. There are many more.<br />I give this list in a tongue in cheek way merely as a polite way of responding to the demand that parts of logic, mathematics and the foundations of science be "discontinued".Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-72691490945939184882012-07-21T22:51:48.538+01:002012-07-21T22:51:48.538+01:00Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for your helpful list.
To c...Hi Jeffrey,<br /><br />Thanks for your helpful list. <br /><br />To call something an achievement of analytic metaphysics is to suggest that: 1. the method used to arrive at the result is "analytic" in some sense and 2. that "analytic metaphysics" can appropriately take credit for having produced the result.<br /><br />What textual justification is there for interpreting Leibniz as having arrived at PII through conceptual analysis?<br /><br />(14) is a result in theoretical physics; if it counts as an achievement of analytic metaphysics, then what would prevent other results in theoretical physics from being similarly appropriated? <br /><br />(8) and (12) are mathematical achievements by mathematicians who did not understand what they were doing as "analytic metaphysics." Thus, metaphysics cannot appropriately take credit for their achievements.<br /><br />But you also said your list was somewhat tongue in cheek, so I'm not sure which of your assertions, if any, were not made seriously.Jamie Tzengnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-10643241538250869152012-07-19T17:31:21.197+01:002012-07-19T17:31:21.197+01:00Yes, I was thinking of saying when I wrote the pos...Yes, I was thinking of saying when I wrote the post that I probably needed some set theory to show that the relevant infinitary formulas are well-defined. <br />What makes me thinks it's wrong (or, at least, not quite right) is that the basic construction I give is quite simple; so if it were right, it would be an immediate result in infinitary logic folklore. Given that it doesn't seem to be, there must be something that goes wrong - with the set of inequations (i.e., the literals $v_i \neq v_j$, with $i \neq j$) when A is an uncountable structure.<br /><br />So, I'm now guessing that if $A$ is an uncountable set with $|A| = \kappa$, and we have a constant $\underline{a}$ for each $a \in A$, then given the set $\{\underline{a} \neq \underline{b} \mid a,b \in A \& a \neq b\}$ of inequations over distinct elements of $A$, then the infinitary conjunction $\bigwedge X$ along with the quantified infinitary disjunction $\forall x \bigvee_{a \in A}(x = \underline{a})$ doesn't fix the cardinality $\kappa$ uniquely.Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-7678033294302063882012-07-19T16:51:25.047+01:002012-07-19T16:51:25.047+01:00No, I don't know right off. But I see that Bel...No, I don't know right off. But I see that Bell's result applies to $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$, which would rule out infinite strings of quantifiers (which you make use of, if I remember correctly).Aldo Antonellihttp://aldo-antonelli.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-10583224450897382712012-07-19T16:43:28.425+01:002012-07-19T16:43:28.425+01:00Aldo, on the PS?
After you mentioned Scott's ...Aldo, on the PS? <br />After you mentioned Scott's isomorphism theorem, I had a look at the details: it's limited to countable structures in the language $L_{\omega_1, \omega}$, with finitely long sequences of quantifiers. And Bell's article on infinitary logic on SEP has the same restrictions, and he says, "we mention one further result which generalizes nicely to $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$ but to no other infinitary language", adding "the restriction to countable structures is essential because countability cannot in general be expressed by an $L_{\omega_1,\omega\}$-sentence."<br /><br />So that suggests that one doesn't get the general result I want, a sort of generalized Scott sentence - unless one introduces second-order variables. (Which is ok for my purposes.) It sounds reasonable, but I'm still not sure why though.<br /><br />Or do you know if we can get a Scott-like sentence of this kind I'm after without second-order variables?Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-50405511054059401392012-07-19T16:11:02.517+01:002012-07-19T16:11:02.517+01:00Why do you think that?Why do you think that?Aldo Antonellihttp://aldo-antonelli.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-5007840506647935652012-07-19T15:24:01.816+01:002012-07-19T15:24:01.816+01:00PS - I now think the infinitary sentence I mention...PS - I now think the infinitary sentence I mentioned in the eliminating relata post below doesn't work, but I'm not sure why.Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-28118250930433463602012-07-19T15:18:03.930+01:002012-07-19T15:18:03.930+01:00You mean the type T (yes, it belongs free concaten...You mean the type T (yes, it belongs free concatenation algebra over 'A' and 'B' ). <br />But I mean the token - i.e., the physical thing. Isn't the relation of its subtokens to the token parthood? So, e.g., take a token of 'ABA', say inscribed on a whiteboard. The token has parts which are tokens of 'A' and 'B': so the token t has three non-non-overlapping parts u1, u2, and u3, such that t is the fusion of all three, and u1 and u2 are tokens of 'A', and u2 is a token of 'B' (u2 also lies physically between u1 and u3.)<br /><br />But what is the set-theoretic account? Can one do this without referring to parts of the token? (I.e., the parts of the token that are tokens of primitive symbols.) I guess the question is whether one can define "t is a token of T" without using the notion "part of".<br /><br />(I spent a bit of time on creating an RSS feed.)Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-35144818644637841352012-07-19T14:54:58.410+01:002012-07-19T14:54:58.410+01:00You say:
"t is a token of T because the mere...You say:<br /><br />"t is a token of T because the mereological structure of the token".<br /><br />But I don't understand what is specifically mereological about this. It seems to be a general, if trivial, fact about the free concatenation algebra with two generators. And if you really wanted to reduce it to something else, the set-theoretic account seems just as good, perhaps better, than the mereological one.Aldo Antonellihttp://aldo-antonelli.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-41569975650410565762012-07-18T23:43:16.638+01:002012-07-18T23:43:16.638+01:00Thanks - from memory, I think it's mentioned i...Thanks - from memory, I think it's mentioned in the chapter "Second-order logic" in B&J, 3rd edition, 1989.<br /><br />The RW formula AX(Xy -> Xz) defines identity in any full second-order model; but in a Henkin model, and it doesn't not always succeed in defining identity (a Henkin model needn't contain all units sets).Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-38944335625437106912012-07-18T22:42:22.362+01:002012-07-18T22:42:22.362+01:00Definition 13.01 of PM.
I didn't know (remem...Definition 13.01 of PM. <br /><br />I didn't know (remember) about this being mentioned in B%J. Thanks.Frode Bjørdalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04756073127397438956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-45986586387705339672012-07-18T21:39:21.372+01:002012-07-18T21:39:21.372+01:00In the Prolegomena, Kant said something like we ar...In the Prolegomena, Kant said something like we are just as likely to stop doing metaphysics as we are likely to stop breathing. Interpret this in the most charitable manner as possible, and I think it expresses an important truth. Even if metaphysics---whatever it is---hasn't been put on the "secure path of a science" or made any achievements whatsoever, there is still the question of whether or not it is something we even could abandon. I'm imagining an idea here that echoes Quine on the indispensability of quantification over mathematical objects to [or for] our best scientific theories. If we think that certain philosophical domains [among others domains] are important or worth doing or lead to achievements or are needed for certain sciences, and if---a big if---metaphysical theories or metaphysical theorizing is indispensable to our best philosophical theories [or whatever], then won't we get the result that metaphysics cannot be abandoned without abandoning the whole lot [or the whole lot that it is indispensable to]? I think this is important because even if we do think we ought to abandon metaphysics, that is no argument that we can even achieve that end.CRanallihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01315313786621831511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-27628975189306672232012-07-18T19:34:13.170+01:002012-07-18T19:34:13.170+01:00Yes, you're right, I didn't.
I meant I kn...Yes, you're right, I didn't. <br />I meant I know the simplification, which I why I formulated it in the simplified manner. I'd thought it might be well-known when I wrote that article in 2005. It's mentioned in Boolos & Jeffrey somewhere, and there it's attributed to R&W.Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-74539536408906553302012-07-18T19:27:08.408+01:002012-07-18T19:27:08.408+01:00Andres, thanks for the question.
"There have ...Andres, thanks for the question.<br />"There have been theories of Mereology long before Analytic Metaphysics came on the scene, Aristotle's Mereology being obvious example."<br /><br />I agree, yes, mereology goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and forward through mediaeval metaphysics. There is a nice book on ancient mereology by Verity Harte ("Plato on Parts and Wholes"). However, this stuff strikes me as lacking in precision. <br />So, while I appreciate its history, I take the first major intellectual achievement here to be the formal working out of it by an analytic philosopher, Lesniewski, who hoped it would provide a surrogate for set theory. Lesniewski's student, Tarski worked on this area too. In this context, being a part of is intimately related to the subset relation on sets, to Boolean algebras in general, and to topology (that is, a certain collection of subsets of a base set X, satisfying closure conditions).<br />There are various applications of this sort of thing: Leonard, Goodman, Quine, Lewis and others.<br /><br />As an application, consider the finite sequences (words) over an alphabet {'a',‘b‘}, and consider the string token<br /><br />aaaabbbbbaaaabbbbbaaaaa<br /><br />I.e., I mean some token itself; imagine it is printed in ink. Call this t.<br />Then t is a token of the abstract type T <br /><br />('a','a','a','a','b','b','b','b','b','a','a','a','a','b','b','b','b','b','a','a','a','a','a')<br /><br />This type T is a word over {'a‘,‘b‘}. I.e., a finite sequence - a function f: {0, 1, ..., 23} -> {'a',‘b‘}.<br /><br />No one has worked out the precise details of the analysis of "t is token of type T" (but Linda Wetzel's "Types and Tokens" (2009) is very good). But it seems to be right to start with the suggestion that t is a token of T because the mereological structure of the token (relative to the properties of being a token of 'a' and being a token of 'b') is isomorphic to the sequence f.<br /><br />So, one can apply mereology to account for how mereologically structured expression tokens are instances of expression types.Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-1998236188410122312012-07-18T16:02:50.970+01:002012-07-18T16:02:50.970+01:00Jeffrey,
A quick question: could you say a bit mo...Jeffrey,<br /><br />A quick question: could you say a bit more about (9)? In what sense is Mereology an "achievement" of analytic Metaphysics? There have been theories of Mereology long before Analytic Metaphysics came on the scene, Aristotle's Mereology being obvious example. Could you elaborate more on this?Andres Ruizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08220029097881242056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-2908622750704625092012-07-18T15:45:56.947+01:002012-07-18T15:45:56.947+01:00But this does not attribute the simplification to ...But this does not attribute the simplification to Russell or Whitehead.Frode Bjørdalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04756073127397438956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-10082468330359669712012-07-18T11:19:07.537+01:002012-07-18T11:19:07.537+01:00Topics (21) and (22) are very close, concerning th...Topics (21) and (22) are very close, concerning the (metaphysical) problem of the applicability of mathematics. By "representation theorems" in (21), I mean the theory of how measurement scales (normally into real numbers) arise from qualitative characterizations of a system of things. Field's approach in Science without Numbers invokes representation theorems, adding the conservation theorem bit to justify the instrumentalism.<br />So, if (22) counts, then (21) ought to too; but maybe they should be squeezed into one item.Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-86447627471598625232012-07-18T09:34:29.148+01:002012-07-18T09:34:29.148+01:00One worry would be that if (21) counts; why doesn&...One worry would be that if (21) counts; why doesn't any mathematical result?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-24711249578699232042012-07-18T03:31:59.404+01:002012-07-18T03:31:59.404+01:00Thanks Jeffery, I will check those out.Thanks Jeffery, I will check those out.josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12475144653171858939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-2847953681869575202012-07-18T01:43:40.003+01:002012-07-18T01:43:40.003+01:00There's older work (e.g., Yablo 1985; and goin...There's older work (e.g., Yablo 1985; and going back to Kripke and Herzberger), and then some recent, very interesting, work, on notions of dependence and grounding. Some by Hannes Leitgeb. <br />Hannes' original work on this concerns a notion of semantic dependence, e.g., this important 2005 paper, "What Truth Depends On",<br /><br />http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30226836?uid=3737864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=56313725323<br /><br />but the method is more widely applicable (it can be applied to set theoretic membership, necessity and identity, and Hannes has done this elsewhere).<br />Dennis Bonnay and Toby Meadows have worked on this too (no doubt many others ...). Here are some notes on this topics by Jo ̈nne Speck (who was visiting MCMP a few days ago), <br /><br />http://www.bbk.ac.uk/philosophy/our-research/ppp/leitgebhandout.pdf<br /><br />I don't know this work in sufficient detail to make a confident assessment, hence the question mark. But I think this topic will develop in the next few years.Jeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-70572473932630936372012-07-18T00:39:42.395+01:002012-07-18T00:39:42.395+01:00Sorry to parade my ignorance, but can you elaborat...Sorry to parade my ignorance, but can you elaborate on 24?josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12475144653171858939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-48570744249032227412012-07-17T19:37:56.729+01:002012-07-17T19:37:56.729+01:00These are all towering, highly meaningful achievem...These are all towering, highly meaningful achievements. Ergo, by definition, they have nothing to do with metaphysics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com