Michael

This, I think, shows a more fundamental problem. You appear to equivocate. When you say that there exist elements in P(E) that are not members of E yo...

I addressed that when I first brought up this example. If you’re saying that the set exists, in addition to its members, then you’re presumably saying...

I would say that it's actually not maths. It's making claims about things that exist. At the very least it concerns the philosophical interpretation o...

If you think that the set {apple, pear} means that we've combined an apple and pair into some new hybrid fruit then you don't understand what sets are...

Right, so this shows that you clearly misunderstand what is being talked about.

That's a misquote. What he said was: Some things which have a plurality of parts are "merely a complete aggregate" and some things which have a plural...

I know, which is why the claim that a set has its own independent existence, distinct from its members is false. What is so hard to understand about t...

Not sure what you mean.

A piece of metal that weighs 1g does in fact weigh 1g, and a piece of metal that weighs 2g does in fact weigh 2g, and a collection that contains these...

Thanks. It seems to be saying the same thing that I said: Just as my example of "p" is foo iff p defines the conditions under which a sentence is foo....

I don't have a jstor account so I can't read it.

You seem to be missing the point. If there are two pieces of metal that weigh 1g each then the collection that contains just these two pieces of metal...

It still has to be explained how the T-sentence is a definition of truth. 1. "p" is foo iff p (1) isn't a definition of "foo". (1) only states the con...

I'm not a mathematical realist. I don't believe that mathematical "objects" exist. But this topic isn't just about mathematics, it's about the set of ...

I think you may have misread. I was comparing {a, b}, {a, c}, and {b, c}. I think it’s a mistake to think of these as being things that exist distinct...

I address something like that here. The set of both metals weighs 3g but none of its members weigh 3g. It doesn't then follow that we should treat the...

And the same when it comes to counting the things that exist. The existence of the collection subsumes the existence of its parts. Either you count th...

It's not identical to any one of the coins but it is identical to both of the coins. So you're duplicating entities when you count both coins individu...

A collection of two coins has two parts; each of the coins. I am saying that the existence of the collection is identical to the existence of each of ...

Here's another argument: I have a piece of metal that weighs 1g and a piece of metal that weighs 2g. So the collection of metal weighs 3g. This is the...

In terms of function or use or conception, sure. But it terms of counting the number of things that exist, no.

Is it even a matter of set theory? Seems to me that it's more to do with the philosophy of mathematics: mathematical realism or anti-realism? I'm clea...

It's identical to the sum of its parts. If you say that the collection exists in addition to each of its parts then you count each of its parts twice;...

And referring to a collection of coins refers to each of the coins in the collection. So you refer to the same coins twice when you say that the colle...

That depends on your mode of speaking. You can talk about a collection as being a single object if you want, but you can't then say that because the c...

The collection is the two coins. You either think and talk about them as being two coins or you think and talk about them as being a collection of coi...

You don't have the collection in addition to each of the two coins. It's really a very simple point, what's hard to understand?

The point being made is that if I have two coins then it's not the case that I have the first coin and I have the second coin and I have a pair of coi...

A federal judge addressed this memo a while back. Judge tosses Trump's lawsuit to keep his taxes secret It might be DOJ policy not to indict a Preside...

I don't think Chad has any nuclear capabilities. The document is likely to be regarding one of the nuclear powers. This is one document amongst many, ...

Then who were you talking about? The news agencies reporting on the matter? Because, again, the original report specified that it wasn't clear whether...

I haven't. I don't know about you. You make a habit of misrepresenting whatever anyone else is saying. This is what I quoted in my original post on th...

" foreign government's military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities." The original report saying: So what sands have shifted? It seems to me ...

Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

But nominalism is the position that abstract objects don't exist? Maybe I'm being imprecise. I usually think of reification as taking a realist approa...

Are you not reading what I'm saying? Sets don't exist as abstract, Platonic entities, distinct from and additional to their constituent parts. An appl...

Not as abstract, Platonic entities, distinct from and additional to their constituent parts. The existence of each member of a set is the existence of...

You’re a broken record. Put up or shut up. :joke:

If a red apple and a green apple exist then I wouldn't say that three things exist: it’s not the case that a red apple exists and a green apple exists...

I wonder if this helps us address the redundancy view. 1. "'Snow is white' is true" means "snow is white" 2. "Snow is white" means "snow reflects all ...

He also says, preceding that, "Nonetheless, it is my feeling that the new formulations, when analyzed more closely, prove to be less clear and unequiv...

Right, so this is an issue of reification. Some people think of a set as being some abstract, Platonic entity that "exists" in some sense, distinct fr...

That's not true. The power set includes repeated members. Taken from the Wikipedia article: x, y, and z are repeated.

Well that's true of any "X is Y iff Z" so I don't understand that objection. I just think saying something like "Snow is white" is true iff snow refle...

Refresh the page, I’ve made an edit.

I don't think it makes a difference.

Because "p" is true iff p. Therefore a substantial account of p is a substantial account of "p" is true.

We've been taking as a starting point "snow is white" is true iff p and then discussing p, whereas I think we should instead take as a starting point ...

I believe there isn't much agreement amongst philosophers on that. Tarski himself says in The Semantic Conception of Truth: So it seems to me at least...

When have I ever said anything about nuclear codes?