Pat Hayes schrieb:
>
> If you can represent it as a set, then it is a set.
> (01)
>> That doesn't mean the universe "is" a set. To say that something can
>> be represented as a set for purposes of defining truth-values of
>> sentences is a very different thing from saying it IS a set.
>>
>
> I disagree. I think these are exactly the same
> thing to say. To say that a collection is a set
> is to say nothing about it at all.
> (02)
In many philosophical contexts it is important to keep *sets* (abstract
non-temporal entities) whose members are spatiotemporal entities
distinct from the *aggregate* (Mario Bunge) or the *collection* (Peter
Simons) of the same spatiotemporal entities. However, in many contexts
it doesn't matter whether one talks of sets or of
aggregates/collections. I guess Pat Hayes is working within the latter
kind of contexts; it is a pity that it misleads him into thinking that
"what you can represent as a set, is a set". (03)
Recommended reading: Peter Simons, “Against Set Theory”. In Experience
and Analysis . Proceedings of the 2004 Wittgenstein Symposium, ed. J. C.
Marek and M. E. Reicher. Vienna: öbv&hpt, 2005, 143–152. (04)
Best wishes from,
Ingvar J (the real one, not the corresponding singleton set) (05)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|