Dear John, (01)
> Chris,
>
> I agree that Quine admitted sets into his ontology.
>
> CM> If, however, you mean someone who rejects the existence
> > of all abstract entities across the board, then Quine was
> > no nominalist, as he argued that quantification over
> > mathematical objects (specifically, sets) is indispensable
> > to science.
>
> But Alonzo Church, who allowed much richer abstract objects
> into his ontology, delivered a wonderful talk at Harvard with
> the explicit intention of annoying Quine and Nelson Goodman:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
> The ontological status of women and abstract entities (02)
[MW] I think there are two different questions here: (03)
1. Are there certain things like e.g. numbers and possible worlds? (04)
2. Are they abstract or concrete? (05)
Even the first may be controversial, but even if you agree that these things
exist, whether they are considered abstract or not is a different question
(and arguably more controversial). (06)
Regards (07)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (08)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|