Dear Pat, (01)
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:16 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> > Dear John,
> >> 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
> > [MW] I think there are two different questions here:
> > 1. Are there certain things like e.g. numbers and possible worlds?
> > 2. Are they abstract or concrete?
> > 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).
> Whether they exist or not, I think you have to say that numbers are
> not concrete. You can't weigh seven.
[MW] I quite agree. I am waiting with interest what the answer to that one
is, I think I know what most of the other answers will be. (02)
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
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. (05)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (06)