[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 151 KB, 964x1388, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5224621 No.5224621 [Reply] [Original]

If all objects X have property Y, is Y an essential property of object X?
Is it impossible to tell since we don't know if we might encounter an object X without property Y? What if we were 100% certain that all objects X have property Y?
For example a body can be defined as something that takes up space (Kant I think).
All bodies have mass, thus is mass an intrinsic property of a body? Or just something that all bodies happen to have?

>> No.5224629

Has Feminister surfaced eversince the whole evidence of her being a made up character surfaced?

>> No.5224635

>>5224629

I don't think so. Probably the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on /lit/.

>> No.5224650

>>5224635
Wait, what?

>> No.5224664
File: 111 KB, 768x615, Picture 4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5224664

>>5224629
>evidence of her being a made up character surfaced?

Where and what is this evidence? For a new tripfag she sure racked up a lot of posts though.

>> No.5224673
File: 64 KB, 640x480, 1403966598427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5224673

>>5224629
Are you telling me this picture of her isn't real?

>> No.5224707

Property F is essential to object A if and only if it is metaphysically impossible for A to exist and lack F.

Also, intrinsic properties and essential properties are different. Essential properties are those that an object must have; intrinsic properties are those that characterize the object in itself, apart from its relations to other things. Intrinsic properties can be inessential, and essential properties can be extrinsic.

>> No.5224717

>>5224707

⇒Property F is essential to object A if and only if it is metaphysically impossible for A to exist and lack F.

Philosofags think that bastardizing the language of mathematics makes them respectable. How cute.

>> No.5224727

>>5224717
fuck off already

>> No.5224736

>>5224717

The truth-functional definition of the biconditional, along with all of propositional and first-order logic, was first discovered by philosophers (Frege, then refined by Russell/Whitehead and Wittgenstein). Mathematicians borrowed it afterwards.

>> No.5224740

Better question, does asking such questions amounts to anything but time wasted?
>deep philosophy

>> No.5224744

>>5224736
⇒Mathematicians borrowed it afterwards.

And as soon as they did, philosophy died, just like alchemy died when chemists borrowed their lab equipment.

>> No.5224746

>>5224740
>define time
>define wasted
>define questions

>> No.5224747

>>5224629
She hasn't. Anon takes that as an admission of guilt (of lying about her sex is their chief concern) I just see it as disappointing.
She is posting, it's just harder to tell which one is her. I'm not telling.

>>5224673
It never was her

>> No.5224764

>>5224744

It must be so frustrating for you that the most important work in mathematics written in the past 150 years (e.g. Principia Mathematica) was written by two philosophers and now forms the foundation of modern mathematics.

>> No.5224777

>>5224764
>confusing e.g. and i.e.

>> No.5224780

>>5224764

⇒It must be so frustrating for you that the most important work in mathematics written in the past 150 years (e.g. Principia Mathematica) was written by two philosophers and now forms the foundation of modern mathematics.

Godel (a mathematician) made Principia obsolete. Nice try, philosofag.

>> No.5224784

>>5224764
>principia mathematica
>important
lol. insert 2 coins to try again

>> No.5224795

>>5224780

Godel's work was impossible without Principia. Shoulders of giants and all that.

>>5224784

Well, if Principia isn't good enough for you, we can go back to Frege (another philosopher)

>> No.5224812

>>5224795
⇒Godel's work was impossible without Principia. Shoulders of giants and all that.

Godel's work doesn't build upon the Principia. It invalidates it, and is responsible for the irrevocable death of "philosophical mathematics" or "philosophers dabbling in foundations." In short, Godel shows that Russell and Whitehead wasted 10 years wanking.

>> No.5224821

>>5224795
Have you ever studied any contemporary mathematics? Principia and Frege are about as relevant as Harry Potter.

Sure, principia and frege are constantly masturbated over by *philosophers of mathematics*, but that's a far sight from actual mathematicians, who don't give a flying F about either one of em.

>> No.5224831

>>5224812
>Godel shows that Russell and Whitehead wasted 10 years wanking.

But it felt so good.

>> No.5224846

>>5224812

>It invalidates it

You show a dilettante's understanding of the subject matter, since a system's being incomplete is not the same as it's being "invalid" (whatever that means). More loosely, all Godel did was demonstrate the limits of the system.

>irrevocable death of "philosophical mathematics" or "philosophers dabbling in foundations."

Then why does MIT continue to offer courses in set theory and mathematical logic that are taught by members of their philosophy department?

The important thing is that, unlike you, Godel wasn't stupid enough to simply dismiss the work of philosophers. If he had been, then mathematics would be much poorer for it.

>> No.5224853

>>5224821

That's like saying that Newton wasn't important to physics, since you don't study him in "contemporary" physics

>> No.5224860

>>5224621
>If all objects X have property Y, is Y an essential property of object X?

No. Consider the Kit Kat. Prior to 1988, all Kit Kats bore the logo of Rowntree's. In 1988, Nestle acquired Rowntree's and Kit Kats began to bear the logo of Rowntree's. They were made in the same factory with the same ingredients and process, though.

So unless essences can change or we must maintain that Kit Kats today are not 'real' Kit Kats, I'd say that pretty much puts that one to bed.

>> No.5224872

>>5224860

What is the "all" is tenseless, meaning it includes all kits kats that are, were, or will be?

>> No.5224873

>>5224860
*began to bear the logo of Nestle

>> No.5224878

>>5224846
⇒You show a dilettante's understanding of the subject matter, since a system's being incomplete is not the same as it's being "invalid" (whatever that means). More loosely, all Godel did was demonstrate the limits of the system.

If you had actually studied Principia, you would have known that Russell and Whitehead's goals were to prove the completeness of contemporary mathematics. Godel showed they were wrong.

⇒Then why does MIT continue to offer courses in set theory and mathematical logic that are taught by members of their philosophy department?
Appeal to authority. Why does MIT offer classes in philosophy, when a philosophy essay is indistinguishable from semen-tissue? Still, there are valid results in mathematical logic and set theory, like the independence of the Continuum Hypothesis from ZFC, and set theory and mathematical logic are valid fields. Any type of philosophical approach, however, is full-retard.

⇒The important thing is that, unlike you, Godel wasn't stupid enough to simply dismiss the work of philosophers. If he had been, then mathematics would be much poorer

A working mathematician, in perhaps differential geometry of algebraic number theory - any branch of contemporary mathematics - will be content to accept the the natural numbers and the peano axioms as a starting point, and construct the reals from them. There is no place for questions like "What is a number?" in their line of work. And mathematics has been rather fruitful without those questions.

>> No.5224879

>>5224853
Of course you study Newton in contemporary physics, it's called "Physics 101". Every freshman in ANY stem field studies Newton. Sure, they don't read the original text, but who the fuck would (outside of retardo philosophy "the history of the idea is more important than the idea" departments).

By contrast, the number of mathematicians (not philosophers of mathematics) who seriously study Principia or Frege, is probably around 1/year

>> No.5224888

>>5224878
>you would have known that Russell and Whitehead's goals were to prove the completeness of contemporary mathematics.
>goals

Bzzzzt, authorial intent is dead, remember? Don't try to evade the postmodern, now.

>> No.5224889

>>5224872

Then you can certainly make it tautological by defining 'Kit Kat' in a certain way (so that if the recipe is changed, say, then all Kit Kats made after that date aren't 'real').

Though I would then ask how priority is established. How do we know that the later version isn't actually the 'real' one?

To continue with the confectionery examples, there are two brands of sweets in my country, which are quite different in taste and texture, are manufactured by different companies, but both are called Refreshers. The smaller, more citric Refreshers are the ones I'm most familiar with, so they're what I think of as 'the real Refreshers', but how do I know the other ones aren't actually older?

I've no idea how that came to pass or whether the two companies came to an agreement or something, but there really are two Refreshers made by different companies. It's a bit odd.

>> No.5224891

>>5224878
I'd like to add to what this guy said: MIT offers courses in logic/set theory taught by members of the philosophy department, because those are distinct courses from the courses in logic/set theory taught in the math department.

Math department: compactness theorem, ultrafilters, model theory, recursion theorem, Turing degrees, independence results, constructible universe, etc.

Philosophy department: Truth tables, tautologies, logical fallacies, history of logic, computability theory for dummies.. if it's an advanced course: basics of modal logic

>> No.5224892

>>5224878

Their goals and their formal work are two entirely different things.

>> No.5224935

>>5224891
the one guy who knows what the fuck he is talking about

cheers bro

>> No.5224966

>>5224891

this is actually not true, since some of the courses offered by course 24 (especially logic 2 and modal logic) are regularly taken by students from course 18, precisely because course 18 doesn't offer courses covering the same material. also, the claim that the course 24 classes are just "truth tables, tautologies, logical fallacies, history of logic, computability theory for dummies" is demonstrably false, if you go on opencourseware or stellar. in fact, if you go to the "mathematics" category on mit opencourseware, you will find courses from the philosophy department listed there.

>> No.5225552

>>5224707
Can you explain the difference between intrinsic and essential a little bit more? I didn't really understand.

>> No.5225587

>>5225552

An essential property is one that the object cannot fail to have. So, having three sides is essential to a triangle, since a triangle cannot exist while failing to have three sides.

An intrinsic property is one that concerns how the object is in itself. This is easier to understand in contrast to its opposite. Being a brother is an extrinsic property, or the opposite of an intrinsic property, since it depends on being related to something outside yourself (e.g., your male sibling). In contrast, being six feet tall is arguably intrinsic, since you can be six feet tall regardless of what you are related to.

Having three sides is both essential and intrinsic to a triangle. But suppose the triangle is made of wood that is painted blue. Then, being blue might be an intrinsic property of the triangle, but it is not an essential property (the same triangle could exist and be painted green).

>> No.5225632

>>5225587
All right, that clears it up. Thanks.