{"id":1691,"date":"2023-01-06T08:28:55","date_gmt":"2023-01-06T08:28:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/06\/a-sketch-of-armstrongs-naturalism\/"},"modified":"2023-01-06T08:28:55","modified_gmt":"2023-01-06T08:28:55","slug":"a-sketch-of-armstrongs-naturalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/06\/a-sketch-of-armstrongs-naturalism\/","title":{"rendered":"A Sketch of Armstrong&#8217;s Naturalism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">And some reasons to question it.&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/williamfvallicella.substack.com\/p\/a-sketch-of-armstrongs-naturalism?sd=pf\">Top<\/a> of the (Sub)stack.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"yqt8368880989\" id=\"yqtfd19887\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">Expositing Armstrong, I wrote<\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"yqt8368880989\">&#0160;<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div class=\"yqt8368880989\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">The exclusion of so-called abstract entities or abstract objects such as mathematical sets, unexemplified universals, and numbers from the roster of the real is because of their lack&#0160; of causal power.&#0160; What causal role could they play?&#0160;<\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"yqt8368880989\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#0160;<\/div>\n<div class=\"yqt8368880989\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">And then I quoted Armstrong:&#0160; &quot;And if they play no causal role it is hard to see how we can have good reasons for thinking that they exist.&quot; (2)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"yqt8368880989\">\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">Woland&#39;s Cat objects:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">This reasoning is missing a step, I think. Abstract entities do exist when they are contemplated by a mind: assuming minds are &#39;real&#39; (i.e. part of organisms, which are part of the space-time continuum of reality), then mathematical sets etc. become real when&#0160;<em>represented<\/em>&#0160;in the mind.&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">How would Armstrong reply?&#0160; As follows. To exist is to exist extra-mentally. That is the only way anything can exist. If so, there cannot be two or more ways or modes of existing. &#0160; He here follows, as other Australian philosophers do, his and their teacher <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2014\/12\/john-anderson-on-levels-of-reality.html\">John Anderson<\/a>. Hence there is no such way of existing as existing intra-mentally, in the mind. Whatever I do when I think about something, I do not, in thinking about it, or contemplating it, confer upon it existence-in-the mind.&#0160;&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">The following are candidate abstract entities: the number 7, the set {7}, the proposition expressed by &#39;7 is prime,&#39; the property of being prime.&#0160; To say that they are abstract is to say that they are not in space or in time, and that they are &#39;causally inert,&#39; which is to say that they do not enter into causal relations with anything: they neither cause nor are caused.&#0160; Armstrong rejects the whole lot of them.&#0160; Their existence is ruled out by his metaphysical naturalism according to which reality is exhausted by the space-time system and its contents.&#0160; They don&#39;t exist outside the mind and, since that is the only way anything can exist, they don&#39;t exist inside the mind either.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">So what am I thinking about then I think of {Max the cat, Manny the cat}?&#0160; Sets or &quot;classes supervene on their members &#8212; that is to say, once you are given the members, their class adds nothing ontologically, is no addition of being.&quot; (<em>Sketch<\/em>, 8)&#0160; But then what am I thinking about when I think about the intersection of two disjoint sets? A set theorist will say: the null set, { }!&#0160; You will also recall that in set theory, the null set is a <em>subset<\/em> of every set, and a <em>member<\/em> of every power set.&#0160; &#0160;Don&#39;t confuse subset and member as Armstrong does on p. 8, n. 1.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">This presents a bit of a problem for Armstrong. He cannot say that the null set&#0160; supervenes on its members since it doesn&#39;t have any.&#0160; So of course he bites the bullet: he rejects the existence of the null set. &quot;It would be a strange addition to space-time!&quot; (p. 8., n. 1)&#0160; The more I think about this, the more problematic it seems. If there is no null set, then there are no power sets.&#0160; And if there is no null set, why should we think that there are unit sets or singletons such as {Quine} or {Max}? What is the difference between Max and the set whose sole member is him?&#0160; If Max&#39;s singleton supervenes on him, then there is no singleton!&#0160; If there are no singletons, then there is no intersection of {Max, Manny} and {Max, Maya}!<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">What would Woland&#39;s Cat say about that?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 14pt;\">Memo to self: Re-read&#0160; the section &quot;Mysterious Singletons&quot; in David Lewis, <em>Parts of Classes<\/em>. And blog it! You are not spreading yourself thin enough!<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>And some reasons to question it.&#0160; Top of the (Sub)stack. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Expositing Armstrong, I wrote &#0160; The exclusion of so-called abstract entities or abstract objects such as mathematical sets, unexemplified universals, and numbers from the roster of the real is because of their lack&#0160; of causal power.&#0160; What causal role could they play?&#0160; &#0160; And &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/06\/a-sketch-of-armstrongs-naturalism\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;A Sketch of Armstrong&#8217;s Naturalism&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[501,238,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-armstrong-d-m","category-naturalism","category-substack"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}