Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:45:29.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE INFINITE IN MEREOLOGY WITH PLURAL QUANTIFICATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2010

MASSIMILIANO CARRARA  and
ENRICO MARTINO
MASSIMILIANO CARRARA*
Affiliation:
University of Padua
ENRICO MARTINO*
Affiliation:
University of Padua
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF PADUA, PADOVA, ITALY. E-mail:[email protected]
†DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF PADUA, PADOVA, ITALY. E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In “Mathematics is megethology,” Lewis reconstructs set theory using mereology and plural quantification (MPQ). In his recontruction he assumes from the beginning that there is an infinite plurality of atoms, whose size is equivalent to that of the set theoretical universe. Since this assumption is far beyond the basic axioms of mereology, it might seem that MPQ do not play any role in order to guarantee the existence of a large infinity of objects. However, we intend to demonstrate that mereology and plural quantification are, in some ways, particularly relevant to a certain conception of the infinite. More precisely, though the principles of mereology and plural quantification do not guarantee the existence of an infinite number of objects, nevertheless, once the existence of any infinite object is admitted, they are able to assure the existence of an uncountable infinity of objects. So, if—as Lewis maintains—MPQ were parts of logic, the implausible consequence would follow that, given a countable infinity of individuals, logic would be able to guarantee an uncountable infinity of objects.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 54 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boolos, G. (1984). To be is to be a value of a variable. (Or to be some values of some variables). Journal of Philosophy, 81, 430–449.Google Scholar
Boolos, G. (1985). Nominalist platonism. Philosophical Review, 94, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, H., Seibt, J., & Imaguire, G.., editors. (2009). Handbook of Mereology. Munich, Germany: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
Carrara, M., & Martino, E. (2009). On the ontological commitment of mereology. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2, 164–174.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1996). Structuralism without structures. Philosophia Mathematica, 4, 100–123.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1991). Parts of Classes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1993). Mathematics is megethology. Philosophia Mathematica, 1, 3–23.Google Scholar
Martino, E. (1996). La teoria degli insiemi in un platonismo nominalista. In Abrusci, V. M., Cellucci, C., Cordeschi, R., and Fano, V., editors. Prospettive della logica e della filosofia della scienza. Pisa, Italy: ETS, pp. 445–451.Google Scholar
Pollard, S. (1988). Plural quantification and the axiom of choice. Philosophical Studies, 54, 393–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P. (2000). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar