Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 29–54 | Cite as

The metaphysics of quantity

  • Brent Mundy
Article

Abstract

A formal theory of quantity T Q is presented which is realist, Platonist, and syntactically second-order (while logically elementary), in contrast with the existing formal theories of quantity developed within the theory of measurement, which are empiricist, nominalist, and syntactically first-order (while logically non-elementary). T Q is shown to be formally and empirically adequate as a theory of quantity, and is argued to be scientifically superior to the existing first-order theories of quantity in that it does not depend upon empirically unsupported assumptions concerning existence of physical objects (e.g. that any two actual objects have an actual sum). The theory T Q supports and illustrates a form of naturalistic Platonism, for which claims concerning the existence and properties of universals form part of natural science, and the distinction between accidental generalizations and laws of nature has a basis in the second-order structure of the world.

Keywords

Natural Science Formal Theory Physical Object Actual Object Accidental Generalization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Armstrong, D.: 1978, Universals and Scientific Realism (Cambridge), two volumes.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D.: 1983, What is a Law of Nature? (Cambridge).Google Scholar
  3. Boyer, C.: 1949, The Concepts of the Calculus (Hafner); reprinted as The History of the Calculus and Its Conceptual Development (Dover, New York, 1959).Google Scholar
  4. Byerly, H.: 1974, ‘Realist foundations of measurement’, in Schaffner, K., and Cohen (eds.), PSA 1972 (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland), pp. 375–384.Google Scholar
  5. Byerly, H., and Lazara, V.: 1973, ‘Realist foundations of measurement’, Philosophy of Science 40, pp. 10–28 (this paper is an expanded version of the preceding one).Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, N.: 1920, Physics: The Elements (Cambridge); reprinted by Dover as Foundations of Science (1957).Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, N.: 1928, Principles of Measurement and Calculation (Longmans Green, London).Google Scholar
  8. Carnap, R.: 1966, Philosophical Foundations of Physics (Basic Books, New York); reprinted as An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Basic Books, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  9. Colonius, H.: 1978, ‘On weak extensive measurement’, Philosophy of Science 45, pp. 303–308.Google Scholar
  10. Dretske, F.: 1977, ‘Laws of nature’, Philosophy of Science 44, pp. 248–68.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis, B.: 1966, Basic Concepts of Measurement (Cambridge).Google Scholar
  12. Field, H.: 1980, Science Without Numbers (Princeton University Press, Princeton).Google Scholar
  13. Glymour, C.: 1980, Theory and Evidence (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.).Google Scholar
  14. Helmholtz, H.: 1887, ‘Numbering and measuring from an epistemological viewpoint’, English translation in Helmholtz, H., Epistemological Writings (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977).Google Scholar
  15. Henkin, L.: 1950, ‘Completeness in the theory of types’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 15, pp. 81–91; reprinted in Hintikka, J. (ed.), The Philosophy of Mathematics (Oxford, 1969), pp. 51–63.Google Scholar
  16. Hölder, O.: 1901, ‘Die Axiome der Quantität und die Lehre vom Mass’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königliche Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Mat.-Phys. Klasse 53, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
  17. Holman, E. W.: 1969, ‘Strong and weak extensive measurement’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 6, pp. 286–293.Google Scholar
  18. Krantz, D., Luce, R., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A.: 1971, Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1 (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
  19. Luce, R. D., and Marley, A.: 1969, ‘Extensive measurement when concatenation is restricted and maximal elements may exist’, in Morgenbesser, S. et al. (eds.), Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel (St. Martin's Press, New York), pp. 235–249.Google Scholar
  20. Mundy, B.: (a), ‘Faithful representation, physical extensive measurement theory and archimedean axioms’, to appear in Synthese.Google Scholar
  21. Mundy, B.: (b), ‘Extensive measurement and ratio functions’, to appear in Synthese.Google Scholar
  22. Nagel, E.: 1932, ‘Measurement’, Erkenntnis II, pp. 313–33, reprinted in Danto, A. and Morgenbesser, S. (eds.), Philosophy of Science (New American Library, New York, 1960), pp. 121–40.Google Scholar
  23. Quine, W.: 1960, Word and Object (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  24. Quine, W.: 1976, ‘Whither physical objects?’, in Cohen, R. S. (ed.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos (D. Reidel, Dordrecht), pp. 497–504.Google Scholar
  25. Roberts, F.: 1979, Measurement Theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 7 (Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  26. Russell, B.: 1903, The Principles of Mathematics, second edition, (Norton, New York, 1938).Google Scholar
  27. Salmon, W.: 1976, ‘Foreword’, in Reichenbach, H., Laws, Modalities, and Counterfactuals (U. of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
  28. Sanford, D.: 1980, ‘Armstrong's Theory of Universals’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31, pp. 69–79.Google Scholar
  29. Scott, D. and Suppes, P.: 1958, ‘Foundational aspects of theories of measurement’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 23, pp. 113–128; reprinted in Suppes, P., Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1969), pp. 46–64.Google Scholar
  30. Suppes, P.: 1951, ‘A set of independent axioms for extensive quantities’, Portugalia Mathematica 10, pp. 163–172; reprinted in Suppes, P., Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1969), pp. 36–45.Google Scholar
  31. Swoyer, C.: 1982, ‘The nature of natural laws’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60, pp. 203–223.Google Scholar
  32. Swoyer, C.: 1983, ‘Realism and explanation’, Philosophical Inquiry 5, pp. 14–28.Google Scholar
  33. Tooley, M.: 1977, ‘The nature of laws’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, pp. 667–698.Google Scholar
  34. Van Benthem, J., and Doets, K.: 1983, ‘Higher-order logic’, in D. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds.), Hardbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 1 (D. Reidel, Dordrecht), pp. 275–329.Google Scholar
  35. Whitney, H.: 1968, ‘The mathematics of physical quantities’, American Mathematical Monthly 75, pp. 115–138, pp. 227–256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brent Mundy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations