Supose our domain of discourse - what we are talking about - contains only the letters "a" and "b". How many things are in that domain? — Banno
Properties dissolved by analysis. Tim will love it. Not. — Banno
I don't think that a property is a collection. Redness is not the collection of all red things but something that is had by all red things. — litewave
What this does is to define what we mean when we say that a set is an abstract object - the set {a ,b} is not something else in addition to it's elements, but a different way of talking about a and b. A bit of extra language, not a bit of extra ontology. We talk as if the set were a new thing, but it isn't one of the things in the domain. — Banno
Pardon the intrusion. I haven't read all the posts. You have a set {1,3,5} , and then you have another set that has as elements the properties shared by the elements of the first set. If this derived set is a singleton, then one could identify the elements of the first set. — jgill
Glad to see you've since taken the vows of nominalism! — bongo fury
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.