Is there a generally agreed upon solution to Bradley's Infinite Regress without appeal to Paraconsistent Logic?What are the major research programmes in contemporary logic?Can Tao Te Ching be translated using paraconsistent logic?Almost Sure Mind Transfer via Parfit's Identity Theory (interesting thought experiment)Is something without a solution a problem?What counters are there to Spinoza's argument that acts of free will create infinite regress?Can there be an infinite regress of Creators?Is there modal logic without possible worlds?Can any logic system provide the impossible solution to Russell's paradox in naive set theory?
Can an infinite series be thought of as adding up "infinitely many" terms?
Very lazy puppy
Extra initial Aeneid lines in 1662 M. de Marolles version
Statistical tests for benchmark comparison
How to generate short fixed length cryptographic hashs?
Exam design: give maximum score per question or not?
A Pixelated Sequence - Find the Continuation
Should I inform my future product owner that there are big chances that a team member will leave the company soon?
Did slaves have slaves?
How to ensure that neurotic or annoying characters don't get tiring on the long run
Tips for remembering the order of parameters for ln?
Updating without Composer
geschafft or geschaffen? which one is past participle of schaffen?
In what sequence should an advanced civilization teach technology to medieval society to maximize rate of adoption?
What 68-pin connector is this on my 2.5" solid state drive?
What did the first ever Hunger Games look like?
Why does JavaScript convert an array of one string to a string, when used as an object key?
How do certain apps show new notifications when internet access is restricted to them?
Why does an orbit become hyperbolic when total orbital energy is positive?
What would happen if Protagoras v Euathlus were heard in court today?
What does "boys rule, girls drool" mean?
Bit one of the Intel 8080's Flags register
Why does dd not make working bootable USB sticks for Microsoft?
Floating Point XOR
Is there a generally agreed upon solution to Bradley's Infinite Regress without appeal to Paraconsistent Logic?
What are the major research programmes in contemporary logic?Can Tao Te Ching be translated using paraconsistent logic?Almost Sure Mind Transfer via Parfit's Identity Theory (interesting thought experiment)Is something without a solution a problem?What counters are there to Spinoza's argument that acts of free will create infinite regress?Can there be an infinite regress of Creators?Is there modal logic without possible worlds?Can any logic system provide the impossible solution to Russell's paradox in naive set theory?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I'm interested in Priest's solution using paraconsistent logic, but before I embark on that, I wanted to know if there was a generally agreed upon solution in more "classical" schools of thought. Looking up things online, I only see just different arbitrary ways of looking at it. If this is so, I'm inclined to think that maybe paraconsistent logic is required for a better way of systemizing thought. I'm familiar with the property/relation aspect of this problem the most, so this context is preferred.
logic metaphysics philosophy-of-logic
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I'm interested in Priest's solution using paraconsistent logic, but before I embark on that, I wanted to know if there was a generally agreed upon solution in more "classical" schools of thought. Looking up things online, I only see just different arbitrary ways of looking at it. If this is so, I'm inclined to think that maybe paraconsistent logic is required for a better way of systemizing thought. I'm familiar with the property/relation aspect of this problem the most, so this context is preferred.
logic metaphysics philosophy-of-logic
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
1
You could also move forward to Popper's criterion for science. Statistical convergence is a form of infinite regress, from a Classical POV. You cannnot establish a basis, you can only decide what is likely and what is not. But the likelihood gets established over time by observation and confrontation. That said, statistics is to some degree a rationalized embodiment of paraconsistent deduction, so it might just be dodging the question.
– jobermark
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
I'm interested in Priest's solution using paraconsistent logic, but before I embark on that, I wanted to know if there was a generally agreed upon solution in more "classical" schools of thought. Looking up things online, I only see just different arbitrary ways of looking at it. If this is so, I'm inclined to think that maybe paraconsistent logic is required for a better way of systemizing thought. I'm familiar with the property/relation aspect of this problem the most, so this context is preferred.
logic metaphysics philosophy-of-logic
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
I'm interested in Priest's solution using paraconsistent logic, but before I embark on that, I wanted to know if there was a generally agreed upon solution in more "classical" schools of thought. Looking up things online, I only see just different arbitrary ways of looking at it. If this is so, I'm inclined to think that maybe paraconsistent logic is required for a better way of systemizing thought. I'm familiar with the property/relation aspect of this problem the most, so this context is preferred.
logic metaphysics philosophy-of-logic
logic metaphysics philosophy-of-logic
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
csp2018csp2018
1125 bronze badges
1125 bronze badges
1
You could also move forward to Popper's criterion for science. Statistical convergence is a form of infinite regress, from a Classical POV. You cannnot establish a basis, you can only decide what is likely and what is not. But the likelihood gets established over time by observation and confrontation. That said, statistics is to some degree a rationalized embodiment of paraconsistent deduction, so it might just be dodging the question.
– jobermark
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
1
You could also move forward to Popper's criterion for science. Statistical convergence is a form of infinite regress, from a Classical POV. You cannnot establish a basis, you can only decide what is likely and what is not. But the likelihood gets established over time by observation and confrontation. That said, statistics is to some degree a rationalized embodiment of paraconsistent deduction, so it might just be dodging the question.
– jobermark
6 hours ago
1
1
You could also move forward to Popper's criterion for science. Statistical convergence is a form of infinite regress, from a Classical POV. You cannnot establish a basis, you can only decide what is likely and what is not. But the likelihood gets established over time by observation and confrontation. That said, statistics is to some degree a rationalized embodiment of paraconsistent deduction, so it might just be dodging the question.
– jobermark
6 hours ago
You could also move forward to Popper's criterion for science. Statistical convergence is a form of infinite regress, from a Classical POV. You cannnot establish a basis, you can only decide what is likely and what is not. But the likelihood gets established over time by observation and confrontation. That said, statistics is to some degree a rationalized embodiment of paraconsistent deduction, so it might just be dodging the question.
– jobermark
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The short answer is: no, there's no generally accepted solution of this 'problem' (if it is one). Some simply reject Bradley's argument(s) since they reject some of its (their) assumptions, for instance, that particulars are bundels of qualities or that qualities are tropes (e.g. Russell). Those that accept Bradley's assumptions have responded in various ways:
- Relata are related by non-relational links (Bergmann, the earlier Armstrong)
- The complex entities themselves such as facts or states of affairs unify their constituents (the later Armstrong)
- Relata are related via some sort of mutual inter-dependence (Frege, Simons)
There's some discussion of these options in the SEP-entry on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley-regress/
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67103%2fis-there-a-generally-agreed-upon-solution-to-bradleys-infinite-regress-without%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The short answer is: no, there's no generally accepted solution of this 'problem' (if it is one). Some simply reject Bradley's argument(s) since they reject some of its (their) assumptions, for instance, that particulars are bundels of qualities or that qualities are tropes (e.g. Russell). Those that accept Bradley's assumptions have responded in various ways:
- Relata are related by non-relational links (Bergmann, the earlier Armstrong)
- The complex entities themselves such as facts or states of affairs unify their constituents (the later Armstrong)
- Relata are related via some sort of mutual inter-dependence (Frege, Simons)
There's some discussion of these options in the SEP-entry on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley-regress/
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The short answer is: no, there's no generally accepted solution of this 'problem' (if it is one). Some simply reject Bradley's argument(s) since they reject some of its (their) assumptions, for instance, that particulars are bundels of qualities or that qualities are tropes (e.g. Russell). Those that accept Bradley's assumptions have responded in various ways:
- Relata are related by non-relational links (Bergmann, the earlier Armstrong)
- The complex entities themselves such as facts or states of affairs unify their constituents (the later Armstrong)
- Relata are related via some sort of mutual inter-dependence (Frege, Simons)
There's some discussion of these options in the SEP-entry on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley-regress/
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The short answer is: no, there's no generally accepted solution of this 'problem' (if it is one). Some simply reject Bradley's argument(s) since they reject some of its (their) assumptions, for instance, that particulars are bundels of qualities or that qualities are tropes (e.g. Russell). Those that accept Bradley's assumptions have responded in various ways:
- Relata are related by non-relational links (Bergmann, the earlier Armstrong)
- The complex entities themselves such as facts or states of affairs unify their constituents (the later Armstrong)
- Relata are related via some sort of mutual inter-dependence (Frege, Simons)
There's some discussion of these options in the SEP-entry on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley-regress/
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
The short answer is: no, there's no generally accepted solution of this 'problem' (if it is one). Some simply reject Bradley's argument(s) since they reject some of its (their) assumptions, for instance, that particulars are bundels of qualities or that qualities are tropes (e.g. Russell). Those that accept Bradley's assumptions have responded in various ways:
- Relata are related by non-relational links (Bergmann, the earlier Armstrong)
- The complex entities themselves such as facts or states of affairs unify their constituents (the later Armstrong)
- Relata are related via some sort of mutual inter-dependence (Frege, Simons)
There's some discussion of these options in the SEP-entry on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley-regress/
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
sequitursequitur
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
9541 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67103%2fis-there-a-generally-agreed-upon-solution-to-bradleys-infinite-regress-without%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
You could also move forward to Popper's criterion for science. Statistical convergence is a form of infinite regress, from a Classical POV. You cannnot establish a basis, you can only decide what is likely and what is not. But the likelihood gets established over time by observation and confrontation. That said, statistics is to some degree a rationalized embodiment of paraconsistent deduction, so it might just be dodging the question.
– jobermark
6 hours ago