Correction to "Goodman and Quine's nominalism and infinity"

In an old post, I said that Goodman and Quine can’t define the concept of an infinite number of objects using their logical resources. Allen Hazen corrected me in a comment in the specific context of defining infinite sentences. But it turns out that I wasn’t just wrong about the specific context of defining infinite sentences: I was almost entirely wrong.

To see this, let’s restrict ourselves to non-gunky worlds, where all objects are made of simples. Suppose, further, that we have a predicate F(x) that says that an object x is finite. This is nominalistically and physicalistically acceptable by Goodman and Quine’s standards: it states a physical feature of a physical object, namely its size qua made of simples. (If the simples all have some finite amount of energy with some positive minimum, F(x) will be equivalent to saying x has a finite energy.)

Now, this doesn’t solve the problem by itself. To say that an object x is finite is not the same as saying that the number of objects with some property is finite. But I came across a cute little trick to go from one to the other in the proof of Proposition 7 of this paper. The trick transposed to the non-gunky mereological setting is this. Then following two statements are equivalent in non-gunky worlds satisfying appropriate mereological axioms:

1. The number of objects x satisfying G(x) is finite.

2. There is a finite object z such that for any objects x and y with G(x) and G(y), if x ≠ y, then x and y differ inside z (i.e., there is a part of z that is a part of one object but not of the other).

To see the equivalence, suppose (2) is true. Then if z has n simples, and if x is any object satisfying G(x), then all objects y satisfying G(x) differ from x within these n simples, so there are at most 2ⁿ objects satisfying G(x). Conversely, if there are finitely many satisfiers of G, there will be a finite object z that contains a simple of difference between x and y for every pair of satisfiers x and y of G (where a simple of difference is a simple that is a part of one but not the other), and any two distinct satisfiers of G will differ inside z.

I said initially that I was almost entirely wrong. In thoroughly gunky worlds, all objects are infinite in the sense of having infinitely many parts, so a mereologically-based finiteness predicate won’t help. Nor will a volume or energy-based one, because we can suppose a gunky world with finite total volume and finite total energy. So Goodman and Quine had better hope that the world isn’t thoroughly gunky.

Goodman and Quine and transitive closure

In the previous post, I showed that Goodman and Quine’s counting method fails for objects that have too much overlap. I think (though the technical parts here are more difficult) that the same is true for their definition of the ancestral or transitive closure of a relation.

GQ showed how to define ancestors in terms of offspring. We can try to extend this definition to the transitive closure of any relation R over any kind of entities:

1. x stands in the transitive closure of R to y iff for every object u that has y as a part and that has as a part anything that stands in R to a part of u, there is a z such that Rxz and both x and z are parts of R.

This works fine if no relatum of R overlaps any other relatum of R. But if there is overlap, it can fail. For instance, suppose we have three atoms a, b and c, and a relation R that holds between a + b and a + b + c and between a and a + b. Then any object u that has a + b + c as a part has c as a part, and so (1) would imply that c stands in the transitive closure of R to a + b + c, which is false.

Can we find some other definition of transitive closure using the same theoretical resources (namely, mereology) that works for overlapping objects? No. Nor even if we add the “bigger than” predicate of GQ’s attempt to define “more”. We can say that x and y are equinumerous provided that neither is bigger than the other.

Let’s work in models made of an infinite number of mereological atoms. Write u ∧ v for the fusion of the common parts of both u and v (assuming u and v overlap), u ∨ v for the fusion of objects that are parts of one or the other, and u − v for the fusion of all the parts of u that do not overlap v (assuming u is not a part of v). Write |x| for the number of atomic parts of x when x is finite. Now make these definitions:

2. x is finite iff an atom is related to x by the transitive closure (with respect to the kind object) of the relation that relates an object to that object plus one atom.

3. Axyw iff x and y are finite and whenever x′ is equinumerous with x and does not overlap y, then x′ ∨ y is equinumerous with w. (This says |x| + |y| = |w|.)

4. Say that D_yuv iff A(u−y,u−y,v−y) (i.e., |v−y| = 2|u−y|) and either v does not overlap y or and u ∧ y is an atom or v and y overlap and u ∧ y consists of v ∧ y plus one atom. (This treats u and v as basically ordered pairs (u−y,u∧y) and (v−y,v∧y), and it makes sure that from the first pair to the second, the first component is doubled in size and the second component is decreased by one.)

5. Say that Q⁰yx iff y is finite and for some atom z not overlapping y we have y ∧ z related to something not overlapping x by the transitive closure of D_y. (This takes the pair (z,y), and applies the double first component and decrease second component relation described in (4) until the second component goes to zero. Thus, it is guaranteed that |x| = 2^|y|.)

6. Say that Qyx iff y is finite and Q⁰yx′ for some non-overlapping x′ that does not overlap y and that is equinumerous with x.

If I got all the details right, then Qyx basically says that |x| = 2^|y|.

Thus, we can define use transitive closure to define binary powers of finite cardinalities. But the results about the expressive power of monadic second-order logic with cardinality comparison say that we can only define semi-linear relations between finite cardinalities, which doesn’t allow defining binary powers.

Remark: We don’t need equinumerosity to be defined in terms of a primitive “bigger”. We can define equinumerosity for non-overlapping finite sets by using transitive closure (and we only need it for finite sets). First let T_yuv iff v − y exists and consists of u − y minus one atom and v ∧ y exists and consists of v ∧ y minus one atom. Then finite x and y are equinumerous₀ iff they are non-overlapping and x ∨ y has exactly two atoms or is related to an object with exactly two atoms by the transitive closure of T_yuv. We now say that x and y are equinumerous provided that they are finite and either x = y (i.e., they have the same atoms) or both x − y and y − x are defined and equinumerous₀.

No fix for Goodman and Quine's counting

In yesterday’s post, I noted that Goodman and Quine’s nominalist mereological definition of what it is to say that there are more cats than dogs fails if there are cats that are conjoint twins. This raises the question whether there is some other way of using the same ontological resources to generate a definition of “more” that works for overlapping objects as well.

I think the answer is negative. First, note that GQ’s project is explicitly meant to be compatible with there being a finite number of individuals. In particular, thus, it needs to be compatible with the existence of mereological atoms, individuals with no proper parts, which every individual is a fusion of. (Otherwise, there would have to be no individuals or infinitely many. For every individual has an atom as a part, since otherwise it has an infinite regress of parts. Furthermore, every individual must be a fusion of the atoms it has as parts, otherwise the supplementation axiom will be violated.) Second, GQ’s avail themselves of one non-mereological tool: size comparisons (which I think must be something like volumes). And then it is surely a condition of adequacy on their theory that it be compatible with the logical possibility that there are finitely many individuals, every individual is a fusion of its atoms and the atoms are all the same size. I will call worlds like that “admissible”.

So, here are GQ’s theoretical resources for admissible worlds. There are individuals, made of atoms, and there is a size comparison. The size comparison between two individuals is equivalent to comparing the cardinalities of the sets of atoms the individuals are made of, since all the atoms are the same size. In terms of expressive power, their theory, in the case of admissible worlds, is essentially that of monadic second order logic with counting, MSO(#), restricted to finite models. (I am grateful to Allan Hazen for putting me on to the correspondence between GQ and MSO.) The atoms in GQ correspond to objects in MSO(#) and the individuals correspond to (extensions of) monadic predicates. The differences are that MSO(#) will have empty predicates and will distinguish objects from monadic predicates that have exactly one object in their extension, while in GQ the atoms are just a special (and definable) kind of individual.

Suppose now that GQ have some way of using their resources to define “more”, i.e., find a way of saying “There are more individuals satisfying F than those satisfying G.” This will be equivalent to MSO(#) defining a second-order counting predicate, one that essentially says “The set of sets of satisfiers of F is bigger than the set of sets of satisfiers of G”, for second-order predicates F and G.

But it is known that the definitional power of MSO(#) over finite models is precisely such as to define semi-linear sets of numbers. However, if we had a second-order counting predicate in MSO(#), it would be easy to define binary exponentiation. For the number of objects satisfying predicate F is equal to two raised to the power of the number of objects satisfying G just in case the number of singleton subsets of F is equal to the number of subsets of G. (Compare in the GQ context: the number of atoms of type F is equal to two the power of the number of atoms of type G provided that the number of atoms of type F is one plus the number of individuals made of the atoms of type G.) And of course equinumerosity can be defined (over finite models) in terms of “more”, while the set of pairs (n,2ⁿ) is clearly not semi-linear.

One now wants to ask a more general question. Could GQ define counting of individuals using some other predicates on individuals besides size comparison? I don’t know. My guess would be no, but my confidence level is not that high, because this deals in logic stuff I know little about.

Goodman and Quine and shared bits

Goodman and Quine have a clever way of saying that there are more cats than dogs without invoking sets, numbers or other abstracta. The trick is to say that x is a bit of y if x is a part of y and x is the same size as the smallest of the dogs and cats. Then you’re supposed to say:

1. Every object that has a bit of every cat is bigger than some object that has a bit of every dog.

This doesn’t work if there is overlap between cats. Imagine there are three cats, one of them a tiny embryonic cat independent of the other two cats, and the other two are full-grown twins sharing a chunk larger than the embryonic cat, while there are two full-grown dogs that are not conjoined. Then a bit is a part the size of the embryonic cat. But (assuming mereological universalism along with Goodman and Quine) there is an object that has a bit of every cat that is no bigger than any object has a bit of every dog. For imagine an object that is made out of the embryonic cat together with a bit that the other two cats have in common. This object is no bigger than any object that has a bit of each of the dogs.

It’s easy to fix this:

2. Every object that has an unshared bit of every cat is bigger than some object that has an unshared bit of every dog,

where an unshared bit is a bit x not shared between distinct cats or distinct dogs.

But this fix doesn’t work in general. Suppose the following atomistic thesis is true: all material objects are made of equally-sized individisible particles. And suppose I have two cubes on my desk, A and B, with B having double the number of particles as A. Consider this fact:

4. There are more pairs of particles in A than particles in B.

(Again, Goodman and Quine have to allow for objects that are pairs of particles by their mereological universalism.) But how do we make sense of this? The trick behind (1) and (2) was to divide up our objects into equally-sized pieces, and compare the sizes. But any object made of the parts of all the particles in B will be the same size as B, since it will be made of the same particles as B, and hence will be bigger than any object made of parts of A.

Fundamentality and anthropocentrism

Say an object is grue if it is observed before the year 2100 and green, or it is blue but not observed before 2100. Then it is reasonable to do induction with “green” but not with “grue”: our observations of emerald color fit equally well with the hypotheses that emeralds are green and that they are grue, but it is the green hypothesis that is reasonable.

A plausible story about the relevant difference between “green” and “grue” is that “green” is significantly closer to being a “perfectly natural” or “fundamental” property than “grue” is. If we try to define “green” and “grue” in fundamental scientific vocabulary, the definition of “grue” will be about twice as long. Thus, “green” is projectible but “grue” is not, to use Goodman’s term.

But this story has an interesting problem. Say that an object is pogatively charged if it is observed before Planck time 2ⁿ and positively charged or it negatively charged but not observed before Planck time 2ⁿ. By the “Planck time”, I mean the proper time from the beginning of the universe measured in Planck times, and I stipulate that n is the smallest integer such that 2ⁿ is in our future. Now, while “pogatively charged” is further from the fundamental than “positively charged”, nonetheless “pogatively charged” seems much more fundamental than “green”. Just think how hard it is to define “green” in fundamental terms: objects are green provided that their emissive/refractive/reflective spectral profile peaks in a particular way in a particular part of the visible spectrum. Defining the “particular way” and “particular part” will be complex—it will make make reference to details tied to our visual sensitivities—and defining “emissive/refractive/reflective”, and handling the complex interplay of these, is tough.

One move would be to draw a strong anti-reductionist conclusion from this: “green” is not to be defined in terms of spectral profiles, but is about as close to fundamentality as “positively charged”.

Another move would be to say that projectibility is not about distance to fundamentality, but is legitimately anthropocentric. I think kind of anthropocentrism is only plausible on the hypothesis that the world is made for us humans.

Naturalness and induction

David Lewis’s notion of the naturalness of predicates may seem at first sight like just the thing to solve Goodman’s new puzzle of induction: unlike green, grue is too unnatural for induction with respect to grue to be secure.

But this fails.

Roughly speaking, an object is green provided its emissivity or reflectivity as restricted to the visible range has a sufficiently pronounced peak around 540 nm. But in reality, it’s more complicated than that. An object’s emissivity and reflectivity might well have significantly different spectral profiles (think of a red LED that is reflectively white, as can be seen by turning it off), and one needs to define some sort of “normal conditions” combination of the two features. Describing these normal conditions will be quite complex, thereby making the concept of green be quite far from natural.

Now, it is much easier to define the concepts of emissively black (eblack) and emissively white (ewhite) than of green (or black or white, for that matter) in terms of the fundamental concepts of physics. And emeralds, we think, are eblack (since they don’t emit visible light). Then, just as Goodman defined grue as being observed before a certain date and being green and or being observed after that date and being blue, we can define eblite as existing wholly before 2100 and being eblack or existing wholly after 2100 and being ewhite. And here is the crucial thing: the concept of eblite is actually way more natural, in the Lewis sense of “natural”, than the concept of green. For the definition of eblite does not require the complexities of the normal conditions combination of emissivity and reflectivity.

Thus, if what makes induction with green work better than induction with grue is that greenness is more natural than grueness, then induction with eblite (over short-lived entities like snowflakes, say) should work even better than induction with green, since ebliteness is much more natural than grueness. But we know that we shouldn’t do induction with eblite: even though all the snowflakes we have observed are eblite, we shouldn’t assume that in the next century the snowflaskes will still be eblite (i.e., that they will start to have a white glow). Or, contrapositively, if eblite is insufficiently natural for induction, green is much too unnatural for induction.

Moreover, this points to a better story. Lewisian unnaturalness measures the complexity of a property relative to the properties that are in themselves perfectly natural. But this is unsatisfactory for epistemological purposes, since the perfectly natural properties are ones that we are far from having discovered as yet. Rather, for epistemological purposes, what we want to do is measure the complexity of a property relative to the properties that are for us perfectly natural. (This, of course, is meant to recall Aristotle’s distinction between what is more understandable in itself and what is more understandable for us.) The properties that are for us perfectly natural are the directly observable ones. And now the in itself messy property of greenness beats not only grue and eblite, but even the much more in itself natural property of eblack.

This can’t be the whole story. In more scientifically developed cases, we will have an interplay of induction with respect to for us natural properties (including ones involved in reading data off lab equipment) and in themselves natural properties.

And there is the deep puzzle of why we should trust induction with respect to what is merely for us natural. My short answer is it that it is our nature to do so, and our nature sets our epistemic norms.

Reproductions and forgeries

You can appreciate Monet's Woman with a Parasol in person through your own unaided vision. But perhaps you need eyeglasses. If you use eyeglasses while looking at the painting in the National Gallery, you're still appreciating Monet's painting. The same would be true if there were a window opposite the painting, and you were sitting in a tree and observing the painting through binoculars. Further, surely it makes no difference how the binoculars work. Ordinary binoculars work by rearranging light through lenses as it streams from the object to the eye. Digital binoculars, on the other hand, work by having sensors transform the light from the object and then creating images on tiny screens inside. When you look at Woman with a Parasol through digital binoculars, what you're appreciating is the painting through the binoculars, not the two tiny images on screens inside the binoculars.

But notice that with digital binoculars, you can do two things. You can look at the little screens inside or you can, as it were, look through them. The intentional objects are different: if you look at the screens, you see the screens; if you look through the screens, you see the world (including Woman with a Parasol, if that's where you're pointing the binoculars). When you look at the screens, your attention is at least in part on the pixels, the quality of the color rendition, the glare, and so on. When you look through the screens, your attention is on something out there in the world. The two experiences have distinctly different phenomenal feels, and you can go back and forth between them as in the case of the two duck-rabbit.

One more step. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, instead of cameras they have iconographs, which is a box with an imp that paints quickly with a little paintbrush. We can imagine binoculars made on that principle. A pair of eagle-eyed imps very quickly paint two little pictures in the box, constantly updating them. You could look through imp-binoculars at Woman with a Parasol, but we could also look at the pictures in the box, admiring the imps' workmanship. You could switch back and forth just by redirecting your attention. Note, however, that both ways of using the imp-binoculars could involve skill and knowledge. It might be that when you first look into the imp-binoculars, it's obvious to you that there are paintings inside (maybe you can see the brush strokes and the texture of the canvas) and only with experience do you learn to correlate the images in the imp-binoculars with the external world. On the other hand, if your visual acuity is not as good or if the imps are really good, you might not realize that there are paintings inside--it might feel like just looking through a pair of holes in a wall, and only with experience do you learn to see the images as little paintings.

At this point, it should be clear that one can look at a painting through its reproduction. It's just a matter of directing your attention and intentionality appropriately. It does, however, take knowledge. You need to know that the painting is a reproduction, just as you need to know that the imp-binoculars track the world to see the world through them.

This gives us an account of the properly aesthetic harm done by the forger of a particular painting (the forger of a particular painter's style is a more complicated case, but perhaps can be handled similarly). By blocking the viewer from knowing that the reproduction is a reproduction, the forger prevents the viewer from seeing the original through the forgery. It is the forgery rather than the original that is seen, but it is misconstrued. On the other hand, if the forger honestly informed us that this was a reproduction, she would be doing us a service--she would be providing us with a telescope pointed at the original.

What is interesting about this account of the properly aesthetic harms done by a forger is that it does not require us to value the viewing of an original over the viewing of a perfect reproduction. In fact, this account of what is bad about forgery depends precisely on the value of reproductions. One could--though one need not--hold that viewing Woman With a Parasol naked-eye, through eyeglasses, through optical binoculars, through digital binoculars, through imp-binoculars and through a reproduction are all equally valuable when the image quality is equal. In fact, viewing through a reproduction could be even more valuable, for instance if one's eyesight is poor and the reproduction is larger in size than the original. But it is important that we see the original through the reproduction, that the reproduction be a window on the artist's production, and indirectly on the artist's soul.

Likewise, we should see God through the world and especially through our neighbor.