Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Entities defined by abstraction principles of this form a... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Trains, under the simple account using abstraction principles, are abstract entities rather than concrete physical objects.

    Entities defined by abstraction principles of this form are reckoned as abstract entities.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    A train is defined as a maximal string of railroad carriages all connected to on...The expression 'the train of x' is defined via an abstraction principle: the tra...Trains, under the simple account using abstraction principles, are abstract enti...x is a train if and only if for some carriage y, x is the train of y.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Trains, under the simple account using abstraction principles, are abs...91%Space itself is a kind of conceptual abstraction rather than a real en...86%Abstractness is necessarily an essential feature of abstract entities83%Propositions are abstract objects that exist necessarily.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: abstract-objects
    View source passageHide passage
    where the \(F\text{s}\) cover the \(G\text{s}\) if and only if every part of every \(G\) has a part in common with an \(F\). Similarly, suppose a train is a maximal string of railroad carriages, all of which are connected to one another. We may define a functional expression, ‘the train of \(x\)’, by means of an ‘abstraction’ principle: The train of \(x\) = the train of \(y\) if and only if \(x\) and \(y\) are connected carriages. We may then say that \(x\) is a train if and only if for some car

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective