I’m glad to see I got a few links from John Quiggin’s blog. Welcome all,
and don’t be too scared off by the logicy stuff to keep coming back. (I might
even post more stuff on politics to get the hits up ;))

While on that stuff, I’m still trying to
write the Problem of the Many article, and getting stuck at just exactly what
the key argument is meant to be. So let o₁, o₂,
…, o_n be cloud-like fusions of water molecules, cloud*s in
Ted Sider’s useful phrase. There’s meant to be an argument from the
non-arbitrariness of language (or something like that) that runs the following
way.

1.       For
some j, o_j is a cloud.

2.       If o_j is a cloud and o_k is
not, then there must be something that makes it the case that o_j
is a cloud and o_k is not.

3.       There is nothing that could make it the case that o_j
is a cloud and o_k is not.

C.       o_k is a cloud.

So the conclusion is that if one of the o’s
is a cloud, then they all are. Anyway, two things that I was wondering about
that anyone who just might know something about the Problem of the Many could
perchance help me with. First, is that really meant to be the argument
from the fact that there’s no ‘selection principle’ that selects o_j
rather than o_k than Unger occasionally appeals to (and that Vann
McGee and Brian McLaughlin think actually works if you’re not a
supervaluationist). Secondly, couldn’t we make this all a bit more rigorous? I
have no idea, for instance, what kind of things the ‘something’ in 2 is meant
to be a quantifier over. Anyway, for now the plan is to say that is the
argument, and say why the idea that ‘cloud’ is vague gives us a reason to reject
premise 2.

The writing has been very distracting because
I’m stopping every few words to check the election results. If the GOP gets a
Senate majority then I’m really going to start looking for work in any country
but here. Ireland looks good this time of year, as does New Zealand. I seem to be developing an odd taste for small countries, which is odd given how much I like big cities. Maybe I just really want to live in Dublin.

I’m glad to see I got a few links from John Quiggin’s blog. Welcome all,
and don’t be too scared off by the logicy stuff to keep coming back. (I might
even post more stuff on politics to get the hits up ;))

While on that stuff, I’m still trying to
write the Problem of the Many article, and getting stuck at just exactly what
the key argument is meant to be. So let o₁, o₂,
…, o_n be cloud-like fusions of water molecules, cloud*s in
Ted Sider’s useful phrase. There’s meant to be an argument from the
non-arbitrariness of language (or something like that) that runs the following
way.

1.       For
some j, o_j is a cloud.

2.       If o_j is a cloud and o_k is
not, then there must be something that makes it the case that o_j
is a cloud and o_k is not.

3.       There is nothing that could make it the case that o_j
is a cloud and o_k is not.

C.       o_k is a cloud.

So the conclusion is that if one of the o’s
is a cloud, then they all are. Anyway, two things that I was wondering about
that anyone who just might know something about the Problem of the Many could
perchance help me with. First, is that really meant to be the argument
from the fact that there’s no ‘selection principle’ that selects o_j
rather than o_k than Unger occasionally appeals to (and that Vann
McGee and Brian McLaughlin think actually works if you’re not a
supervaluationist). Secondly, couldn’t we make this all a bit more rigorous? I
have no idea, for instance, what kind of things the ‘something’ in 2 is meant
to be a quantifier over. Anyway, for now the plan is to say that is the
argument, and say why the idea that ‘cloud’ is vague gives us a reason to reject
premise 2.

The writing has been very distracting because
I’m stopping every few words to check the election results. If the GOP gets a
Senate majority then I’m really going to start looking for work in any country
but here. Ireland looks good this time of year, as does New Zealand. I seem to be developing an odd taste for small countries, which is odd given how much I like big cities. Maybe I just really want to live in Dublin.