Concept - Revision history

Lfox: /* Definition */

2025-01-18T00:28:06Z

Definition

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:28, 18 January 2025
Line 79:		Line 79:

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==
	A '''definition''' is<ref group="note">This is the primary sense of the word definition. There is one derivative [TODO is it derivative or equivocal?] sense of the word which is important for math (see §[[Concept#Specification\|Specification]]). When context requires that I disambiguate, I will sometimes call the former a "concept-definition," and the latter a "specification." </ref> "a statement that identifies the nature of a concept’s units."<ref name=":0" />		A '''definition''' is<ref group="note">This is the primary sense of the word definition. There is one derivative [TODO is it derivative or equivocal?] sense of the word which is important for math (see §[[Concept#Specification\|Specification]]). When context requires that I disambiguate, I will sometimes call the former a "concept-definition," and the latter a "specification." </ref> "a statement that identifies the nature of a concept’s units."<ref name=":0" /> [TODO better definition from LP's logic course lecture 7 "A statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept, by means of specifying their essential characteristics."]

	Every concept refers to some things in reality (its units), and a definition seeks to explain, ''in essence'', what are those things. To do this, a definition consists of a ''genus'', and some ''differentia''. The genus tells us to what broad category of things the units of this concept belong. The differentia tell us how to distinguish the units of this concept from the other things in that broad category. The genus and differentia follow the same rules as concept formation. [TODO expand last sentence]		Every concept refers to some things in reality (its units), and a definition seeks to explain, ''in essence'', what are those things. To do this, a definition consists of a ''genus'', and some ''differentia''. The genus tells us to what broad category of things the units of this concept belong. The differentia tell us how to distinguish the units of this concept from the other things in that broad category. The genus and differentia follow the same rules as concept formation. [TODO expand last sentence]
Line 90:		Line 90:
	# A definition aids communication between different men, helping them avoid misunderstandings and make sure that they are actually talking about the same thing.		# A definition aids communication between different men, helping them avoid misunderstandings and make sure that they are actually talking about the same thing.
	# A definition explains what a new word means. Sometimes a man might already have a clear concept (and therefore, a word for the concept), but not know that another word also stands for approximately the same concept (e.g. this is very common in a context where one is learning a foreign language).		# A definition explains what a new word means. Sometimes a man might already have a clear concept (and therefore, a word for the concept), but not know that another word also stands for approximately the same concept (e.g. this is very common in a context where one is learning a foreign language).
			[TODO this list can be essentialized. 2 is away of restating 1 from a different perspective. 4 is an corollary of 1: two people are talking about the same thing if their concepts refer to the same thing in reality. ]

	Almost every concept can and should be defined. [TODO why]		Almost every concept can and should be defined. [TODO why and in what sense ? ]

	Definitions are especially important in mathematics, where we commonly work with concepts that are extremely abstract. If one were only working with concrete, first-level concepts, he could get by without definitions easily, because if he wanted to know what his concepts referred to, he could literally just try to remember the pictures, sounds, smells, etc. which the concrete referents of his concepts have impressed upon his senses. With a high-level concept, however, which doesn't directly refer to perceptually available things, a definition is needed to explain how it was formed.		Definitions are especially important in mathematics, where we commonly work with concepts that are extremely abstract. If one were only working with concrete, first-level concepts, he could get by without definitions easily, because if he wanted to know what his concepts referred to, he could literally just try to remember the pictures, sounds, smells, etc. which the concrete referents of his concepts have impressed upon his senses. With a high-level concept, however, which doesn't directly refer to perceptually available things, a definition is needed to explain how it was formed.

Lfox: /* Concept formation */

2024-05-29T23:54:43Z

Concept formation

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:54, 29 May 2024
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]		Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]

	The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "~~The~~ characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."<ref name=":0" />		=== Conceptual Common Denominator ===
			The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "the characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."<ref name=":0" />

			=== Similarity ===
			'''Similarity''' (in this technical context) is "the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree."<ref name=":0" />

			Note what this definition ''does not say'': it does not say "different measure or degree, but measure or degree that isn't ''too'' different." Indeed, if it said that, then it would beg the question of how much differentness is too different. Instead it says that if two or more existents possess the same characteristic(s), then they are ''similar'' (in that respect), regardless of what the specific measurements of those characteristics are. .... [TODO wut this is stupid]

			I like HB's quote<ref name=":2" /><blockquote>The [perceptual] grasp of similarity requires a minimum of three concretes having a commensurable characteristic(s): two whose measurements differ slightly and one that differs greatly in measurement from both.</blockquote>

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==

Lfox: /* Concept formation */

2024-05-29T03:42:42Z

Concept formation

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 29 May 2024
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]		Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]

	The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "~~the [characteristics]~~ reducible to ~~[units]~~ of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing ~~[them]~~."<ref name=":0" />		The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "The characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."<ref name=":0" />

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==

Lfox: /* Concept formation */

2024-05-28T23:03:06Z

Concept formation

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:03, 28 May 2024
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]		Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]

	The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "the ~~characteristic(s)~~ reducible to ~~a unit~~ of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."<ref name=":0" />		The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "the [characteristics] reducible to [units] of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing [them]."<ref name=":0" />

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==

Lfox: /* Concept formation */

2024-05-28T23:01:18Z

Concept formation

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 28 May 2024
Line 66:		Line 66:

	== Concept formation ==		== Concept formation ==
	Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO ~~lol~~]		Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO elaborate]

			The '''Conceptual Common Denominator''', or '''CCD''' is "the characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."<ref name=":0" />

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==

Lfox: /* Measurement */

2024-05-20T06:09:27Z

Measurement

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:09, 20 May 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:
	A '''unit''' is "an [[existent]] regarded as a separate member of a [<nowiki/>[[set]]]<ref group="note">ITOE calls [[sets]] "groups." Objective Mathematics reserves this terminology for [[Group\|another concept]].</ref> of two or more similar members."<ref name=":0" />		A '''unit''' is "an [[existent]] regarded as a separate member of a [<nowiki/>[[set]]]<ref group="note">ITOE calls [[sets]] "groups." Objective Mathematics reserves this terminology for [[Group\|another concept]].</ref> of two or more similar members."<ref name=":0" />

	an existent regarded as a separate member of a set of two or more members		an existent regarded as a separate member of a set of two or more members [I don't like the word similar because I think it's unnecessary and vague]

	[TODO something I really need to sort out] AR says that every concrete can, in some circumstances, be regarded as a unit, however, <blockquote>that doesn’t mean that every concrete can serve as a standard of measurement. Because “unit” here has two different meanings. A unit selected as a standard of measurement [e.g., the inch] has to be a given quantity of a given attribute, not of an entity.</blockquote>huh?		[TODO something I really need to sort out] AR says that every concrete can, in some circumstances, be regarded as a unit, however, <blockquote>that doesn’t mean that every concrete can serve as a standard of measurement. Because “unit” here has two different meanings. A unit selected as a standard of measurement [e.g., the inch] has to be a given quantity of a given attribute, not of an entity.</blockquote>huh?
Line 62:		Line 62:
	=== Non-examples of measurements ===		=== Non-examples of measurements ===
	Sometimes, especially in the context of quantum physics, people say things like "I measured that the light switch is off." This is incorrect. What really happened is that you measured some things like the spatial orientation of the light switch, or the amount of light in the room, and then, on the basis of your measurements of those things, you made the ''conceptual identification'' that the light switch is off. (If you think that this prima facie conflict with the standard account of quantum mechanics is a problem for OM, see [[Objective Mathematics#Objective Mathematics is anti-scientific\|here]].)		Sometimes, especially in the context of quantum physics, people say things like "I measured that the light switch is off." This is incorrect. What really happened is that you measured some things like the spatial orientation of the light switch, or the amount of light in the room, and then, on the basis of your measurements of those things, you made the ''conceptual identification'' that the light switch is off. (If you think that this prima facie conflict with the standard account of quantum mechanics is a problem for OM, see [[Objective Mathematics#Objective Mathematics is anti-scientific\|here]].)

			Sometimes people will say things like "I measured that there are 126 candies in this jar." This is incorrect [? is it rly? AR seems to think it's incorrect but idk. TODO].

	== Concept formation ==		== Concept formation ==

Lfox at 05:48, 20 May 2024

2024-05-20T05:48:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 20 May 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	A concept is a mental unit. A concept refers to an unlimited number of concretes.		A concept is a mental unit. A concept refers to an unlimited number of concretes.

	With the exception of proper names, there is basically a one-to-one correspondence between the concepts that a man uses and the words that he uses. There are some exceptions to that rule. For example, in my mind, I think that "[[Concept#~~Unit~~\|dimensional analysis]]" is treated as a single concept, rather than as a type of analysis which is about dimensions (though the name is apt). Conversely, in my mind the different words "squadron" and "battalion" stand for the exact same concept (though I am sure that they would stand for different concepts if I knew more about militaries).		With the exception of proper names, there is basically a one-to-one correspondence between the concepts that a man uses and the words that he uses. There are some exceptions to that rule. For example, in my mind, I think that "[[Concept#Units in science\|dimensional analysis]]" is treated as a single concept, rather than as a type of analysis which is about dimensions (though the name is apt). Conversely, in my mind the different words "squadron" and "battalion" stand for the exact same concept (though I am sure that they would stand for different concepts if I knew more about militaries).

	In German, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and words is closer to being true, because they have more compound words than English (e.g "dimensional analysis" is "Dimensionsanalyse"). In Chinese, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and ''characters'' is farther from being true, because a single Chinese character is often ambiguous until combined with other characters. This fact has been recognized by Chinese, which has a word ("词语") that seems to effectively mean: a grouping of one or more characters that stands for a single concept. "词语" gets translated into English as "word."		In German, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and words is closer to being true, because they have more compound words than English (e.g "dimensional analysis" is "Dimensionsanalyse"). In Chinese, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and ''characters'' is farther from being true, because a single Chinese character is often ambiguous until combined with other characters. This fact has been recognized by Chinese, which has a word ("词语") that seems to effectively mean: a grouping of one or more characters that stands for a single concept. "词语" gets translated into English as "word."

Lfox: /* Definition */

2024-05-20T05:47:25Z

Definition

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 20 May 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	A concept is a mental unit. A concept refers to an unlimited number of concretes.		A concept is a mental unit. A concept refers to an unlimited number of concretes.

	With the exception of proper names, there is basically a one-to-one correspondence between the concepts that a man uses and the words that he uses. There are some exceptions to that rule. For example, in my mind, I think that "[[dimensional analysis]]" is treated as a single concept, rather than as a type of analysis which is about dimensions (though the name is apt). Conversely, in my mind the different words "squadron" and "battalion" stand for the exact same concept (though I am sure that they would stand for different concepts if I knew more about militaries).		With the exception of proper names, there is basically a one-to-one correspondence between the concepts that a man uses and the words that he uses. There are some exceptions to that rule. For example, in my mind, I think that "[[Concept#Unit\|dimensional analysis]]" is treated as a single concept, rather than as a type of analysis which is about dimensions (though the name is apt). Conversely, in my mind the different words "squadron" and "battalion" stand for the exact same concept (though I am sure that they would stand for different concepts if I knew more about militaries).

	In German, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and words is closer to being true, because they have more compound words than English (e.g "dimensional analysis" is "Dimensionsanalyse"). In Chinese, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and ''characters'' is farther from being true, because a single Chinese character is often ambiguous until combined with other characters. This fact has been recognized by Chinese, which has a word ("词语") that seems to effectively mean: a grouping of one or more characters that stands for a single concept. "词语" gets translated into English as "word."		In German, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and words is closer to being true, because they have more compound words than English (e.g "dimensional analysis" is "Dimensionsanalyse"). In Chinese, the one-to-one correspondence between concepts and ''characters'' is farther from being true, because a single Chinese character is often ambiguous until combined with other characters. This fact has been recognized by Chinese, which has a word ("词语") that seems to effectively mean: a grouping of one or more characters that stands for a single concept. "词语" gets translated into English as "word."
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Unit ==		== Unit ==
	A '''unit''' is "an [[existent]] regarded as a separate member of a [<nowiki/>[[set]]]<ref group="note">ITOE calls [[sets]] "groups." Objective Mathematics reserves this terminology for [[Group\|another concept]].</ref> of two or more similar members."<ref name=":0" />		A '''unit''' is "an [[existent]] regarded as a separate member of a [<nowiki/>[[set]]]<ref group="note">ITOE calls [[sets]] "groups." Objective Mathematics reserves this terminology for [[Group\|another concept]].</ref> of two or more similar members."<ref name=":0" />

			an existent regarded as a separate member of a set of two or more members

	[TODO something I really need to sort out] AR says that every concrete can, in some circumstances, be regarded as a unit, however, <blockquote>that doesn’t mean that every concrete can serve as a standard of measurement. Because “unit” here has two different meanings. A unit selected as a standard of measurement [e.g., the inch] has to be a given quantity of a given attribute, not of an entity.</blockquote>huh?		[TODO something I really need to sort out] AR says that every concrete can, in some circumstances, be regarded as a unit, however, <blockquote>that doesn’t mean that every concrete can serve as a standard of measurement. Because “unit” here has two different meanings. A unit selected as a standard of measurement [e.g., the inch] has to be a given quantity of a given attribute, not of an entity.</blockquote>huh?
Line 29:		Line 31:
	One second, regarded as part of an ongoing period of time, is a unit.		One second, regarded as part of an ongoing period of time, is a unit.

	Anything regarded as an example of a concept, or as a concrete instance of a concept, is in that capacity a unit.		Anything regarded as an example of a concept, or as a concrete instance of a concept, is in that capacity a unit. For example, a specific triangle is a unit of the concept [[triangle]].

	=== Non-examples ===		=== Non-examples ===
Line 59:		Line 61:

	=== Non-examples of measurements ===		=== Non-examples of measurements ===
	Sometimes, especially in the context of quantum physics, people say things like "I measured that the light switch is off." This is incorrect. What really happened is that you measured some things like the spatial orientation of the light switch, or the amount of light in the room, and then, on the basis of your measurements of those things, you made the ''conceptual identification'' that the light switch is off. (If you think that this prima facie conflict with the standard account of quantum mechanics is a problem for OM, see [[Objective Mathematics#Objective Mathematics is anti-scientific\|here]].)		Sometimes, especially in the context of quantum physics, people say things like "I measured that the light switch is off." This is incorrect. What really happened is that you measured some things like the spatial orientation of the light switch, or the amount of light in the room, and then, on the basis of your measurements of those things, you made the ''conceptual identification'' that the light switch is off. (If you think that this prima facie conflict with the standard account of quantum mechanics is a problem for OM, see [[Objective Mathematics#Objective Mathematics is anti-scientific\|here]].)

	== Concept formation ==		== Concept formation ==
	Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.		Concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission.[TODO lol]

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==
	A '''definition''' is<ref group="note">This is the primary sense of the word definition. There is one derivative [TODO is it derivative or equivocal?] sense of the word which is important for math (see §[[Concept#Specification\|Specification]]). When context requires that I disambiguate, I will sometimes call the former a "concept-definition," and the latter a "specification." </ref> "a statement that identifies the nature of a concept’s units."<ref name=":0" />		A '''definition''' is<ref group="note">This is the primary sense of the word definition. There is one derivative [TODO is it derivative or equivocal?] sense of the word which is important for math (see §[[Concept#Specification\|Specification]]). When context requires that I disambiguate, I will sometimes call the former a "concept-definition," and the latter a "specification." </ref> "a statement that identifies the nature of a concept’s units."<ref name=":0" />

	~~What is~~ the ~~purpose~~ of ~~a definition?~~		Every concept refers to some things in reality (its units), and a definition seeks to explain, ''in essence'', what are those things. To do this, a definition consists of a ''genus'', and some ''differentia''. The genus tells us to what broad category of things the units of this concept belong. The differentia tell us how to distinguish the units of this concept from the other things in that broad category. The genus and differentia follow the same rules as concept formation. [TODO expand last sentence]

	~~A definition has a few purposes. The most important purpose of a definition~~ is ~~that it summarizes what concrete things in reality a concept refers to. Another~~ purpose of a definition ~~is that it organizes the logical dependence of~~ some ~~concepts on others, clarifying the hierarchy of knowledge. Yet another purpose of a definition is that it clarifies what is meant by a ''word''; sometimes a man might already have a clear concept~~ (~~and therefore, a word for the concept~~), ~~but not know that another word also stands for approximately the same concept (e.g. this is very common~~ in ~~a context where one is learning a foreign language).~~		What is the purpose of a definition? Here are some (overlapping) answers to that question, in approximate order of importance:

	~~Almost every~~ concept ~~can~~ and ~~should be defined~~. ~~[TODO]~~		# A definition summarizes what concrete things in reality a concept refers to.
			# Definitions provide a clear path for reducing one's concepts back to perceptual concretes.
			# A definition clarifies the logical dependence of some concepts on others. It helps us see which concepts are based on which others, and therefore which concepts are more fundamental.
			# A definition aids communication between different men, helping them avoid misunderstandings and make sure that they are actually talking about the same thing.
			# A definition explains what a new word means. Sometimes a man might already have a clear concept (and therefore, a word for the concept), but not know that another word also stands for approximately the same concept (e.g. this is very common in a context where one is learning a foreign language).

	~~Summarizing the concrete things in reality to which a~~ concept refers is especially important in mathematics, where we commonly work with concepts that are extremely abstract. If one were only working with concrete, first-level concepts, he could get by without definitions easily, because if he wanted to know what his concepts referred to, he could literally just try to remember the pictures, sounds, smells, etc. which the concrete referents of his concepts have impressed upon his senses. With a high-level concept, however, which doesn't directly refer to perceptually available things, a definition is needed to explain how it was formed.		Almost every concept can and should be defined. [TODO why]

	~~Any definition provides a ''genus''~~, ~~and some ''differentia''~~. ~~The genus tells us in~~ what ~~broad category of our mind we should look~~ to ~~find~~ the ~~concept~~. ~~The differentia tell us how to distinguish~~ the concept ~~from the other concepts in that broad category~~. ~~[TODO expand]~~		Definitions are especially important in mathematics, where we commonly work with concepts that are extremely abstract. If one were only working with concrete, first-level concepts, he could get by without definitions easily, because if he wanted to know what his concepts referred to, he could literally just try to remember the pictures, sounds, smells, etc. which the concrete referents of his concepts have impressed upon his senses. With a high-level concept, however, which doesn't directly refer to perceptually available things, a definition is needed to explain how it was formed.

	=== Examples ===		=== Examples ===
	For examples of definitions, look at the first sentence of most pages and sections on the Objective Mathematics wiki. If the first sentence contains a bolded word, ~~I am~~ probably ~~defining~~ that word.		For examples of definitions, look at the first sentence of most pages and sections on the Objective Mathematics wiki. If the first sentence contains a bolded word, it is probably a definition of that word.

	=== Standard math's idea of definitions ===		=== Standard math's idea of definitions ===
Line 104:		Line 110:

	=== Specification [TODO] ===		=== Specification [TODO] ===
	A '''specification''' of a concept is a description of the measurements which were omitted in forming it. A specification can have differing levels of precision, depending on the context. A specification is closer to standard mathematics' idea of definitions than is a concept-definition. Below I will describe some contexts, mathematical and otherwise, where specifications are needed.		A '''specification''' of a concept is a description of the measurements which were omitted in forming it. A specification can have differing levels of precision, depending on the context. A specification can be closer to standard mathematics' idea of definitions than a concept-definition is. Below I will describe some contexts, mathematical and otherwise, where specifications are needed.

	An example is that if one is programming computer, then one has to specify ''exactly'' what all one's "concepts" (i.e. classes or [[types]]) mean. Computers are dumb, so there is no room to be vague, or to omit non-essential properties. To define a class in, say, C++, one must precisely specify ''all'' of its attributes, down to the most trivial details.		An example is that if one is programming computer, then one has to specify ''exactly'' what all one's "concepts" (i.e. classes or [[types]]) mean. Computers are dumb, so there is no room to be vague, or to omit non-essential properties. To define a class in, say, C++, one must precisely specify ''all'' of its attributes, down to the most trivial details.
Line 128:		Line 134:

	== Proposition ==		== Proposition ==
	A '''proposition''' is a basic identification of a fact of reality. It is "the form in which we make conceptual identifications."<ref name=":2">Binswanger, Harry. ''How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation''. TOF Publications, 2019.</ref>		A '''proposition''' is a basic identification of a fact of reality. It is "the form in which we make conceptual identifications."<ref name=":2">Binswanger, Harry. ''How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation''. TOF Publications, 2019.</ref> [TODO maybe delete quote since I'm not using it as a definition.]
	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

Lfox: got rid of the AR quote. It's good, but I want this to be my own thing.

2024-05-20T05:04:51Z

got rid of the AR quote. It's good, but I want this to be my own thing.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:04, 20 May 2024
Line 65:		Line 65:

	== Definition ==		== Definition ==
	A '''definition''' is<ref group="note">This is the primary sense of the word definition. There is one derivative [TODO is it derivative or equivocal?] sense of the word which is important for math (see §[[Concept#Specification\|Specification]]). When context requires that I disambiguate, I will sometimes call the former a "concept-definition," and the latter a "specification." </ref> "a statement that identifies the nature of a concept’s units."<ref name=":0" />		A '''definition''' is<ref group="note">This is the primary sense of the word definition. There is one derivative [TODO is it derivative or equivocal?] sense of the word which is important for math (see §[[Concept#Specification\|Specification]]). When context requires that I disambiguate, I will sometimes call the former a "concept-definition," and the latter a "specification." </ref> "a statement that identifies the nature of a concept’s units."<ref name=":0" />

	What is the purpose of a definition? AR says<ref name=":0" /> <blockquote>To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality. </blockquote>A definition has a few purposes. The most important purpose of a definition is that it summarizes what concrete things in reality a concept refers to. Another purpose of a definition is that it organizes the logical dependence of some concepts on others, clarifying the hierarchy of knowledge. Yet another purpose of a definition is that it clarifies what is meant by a ''word''; sometimes a man might already have a clear concept (and therefore, a word for the concept), but not know that another word also stands for approximately the same concept (e.g. this is very common in a context where one is learning a foreign language).		What is the purpose of a definition?

			A definition has a few purposes. The most important purpose of a definition is that it summarizes what concrete things in reality a concept refers to. Another purpose of a definition is that it organizes the logical dependence of some concepts on others, clarifying the hierarchy of knowledge. Yet another purpose of a definition is that it clarifies what is meant by a ''word''; sometimes a man might already have a clear concept (and therefore, a word for the concept), but not know that another word also stands for approximately the same concept (e.g. this is very common in a context where one is learning a foreign language).

	Almost every concept can and should be defined. [TODO]		Almost every concept can and should be defined. [TODO]

Lfox at 04:55, 20 May 2024

2024-05-20T04:55:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 20 May 2024
Line 59:		Line 59:

	=== Non-examples of measurements ===		=== Non-examples of measurements ===
	Sometimes, especially in the context of quantum physics, people say things like "I measured that the light switch is off." This is incorrect. What really happened is that you measured some things like the spatial orientation of the light switch, or the amount of light in the room, and then, on the basis of your measurements of those things, you made the ''conceptual identification'' that the light switch is off. If you think that this prima facie conflict with the standard account of quantum mechanics is a problem, see [[Objective Mathematics#Objective Mathematics is anti-scientific\|here]].		Sometimes, especially in the context of quantum physics, people say things like "I measured that the light switch is off." This is incorrect. What really happened is that you measured some things like the spatial orientation of the light switch, or the amount of light in the room, and then, on the basis of your measurements of those things, you made the ''conceptual identification'' that the light switch is off. (If you think that this prima facie conflict with the standard account of quantum mechanics is a problem for OM, see [[Objective Mathematics#Objective Mathematics is anti-scientific\|here]].)

	== Concept formation ==		== Concept formation ==