|
I explicate and defend the claim that, fundamentally speaking, there are no
numbers, sets, properties or relations. The clarification consists in some
remarks on the relevant sense of ‘fundamentally speaking’ and
the contrasting sense of ‘superficially speaking’. The defence
consists in an attempt to rebut two arguments for the existence of such
entities. The first is a version of the indispensability argument, which
purports to show that certain mathematical entities are required for good
scientific explanations. The second is a speculative reconstruction of
Armstrong's version of the One Over Many argument, which purports to show
that properties and relations are required for good philosophical
explanations, e.g. of what it is for one thing to be a duplicate of
another.
|