An object is a simple if and only if it has no proper parts. An object is gunk if and only if every proper part of that object itself has a proper part. In my dissertation, I address the following questions. The concepts of simples and gunk presuppose the concept of parthood. What is the status of this concept? his question itself divides into the following: does the concept of parthood have universal applicability, so that, just as every object is (...) self-identical, every object has parts? Finally, is the concept of parthood univocal, or are there different notions of parthood, each of which is defined on distinct ontological categories? I argue that the concept of parthood has univocal. I also argue that there is some evidence that the concept of parthood has universal applicability. I address the Simple Question, which is “under what circumstances is it true of some object that it has no proper parts?” I argue against several popular answers to the Simple Question, such as the view that simples are all and only point-sized objects, and the view that simples are maximally continuous material objects. I defend the Brutal View, which holds that there is no true, finitely expressible, and informative answer to the Simple Question. In short, there is no criterion for being a simple. Along the way, I address the question of whether extended simples, i.e., simples that are extended in space, are possible. I argue that one popular argument against the possibility of extended simples is unsound. I address the question of whether both simples and gunk are possible. I argue that it is metaphysically possible that material objects be composed of gunk. (shrink)

Physical boundaries and the earliest topologists. Topology has a relatively short history; but its 19th century roots are embedded in philosophical problems about the nature of extended substances and their boundaries which go back to Zeno and Aristotle. Although it seems that there have always been philosophers interested in these matters, questions about the boundaries of three-dimensional objects were closest to center stage during the later medieval and modern periods. Are the boundaries of an object actually existing, less-than-three-dimensional parts of (...) the object—that is, are solids bounded by two-dimensional surfaces, surfaces by one-dimensional “edges” or “physical lines”, edges by dimensionless “simples”? If not, how does a perfectly spherical object manage to touch a perfectly flat object—what part of the sphere is in immediate contact with the plane, if the sphere has no unextended parts? But if such parts be admitted, are we not then saddled with “actual infinities” of simples, lines, and surfaces spread throughout each continuous object—the boundaries of all the object’s internal parts? Does it help to say that these internal boundaries exist only “potentially”? (shrink)

A continuum is here a primitive notion intended to correspond precisely to a path-connected subset of the usual euclidean space. In contrast, however, to the traditional treatment, we treat here continua not as pointsets, but as irreducible entities equipped only with a partial ordering ≤ interpreted as parthood. Our aim is to examine what basic topological and geometric properties of continua can be expressed in the language of ≤, and what principles we need in order to prove elementary facts about (...) them. Surprisingly enough ≤ suffices to formulate the very heart of continuity (=jumpless and gapless transitions) in a general setting. Further, using a few principles about ≤ (together with the axioms of ZFC), we can define points, joins, meets and infinite closeness. Most important, we can develop a dimension theory based on notions like path, circle, line (=one-dimensional continuum), simple line and surface (=two-dimensional continuum), recovering thereby in a rigorous way Poincaré's well-known intuitive idea that dimension expresses the ways in which a continuum can be torn apart. We outline a classification of lines according to the number of circles and branching points they contain. The ordering (C,≤) is a topped and bottomed, atomic, almost dense and complete partial ordering, weaker than a lattice. Continuous transformations from C to C are also defined in a natural way and results about them are proved. (shrink)

This article is devoted to the problem of ontological foundations of three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. Starting from Bertrand Russell’s intuitions concerning the sensual world we try to show that it is possible to build a foundation for pure geometry by means of the so called regions of space. It is not our intention to present mathematically developed theory, but rather demonstrate basic assumptions, tools and techniques that are used in construction of systems of point-free geometry and topology by means of mereology (...) and Whitehead-like connection structures. We list and briefly analyze axioms for mereological structures, as well as those for connection structures. We argue that mereology is a good tool to model so called spatial relations. We also try to justify our choice of axioms for connection relation. Finally, we briefly discuss two theories: Grzegorczyk’s point-free topology and Tarski’s geometry of solids. (shrink)

De Cock and Kerre, in considering Poincaré paradox, observed that the intuitive notion of "approximate similarity" cannot be adequately represented by the fuzzy equivalence relations. In this note we argue that the deduction apparatus of fuzzy logic gives adequate tools with which to face the question. Indeed, a first-order theory is proposed whose fuzzy models are plausible candidates for the notion of approximate similarity. A connection between these structures and the point-free metric spaces is also established.

This note is motivated by Whitehead’s researches in inclusion-based point-free geometry as exposed in An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge and in The concept of Nature. More precisely, we observe that Whitehead’s definition of point, based on the notions of abstractive class and covering, is not adequate. Indeed, if we admit such a definition it is also questionable that a point exists. On the contrary our approach, in which the diameter is a further primitive, enables us to avoid (...) such a drawback. Moreover, since such a notion enables us to define a metric in the set of points, our proposal looks to be a good starting point for a foundation of the geometry metrical in nature (as proposed, for example, by L.M. Blumenthal). (shrink)

A metric approach to Popper's verisimilitude question is proposed which is related to point-free geometry. Indeed, we define the theory of approximate metric spaces whose primitive notions are regions, inclusion relation, minimum distance, and maximum distance between regions. Then, we show that the class of possible scientific theories has the structure of an approximate metric space. So, we can define the verisimilitude of a theory as a function of its (approximate) distance from the truth. This avoids some of the difficulties (...) arising from the known definitions of verisimilitude. (shrink)

We define the notion of “potential existence” by starting from the fact that in multi-valued logic the existential quantifier is interpreted by the least upper bound operator. Besides, we try to define in a general way how to pass from potential into actual existence.

Whitehead, in two basic books, considers two different approaches to point-free geometry: the inclusion-based approach , whose primitive notions are regions and inclusion relation between regions, and the connection-based approach , where the connection relation is considered instead of the inclusion. We show that the latter cannot be reduced to the first one, although this can be done in the framework of multivalued logics.

We think of a boundary whenever we think of an entity demarcated from its surroundings. There is a boundary (a line) separating Maryland and Pennsylvania. There is a boundary (a circle) isolating the interior of a disc from its exterior. There is a boundary (a surface) enclosing the bulk of this apple. Sometimes the exact location of a boundary is unclear or otherwise controversial (as when you try to trace out the margins of Mount Everest, or even the boundary of (...) your own body). Sometimes the boundary lies skew to any physical discontinuity or qualitative differentiation (as with the border of Wyoming, or the boundary between the upper and lower halves of a homogeneous sphere). But whether sharp or blurry, natural or artificial, for every object there appears to be a boundary that marks it off from the rest of the world. Events, too, have boundaries — at least temporal boundaries. Our lives are bounded by our births and by our deaths; the soccer game began at 3pm sharp and ended with the referee's final whistle at 4:45pm. It is sometimes suggested that even abstract entities, such as concepts or sets, have boundaries of their own, and Wittgenstein could emphatically proclaim that the boundaries of our language are the boundaries of our world. Whether all this boundary talk is coherent, however, and whether it reflects the structure of the world or simply the organizing activity of our mind, are matters of deep philosophical controversy. (shrink)

I argue that it may well be the case that space and time do not consist of points, indeed that they have no smallest parts. I examine two different approaches to such pointless spaces : a topological approach and a measure theoretic approach. I argue in favor of the measure theoretic approach.

It is widely accepted that continuity is the most essential characteristic of motion; the motion of macroscopic objects is apparently continuous, and classical mechanics, which describes such motion, is also based on the assumption of continuous motion. But is motion really continuous in reality? In this paper, I will try to answer this question through a new analysis of the cause of motion. It has been argued that the standard velocity in classical mechanics cannot fulfill the causal role required for (...) explaining continuous motion in a deterministic way. However, there is a hot debate over the solution to this causal explanation problem. The existing solutions, i.e. the "at-at" theory, the impetus view and the "no instants" view, have serious drawbacks. After reviewing their drawbacks and presenting my own objections, I propose a new solution to this causal explanation problem. It is argued that the relativity of motion or the equivalence between motion and rest demands that motion has no deterministic cause, and thus no causal explanation is needed for motion. Based on this result, I further argue that the uncaused motion is not deterministic and continuous but essentially random and discontinuous. Moreover, objects have a potential that determines the probabilities of their future positions. This suggests a possible connection with quantum mechanics. Lastly, I give a brief explanation for the apparent inconsistency between the suggested potential theory of motion and the appearance of continuous motion in the macroscopic world. (shrink)