Definitions
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike License
 adj. Of or pertaining to mereology, a collection of axiomatic firstorder theories dealing with parts and their respective wholes.
Etymologies
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike License
Examples

(This account is sometimes referred to as mereological nihilism, in contrast to the mereological universalism expressed by (P. 15) and the like; see van Inwagen 1990:

Intuitively, a set of m is what we would now call a mereological sum, consisting of one or more m, but not necessarily all of the m.

So these are the mereological questions which beset elementary particles, but even if we successfully elucidate the quantum concepts of parts and wholes, we are still left with the question, 'What is an elementary particle?'.

The Democritean vision of elementary particles as miniature snooker balls, however, has been somewhat vitiated by quantum theory, and it is not merely the classical notion of a particle as a localisable entity which has been undermined, but the mereological notion that a composite system has a unique decomposition into elementary entities.

This clearly undermines the Democritean mereological concept of elementarity, in which a composite entity has a unique decomposition into a set of indivisible entities.

They present elements of a sophisticated semantic theory, epistemology, consequentialist ethics, and theory of analogical argumentation, along with intriguing discussions of causality, space and time, and mereological ontology.

In particular, it assumes mereological Universalism, the view that for any objects, there is an object that has all of them as its fusion.

Lewis, who accepts the universality of mereological summation, does not deny that possible objects in this sense are as real as possible objects in his preferred sense.

It does not analyze the notion of a possible world in mereological terms but leaves it as largely primitive (Yagisawa 2002, 2009).

Since there are no mereological classes which are not their own elements, the question which led to the Russell paradox simply makes no sense in LeÅniewski's systems.
Comments
Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.