Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T20:17:31.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2009

Graham Oppy
Graham Oppy
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity , pp. 297 - 310
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abian, A. 1978. “Passages between Finite and Infinite.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19:452–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allis, V., and Koetsier, T.. 1991. “On Some Paradoxes of the Infinite.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 42:187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allis, V., and Koetsier, T.. 1995. “On Some Paradoxes of the Infinite II.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 46:235–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almog, J. 1999. “Nothing, Something, Infinity.” Journal of Philosophy 96:462–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alper, J., and Bridger, M.. 1997. “Mathematics, Model and Zeno's Paradoxes.” Synthese 110:143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angel, L. 2002. “Zeno's Arrow, Newton's Mechanics, and Bell's Inequalities.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53:161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntzenius, F., and McCarthy, D.. 1997. “The Two Envelope Paradox and Infinite Expectations.” Analysis 57:42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arsenijivic, M. 1989. “How Many Physically Distinguished Parts Can a Limited Body Contain?” Analysis 49:36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, G., and Hacker, P.. 1984. Language, Sense and Nonsense. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bell, J. 1979. “The Infinite Past Regained: A Reply to Whitrow.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30:161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. 1988. “Infinitesimals.” Synthese 75:285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. 2001. “The Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Journal of Philosophy 98:55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1962. “Tasks, Supertasks, and the Modern Eleatics.” Journal of Philosophy 59:765–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1965. “What Numbers Could Not Be.” Philosophical Review 74:47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1985. “Skolem and the Sceptic.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. 59:85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benardete, J. 1964. Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1971. “The Age and Size of the World.” Synthese 23:127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berresford, G. 1981. “A Note on Thomson's Lamp ‘Paradox.’” Analysis 41:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, M. 1951. “Achilles and the Tortoise.” Analysis 11:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. 1926. “The Paradox of Temporal Process.” Journal of Philosophy 23:645–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, R., and Rosenblatt, J.. 1972. Probability and Statistics. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Boolos, G., and Jeffrey, R.. 1980. Computability and Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bostock, D. 1972/3. “Aristotle, Zeno, and the Potential Infinite.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73:37–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, P. 1965. “White at the Shooting Gallery.” Mind 74:256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1995. “The Two-Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 55:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. 1965. “A Medieval Analysis of Infinity.” Journal for the History of Philosophy 3:242–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, J. 1995. “Infinite Utility.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:401–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cajori, F. 1915. “The History of Zeno's Arguments on Motion.” American Mathematical Monthly 22:1–7, 39–47, 77–83, 109–15, 143–9, 179–86, 215–21, 253–8, 292–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargile, J. 1992. “On a Problem about Probability and Decision.” Analysis 52:211–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1956. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” In Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, (2nd ed., enlarged.) Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Castell, P., and Batens, D.. 1994. “The Two Envelope Paradox: The Infinite Case.” Analysis 54:46–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chad, A. 1997. “The Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” Dialogue 36:555–62.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. 2002. “The St. Petersburg Two Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 62:155–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champlin, T. 1988. Reflexive Paradoxes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chase, J. 2002. “The Non-Probabilistic Two Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 62:157–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chihara, C. 1965. “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process.” Philosophical Review 74:74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, R., and Utts, J.. 1992. “Bayesian Resolution of the ‘Exchange Paradox.’” American Statistician 46:274–6.Google Scholar
Clark, M., and Schackel, N.. 2000. “The Two Envelope Paradox.” Mind 109:415–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P., and Read, S.. 1984. “Hypertasks.” Synthese 61:387–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. 1988. “Vicious Infinite Regress Arguments.” In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 2: Epistemology. Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview, 369–80.Google Scholar
Clayton, P. 1996. “The Theistic Argument from Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy.” International Philosophical Quarterly 36:5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleve, J. 1971. “Cauchy, Convergence and Continuity.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 22:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, R., and Lauden, L., eds. 1983. Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, D. 1974. “Possibility and Infinite Time: A Logical Paradox in St. Thomas' Third Way.” International Philosophical Quarterly 14:201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, D. 1983. “Concerning Infinite Chains, Infinite Trains, and Borrowing a Typewriter.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14:71–86.Google Scholar
Conway, D. 1984. “‘It Would Have Happened Already’: On One Argument for a First Cause.” Analysis 44:159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, J. 1976. On Numbers and Games. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Corbett, S. 1988. “Zeno's Achilles: A Reply to John McKie.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49:325–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornman, J., and Lehrer., K. 1968. Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Cowen, T., and High, J.. 1988. “Time, Bounded Utility, and the St. Petersburg Paradox.” Theory and Decision 25:219–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1979a. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1979b. “Whitrow, Popper, and the Impossibility of an Infinite Past.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30:166–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1985. “Professor Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 20:367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1988. “Quentin Smith on Infinity and the Past.” Philosophy of Science 55:453–5.Google Scholar
Craig, W. 1991a. “Time and Infinity.” International Philosophical Quarterly 31:387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1991b. “Theism and Big Bang Cosmology.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69:492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1993. “Graham Oppy on the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Sophia 32:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W., and Smith., Q. 1993. Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cutland, N. et al. 1988. “On Cauchy's Notion of Infinitesimal.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 39:375–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauben, J. 1977. “Georg Cantor and Pope Leo XIII: Mathematics, Theology, and the Infinite.” Journal of the History of Ideas 38:85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauben, J. 1990. Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M. 1977. Applied Non-Standard Analysis. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Day, T. 1987a. “Aquinas on Infinite Regress.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 22:151–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, T. 1987b. “Infinite Regress Arguments.” Philosophical Papers 16:155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detlefsen, M. 1986. Hilbert's Program: An Essay on Mathematical Instrumentalism. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, K. 1991. The Joy of Sets. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. 1965. “The Evaluation of Infinite Utility Streams.” Econometrica 33:170–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, R. 1964. “Resolution of the Paradox of Tristram Shandy.” Philosophy of Science 31:55–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, F. 1974. Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dreier, J. 2003. “Boundless Good.” Unpublished ms.
Dretske, F. 1965. “Counting to Infinity.” Analysis 25:99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 1975. “Infinities, Infinitesimals, and Indivisibles: The Leibnizian Labyrinth.” Studia Logica 7:236–51.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 1995. Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J., and Norton, J.. 1993. “Forever Is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes.” Philosophy of Science 60:22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J., and J. Norton. 1996. “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks.” In Morton, A. and Stich, S. (eds.), Benacerraf and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eells, E. 1988. “Quentin Smith on Infinity and the Past.” Philosophy of Science 55:453–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1982. “Negative, Infinite and Hotter Than Infinite Temperatures.” Synthese. 50:233–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1994. Real Numbers, Generalisations of the Real, and Theories of Continua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1997. “From Completeness to Archimedean Completeness.” Synthese 110:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1978. “Can There Be Vague Objects?” Analysis 38:208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faris, J. 1996. The Paradoxes of Zeno. Gateshead: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. 1989. “Infinity in Mathematics: Is Cantor Necessary?” Philosophical Topics 17:23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenstad, J. 1985. “Is Non-Standard Analysis Relevant for the Philosophy of Mathematics?” Synthese 62:289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. (ed.) 1984. Principles of Philosophical Reasoning. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P. 1972. Mathematics of Decision Theory. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fitch, F. 1955. “A Logical Analysis of Some Value Concepts.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 28:135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, P. 1996. “How Innocent Is Mereology?” Analysis 56:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, A., Bar-Hillel, Y., and Levy., A. 1973. Foundations of Set Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gale, R., and Pruss, A.. 1999. “A New Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 35:461–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamow, G. 1946. 1, 2, 3, … Infinity. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gellman, J. 1994. “Experiencing God's Infinity.” American Philosophical Quarterly 31:53–61.Google Scholar
George, A. 1991. “Goldbach's Conjecture Can Be Decided in One Minute: On an Alleged Problem for Intuitionism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91:187–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, R. 1993. “Paradoxes and Infinite Numbers.” Philosophy 68:541–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonshor, H. 1986. An Introduction to the Theory of Surreal Numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. 1971. “Ghazālī's Argument from Creation.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 2:67–85, 168–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, M. 1998. “Transcendental Illusion and Transcendental Realism in Kant's Second Antinomy.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 98:47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruender, C. 1966. “The Achilles Paradox and Transfinite Numbers.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 17:219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1950. “Relativity and the Atomicity of Becoming.” Review of Metaphysics 4:143–86.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1952a. “A Consistent Conception of the Extended Linear Continuum as an Aggregate of Unextended Elements.” Philosophy of Science 19:288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1952b. “Messrs. Black and Taylor on Temporal Paradoxes.” Analysis 12:144–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1953. “Whitehead's Method of Extensive Abstraction.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 4:215–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1955. “Modern Science and Refutation of the Paradoxes of Zeno.” Scientific Monthly 81:234–9. Reprinted in Salmon (1970), 164–75.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1967. Modern Science and Zeno's Paradoxes. Middleton, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press; especially “Zeno's Metrical Paradox of Extension,” 115–35. Reprinted in Salmon (1970), 176–99.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1968. “Are ‘Infinity Machines’ Paradoxical?” Science 159:396–406.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1973a. “Can an Infinitude of Operations Be Performed in a Finite Time?” In Grünbaum (1973b).
Grünbaum, A. 1973b. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. 2003. “Waging War on Pascal's Wager.” Philosophical Review 112:27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. 1983. “A Benign Regress.” Analysis 43:115–16.Google Scholar
Harrison, C. 1996. “The Three Arrows of Zeno.” Synthese 107:271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, E. 1987. Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, W. 1975/6. “The Potential Infinite.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76:247–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. 1976. “Expressive Completeness in Modal Language.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 5:25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. 1993. “Slicing It Thin.” Analysis 53:189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazewinkel, M., ed. 1989. Encyclopedia of Mathematics, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hinton, J., and Martin., C. 1953/4. “Achilles and the Tortoise.” Analysis 14:56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holgate, P. 1994. “Mathematical Notes on Ross' Paradox.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 45:302–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, T. 2000. “The Two-Envelope Paradox, Non-Standard Expected Utility, and the Intensionality of Probability.” Nous 34:578–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, P. 1971. “Kant or Cantor: That the Universe, If Real, Must Be Finite in Both Space and Time.” Philosophy 46:121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, P. 1973. “Cosmology and Infinity.” Philosophy 48:186–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, N. 1999. “Atomic Metaphysics.” Journal of Philosophy 96:5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P., and Brecht., G. 1975. Vicious Circles and Infinity. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Humphrey, T. 1974. “How Descartes Avoids the Hidden Faculties Trap.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 12:371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isles, D. 1992. “What Evidence Is There That 265536 Is a Natural Number?” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33:465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F., Menzies, P., and Oppy, G.. 1994. “The Two Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 54:43–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquette, D. 1993. “Kant's Second Antinomy and Hume's Theory of Extensionless Indivisibles.” Kant-Studien 84:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaki, S. 1969. The Paradox of Olber's Paradox. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1983. The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. 1993. “Wholes, Parts, and Infinite Collections.” Philosophy 67:367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. 1994. “More about Infinite Numbers.” Philosophy 69:369–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. 1946. “Achilles and the Tortoise.” Mind 55:341–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J., ed. 1994. Gambling on God. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jourdain, P. 1910. “The Flying Arrow: An Anachronism.” Mind 19:42–55.Google Scholar
Jozsa, R. 1986. “An Approach to the Modelling of the Physical Continuum.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37:395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanomori, A. 1991. The Higher Infinite. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Katĕtor, M., and P. Simon. 1997. “Origins of Dimension Theory.” In Aull, C. and Lower, R. (eds.), Handbook of the History of General Topology, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 113–34.
King, H. 1949. “Aristotle and the Paradoxes of Zeno.” Journal of Philosophy 46:657–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. 2003. “When Infinite Regresses Are Not Vicious.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66:718–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr, 1982. “Infinity and Continuity: The Interaction of Mathematics and Philosophy in Antiquity.” In Kretzmann (1982).
Knuth, D. 1974. Surreal Numbers. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Koetsier, T., and Allis, V.. 1997. “Assaying Supertasks.” Logique et Analyse 159:291–313.Google Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. 1933/56. Foundations of the Theory of Probability, translated by N. Morrison. New York: Chelsea.Google Scholar
Koons, R. 1997. “A New Look at a Cosmological Argument.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34:193–211.Google Scholar
Kragh, H. 1996. Cosmology and Controversy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krausser, P. 1988. “On the Antinomies and the Appendix to Kant's Dialectic in Kant's Critique and Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 77:375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzmann, N., ed. 1982. Infinity and Continuity in Ancient and Medieval Thought. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kusraer, A., and Kutateladze., S. 1990. Non-Standard Methods of Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lauwers, L. 1997. “Infinite Utility: Insisting on Strong Monotonicity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75:222–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, S. 1991. “Is Quantum Mechanics an Atomistic Theory?” Synthese 89:253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, S. 1994. Understanding the Infinite. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, S. 1995. “Finite Mathematics.” Synthese 103:389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, N. 1950. “Whitehead's Method of Extensive Abstraction.” Philosophy of Science 17:142–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lear, J. 1981. “A Note on Zeno's Arrow.” Phronesis 26:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. 1965. “Are Zeno's Paradoxes Based on a Mistake?” Mind 74:563–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 1980. The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Littlewood, J. 1953. A Mathematician's Miscellany. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Loparic, Z. 1990. “The Logical Structure of the First Antinomy.” Kant-Studien 81:280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machover, M. 1993. “The Place of Non-Standard Analysis in Mathematics and Mathematics Teaching.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 44:205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Maor, E. 1987. To Infinity and Beyond. Boston: Birkhaüser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmura, M. 1957. “The Logical Role of the Argument from Time in the Tahāfut's Second Proof for the World's Pre-Eternity.” Muslim World 47:306–14.Google Scholar
McClennan, E. 1994. “Finite Decision Theory.” In Jordan (1994).
McGrew, T., Shier, D., and Silverstein, H.. 1997. “The Two Envelope Paradox Resolved.” Analysis 57:28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, W. 1994. “Resolving Zeno's Paradoxes.” Scientific American (November): 66–71.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, W. 1998. “Thomson's Lamp Is Dysfunctional.” Synthese 116:281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, W., and Miller, S.. 1992. “An Epistemological Use of Non-Standard Analysis to Answer Zeno's Objections against Motion.” Synthese 92:371–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClennen, E. 1994. “Pascal's Wager and Finite Decision Theory.” In Jordan (1994).
Monk, N. 1997. “Conceptions of Space-Time: Problems and Possible Solutions.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28, no. 1:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. 1988. “Aspects of the Infinite in Kant.” Mind 97:205–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. 1989. “A Problem for Intuitionism: The Apparent Possibility of Performing Infinitely Many Tasks in a Finite Time.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 89:17–34.Google Scholar
Moore, A. 1990. The Infinite. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. 1992. “A Note on Kant's First Antinomy.” Philosophical Quarterly 42:480–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A., ed. 1993. Infinity. Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
Moore, M. 2002. A Cantorian Argument against Infinitesimals.” Synthese 133:305–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriston, W. 1999. “Must the Past Have a Beginning?” Philo 2:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriston, W. 2002c. “Craig on the Actual Infinite.” Religious Studies 38:147–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. 1987. “Faithful Representation, Physical Extensive Measurement Theory and Archimedean Axioms.” Synthese 70:373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mycielski, J. 1981. “Analysis without Actual Infinity.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 46:625–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mycielski, J. 1986. “Locally Finite Theories.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 51:59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalebuff, B. 1989. “The Other Person's Envelope Is Always Greener.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3:171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. 1977. “Internal Set Theory: A New Approach to Non-Standard Analysis.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 83, no. 6:1165–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. 1987. Radically Elementary Probability Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. 1991. “Utilitarian Eschatology.” American Philosophical Quarterly 28:339–47.Google Scholar
Ng, Y. 1995. “Infinite Utility and van Liedekerke's Impossibility: A Solution.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. 1996. “Recombination Unbound.” Philosophical Studies 84:239–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. 2001. “What Wrong with Infinite Regresses?” Metaphilosophy 32:523–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. 2002. Topics in the Philosophy of Possible Worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
North, J. 1983. “Finite and Otherwise: Aristotle and Some Seventeenth Century Views.” In Shea (1983):113–48.
Oakes, R. 1997. “The Divine Infinity: Can Traditional Theists Justifiably Reject Pantheism.” Monist 80:251–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Briant, W. 1979. “Is Descartes' Evil Spirit Finite or Infinite?” Sophia 18:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oderberg, D. 2002a. “Traversal of the Infinite, the ‘Big Bang,’ and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Philosophia Christi 4, no. 2: 303–34.Google Scholar
Oderberg, D. 2002b. “The Tristram Shandy Paradox: A Reply to Graham Oppy.” Philosophia Christi 4, no. 2: 351–60.Google Scholar
O'Leary-Hawthorne, J., and Cortens, A.. 1995. “Towards Ontological Nihilism.” Philosphical Studies 79, no. 2:143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1990. “On Rescher on Pascal's Wager.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30:159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1991. “Craig, Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 27:189–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995a. “Inverse Operations with Transfinite Numbers and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” International Philosophical Quarterly 35, no. 2:219–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995b. “Kalām Cosmological Arguments: Reply to Professor Craig.” Sophia 34:15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995c. Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995d. “Professor William Craig's Criticisms of Critiques of Kalām Cosmological Arguments by Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and Adolf Grünbaum.” Faith and Philosophy 12:237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1996a. “Pascal's Wager Is a Possible Bet (but Not a Very Good One): Reply to Harmon Holcomb III.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40:101–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1996b. “Review of W. Craig and Q. Smith, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology.” Faith and Philosophy 13:125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1997a. “Countable Fusion Not Yet Proven Guilty: It May Be the Whiteheadian Account of Space Whatdunnit.” Analysis 57, no. 4:249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1997b. “Pantheism, Quantification, and Mereology.” Monist 80, no. 2:320–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2000a. “Humean Supervenience?” Philosophical Studies 101, no. 1:75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2000b. “On ‘A New Cosmological Argument.’” Religious Studies 36:345–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2001. “Time, Successive Addition, and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Philosophia Christi 3:181–91.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2002a. “Arguing about the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Philo 5, no 1:34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2002b. “More Than a Flesh Wound: Reply to Oderberg.” Ars Disputandi 2:1–11. [Http://www.ArsDisputandi.org].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2002c. “The Tristram Shandy Paradox: A Response to David S. Oderberg.” Philosophia Christi 4, no. 2:335–49.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2003. “From the Tristram Shandy Paradox to the Christmas Shandy Paradox: Reply to Oderberg.” Ars Disputandi 3:1–24. [Http://www.ArsDisputandi.org].Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2004. “Faulty Reasoning about Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments.” Faith and Philosophy 21:242–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G. 1958. “Zeno and the Mathematicians.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 58:199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasyakov, B. 1989. “Dimension.” In Hazewinkel (1989), pp. 188–90.
Peers, A. 1975. Dimension Theory of General Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 1997. “Classical Particle Dynamics, Indeterminism, and a Supertask.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 1998. “Infinity Machines and Creation Ex Nihilo.” Synthese 115:259–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2000. “Priest on the Paradox of the Gods.” Analysis 60:152–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2002a. “On the Dynamics of Alper and Bridger.” Synthese 131:157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2002b. “Just as Beautiful but Not (Necessarily) a Supertask.” Mind 111:281–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2002c. “Two Ways of Looking at a Newtonian Supertask.” Synthese 131:173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2003. “A Variant of Benardette's Paradox.” Analysis 63:124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerlau, W. 1985. “Does Reason Demand That God Be Infinite?” Sophia 24:18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. 1996. “Taming the Infinite.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47:609–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. 1992. “Metaphysical Pluralism.” Journal of Philosophy 89:387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1987. In Contradiction. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1991. “The Limits of Thought — and Beyond.” Mind 100:361–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1995. Beyond the Limits of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 1999. “On a Version of One of Zeno's Paradoxes.” Analysis 59:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
qFiasco, F. 1980. “Another Look at Some of Zeno's Paradoxes.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10:119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. 1953. “On What There Is.” In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1–19.Google Scholar
Radner, M. 1998. “Unlocking the Second Antinomy: Kant and Wulff.” Journal for the History of Philosophy 36:413–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapaport, A. 1998. Decision Theory and Decision Behaviour. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, A. 1961. “Non Standard Analysis.” Indagationes Mathematicae 23:432–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, A. 1966. Non-Standard Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Robinson, A. 1973. “Metamathematical Problems.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 38:500–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. 1988. A First Course in Probability, 3rd ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rucker, R. 1982. Infinity and the Mind. Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1929. Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Norton, 182–98. Reprinted in Salmon (1970), 45–58.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. 1995. Paradoxes. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W., ed. 1970. Zeno's Paradoxes. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1977. “St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected and Historically Described.” Journal of Economic Literature 15:24–55.Google Scholar
Sanford, D. 1969. “Time May Have a Stop.” Analysis 29:206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, D. 1975. “Infinity and Vagueness.” Philosophical Review 87:520–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, D. 2003. “Fusion Confusion.” Analysis 63:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, G. 1994. “A Central Theistic Argument.” In Jordan (1994).
Schock, R. 1982. “Dividing by Zero.” Logique et Analyse 25:213–15.Google Scholar
Schoen, E. 1990. “The Sensory Presentation of Divine Infinity.” Faith and Philosophy 7:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A., and Scott, D.. 1997. “What Is in the Two Envelope Paradox?” Analysis 57:34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segel, L. 1991. “The Infinite and Infinitesimal in Models for Natural Phenomena.” Reviews of Modern Physics 63:225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, K. 1976. “A Neglected Family of Aggregation Problems in Ethics.” Nous 10:221–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, G. 1997. “Some Definitions of ‘The Smallest Infinity.’” Logique et Analyse 160:345–56.Google Scholar
Shearman, J. 1908. “Infinite Divisibility.” Mind 17:394–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherry, D. 1988. “Zeno's Metrical Paradox Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 55:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierpinski, W. 1965. Cardinal and Ordinal Numbers. Warsaw: PWN-Polish Scientific.Google Scholar
Simons, P. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1966. Choice and Chance. Belmont: Dickenson.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1983. “Zeno's Paradox of Measure.” In Cohen and Lauden (1983):223–54.
Skyrms, B. 1993. “A Uniform Positive Probability on Natural Numbers.” Unpublished ms.
Skyrms, B., and Harper, W., eds. 1988. Causation, Chance and Credence, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, R. 1986. “Tristram Shandy's Last Page.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37:213–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1985. “Kant and the Beginning of the World.” New Scholasticism 59:339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1987. “Infinity and the Past.” Philosophy of Science 54:63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1988. “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” Philosophy of Science 55:39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1991. “Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69:48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1993. “Reply to Craig: The Possible Infinitude of the Past.” International Philosophical Quarterly 33:109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1995a. “A Defence of a Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Metaphilosophy 26:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1995b. “Internal and External Causal Explanation of the Universe.” Philosophical Studies 79:283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1997. “Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists.” Philosophy 72:125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1999. “The Reason the Universe Exists Is That It Caused Itself to Exist.” Philosophy 74:579–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 2000. “Problem's with John Earman's Attempt to Reconcile Theism with General Relativity.” Erkenntnis 52:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorabji, R. 1983. Time, Creation and the Continuum. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Sorenson, R. 1994. “Infinite Decision Theory.” In Jordan (1994).
Stroyon, K., and Luxemburg., W. 1976. Introduction to the Theory of Infinitesimals. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Stump, E. 1997. “Simplicity.” In Quinn, P. and Taliaferro, C. (eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweeney, E. 1993. “Thomas Aquinas' Double Metaphysics of Simplicity and Infinity.” International Philosophical Quarterly 33:297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. 1966. “The Beginning of the Universe.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 40:125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. 1968. Space and Time. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. 1951. “Mr. Black on Temporal Paradoxes.” Analysis 12:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. 1952. “Mr. Wisdom on Temporal Paradoxes.” Analysis 13:15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. 1963. Metaphysics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Teller, P. 1989. “Infinite Renormalisation.” Philosophy of Science 56:238–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. 1982. “Euclidean Infinitesimals.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63:168–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. 1954. “Tasks and Supertasks.” Analysis 15:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. 1970. “Comments on Professor Benacerraf's Paper.” In Salmon (1970), 130–8.
Tomberlin, J., ed. 1988. Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 2. Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Ushenko, A. 1946. “Zeno's Paradoxes.” Mind 55:151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P. 1993. “Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71:212–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P. 1995. “Infinite Utility: Anonymity and Person-Centredness.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P., and Kagan, S.. 1997. “Infinite Utility and Finitely Additive Value Theory.” Journal of Philosophy 94:5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendegem, J. 1987. “Zeno's Paradoxes and the Tile Argument.” Philosophy of Science 54:295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendegem, J. 1994. “Ross' Paradox Is an Impossible Super-task.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 45:743–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleve, J. 1981. “Reflections on Kant's Second Antimony.” Synthese 47:481–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzig, D. 1955. “Is a Finite Number?” Dialectica 9:273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. 1995. “‘World’ Is Not a Count Noun.” Nous 29:139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liederkerke, L. 1995. “Should Utilitarians Be Cautious about an Infinite Future?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:405–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaught, R. 1995. Set Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Boston: Birkhaüser.Google Scholar
Vilenkin, N. 1995. In Search of Infinity. Boston: Birkhaüser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1966a. “A Note on Zeno's Arrow.” Phronesis 11:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1966b. “Zeno's Race Course.” Journal of History of Philosophy 4:95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, C. 1999. “Misadventures in Conditional Expectation: The Two Envelope Paradox.” Erkenntnis 51:233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. 1997. “Sufficient Reason.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 97:109–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watling, J. 1952. “The Sum of an Infinite Series.” Analysis 13:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingard, R. 1979. “General Relativity and the Length of the Past.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30:170–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weirich, P. 1984. “The St. Petersburg Gamble and Risk.” Theory and Decision 17:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. 1946. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
White, A. 1965. “Achilles at the Shooting Gallery.” Mind 74:141–2.Google Scholar
White, M. 1987. “The Spatial Arrow Paradox.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 68:71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitrow, G. 1978. “On the Impossibility of an Infinite Past.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 29:39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, D. 1996. “Sufficient Reason: A Principle in Diverse Guises, Both Ancient and Modern.” Acta Philosophica Fennica 61:117–32.Google Scholar
Williams, J. 1981. “Justified Belief and the Infinite Regress Argument.” American Philosophical Quarterly 18:85–8.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1991. “What Is the Explanandum of the Anthropic Principle?” American Philosophical Quarterly 28:167–73.Google Scholar
Wisdom, J. 1941. “Why Achilles Does Not Fail to Catch the Tortoise.” Mind 50:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisdom, J. 1952. “Achilles on a Physical Racecourse.” Analysis 12:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1975. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfson, H. 1966. “Patristic Arguments against the Eternity of the World.” Harvard Theological Review 59:354–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. 1976. The Philosophy of the Kalām. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 1985. “Skolem and the Sceptic.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society supp. vol.: 116–37.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. 2000. “A Reply to New Zeno.” Analysis 60:148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabell, S. 1988. “Symmetry and Its Discontents.” In Skyrms and Harper (1988), 155–90.
Zangari, M. 1994. “Zeno, Zero, and Indeterminate Forms: Instants in the Logic of Motion.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72:187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckero, M. 2001. “A Dissolution of Zeno's Paradoxes of the Dichotomy and the Flight of the Arrow.” Dialogue 43:46–51.Google Scholar
Abian, A. 1978. “Passages between Finite and Infinite.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19:452–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allis, V., and Koetsier, T.. 1991. “On Some Paradoxes of the Infinite.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 42:187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allis, V., and Koetsier, T.. 1995. “On Some Paradoxes of the Infinite II.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 46:235–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almog, J. 1999. “Nothing, Something, Infinity.” Journal of Philosophy 96:462–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alper, J., and Bridger, M.. 1997. “Mathematics, Model and Zeno's Paradoxes.” Synthese 110:143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angel, L. 2002. “Zeno's Arrow, Newton's Mechanics, and Bell's Inequalities.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53:161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntzenius, F., and McCarthy, D.. 1997. “The Two Envelope Paradox and Infinite Expectations.” Analysis 57:42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arsenijivic, M. 1989. “How Many Physically Distinguished Parts Can a Limited Body Contain?” Analysis 49:36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, G., and Hacker, P.. 1984. Language, Sense and Nonsense. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bell, J. 1979. “The Infinite Past Regained: A Reply to Whitrow.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30:161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. 1988. “Infinitesimals.” Synthese 75:285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. 2001. “The Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Journal of Philosophy 98:55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1962. “Tasks, Supertasks, and the Modern Eleatics.” Journal of Philosophy 59:765–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1965. “What Numbers Could Not Be.” Philosophical Review 74:47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1985. “Skolem and the Sceptic.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. 59:85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benardete, J. 1964. Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1971. “The Age and Size of the World.” Synthese 23:127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berresford, G. 1981. “A Note on Thomson's Lamp ‘Paradox.’” Analysis 41:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, M. 1951. “Achilles and the Tortoise.” Analysis 11:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. 1926. “The Paradox of Temporal Process.” Journal of Philosophy 23:645–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, R., and Rosenblatt, J.. 1972. Probability and Statistics. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Boolos, G., and Jeffrey, R.. 1980. Computability and Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bostock, D. 1972/3. “Aristotle, Zeno, and the Potential Infinite.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73:37–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, P. 1965. “White at the Shooting Gallery.” Mind 74:256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1995. “The Two-Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 55:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. 1965. “A Medieval Analysis of Infinity.” Journal for the History of Philosophy 3:242–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, J. 1995. “Infinite Utility.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:401–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cajori, F. 1915. “The History of Zeno's Arguments on Motion.” American Mathematical Monthly 22:1–7, 39–47, 77–83, 109–15, 143–9, 179–86, 215–21, 253–8, 292–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargile, J. 1992. “On a Problem about Probability and Decision.” Analysis 52:211–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1956. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” In Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, (2nd ed., enlarged.) Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Castell, P., and Batens, D.. 1994. “The Two Envelope Paradox: The Infinite Case.” Analysis 54:46–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chad, A. 1997. “The Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” Dialogue 36:555–62.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. 2002. “The St. Petersburg Two Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 62:155–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champlin, T. 1988. Reflexive Paradoxes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chase, J. 2002. “The Non-Probabilistic Two Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 62:157–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chihara, C. 1965. “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process.” Philosophical Review 74:74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, R., and Utts, J.. 1992. “Bayesian Resolution of the ‘Exchange Paradox.’” American Statistician 46:274–6.Google Scholar
Clark, M., and Schackel, N.. 2000. “The Two Envelope Paradox.” Mind 109:415–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P., and Read, S.. 1984. “Hypertasks.” Synthese 61:387–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. 1988. “Vicious Infinite Regress Arguments.” In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 2: Epistemology. Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview, 369–80.Google Scholar
Clayton, P. 1996. “The Theistic Argument from Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy.” International Philosophical Quarterly 36:5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleve, J. 1971. “Cauchy, Convergence and Continuity.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 22:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, R., and Lauden, L., eds. 1983. Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, D. 1974. “Possibility and Infinite Time: A Logical Paradox in St. Thomas' Third Way.” International Philosophical Quarterly 14:201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, D. 1983. “Concerning Infinite Chains, Infinite Trains, and Borrowing a Typewriter.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14:71–86.Google Scholar
Conway, D. 1984. “‘It Would Have Happened Already’: On One Argument for a First Cause.” Analysis 44:159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, J. 1976. On Numbers and Games. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Corbett, S. 1988. “Zeno's Achilles: A Reply to John McKie.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49:325–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornman, J., and Lehrer., K. 1968. Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Cowen, T., and High, J.. 1988. “Time, Bounded Utility, and the St. Petersburg Paradox.” Theory and Decision 25:219–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1979a. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1979b. “Whitrow, Popper, and the Impossibility of an Infinite Past.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30:166–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1985. “Professor Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 20:367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1988. “Quentin Smith on Infinity and the Past.” Philosophy of Science 55:453–5.Google Scholar
Craig, W. 1991a. “Time and Infinity.” International Philosophical Quarterly 31:387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1991b. “Theism and Big Bang Cosmology.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69:492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. 1993. “Graham Oppy on the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Sophia 32:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W., and Smith., Q. 1993. Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cutland, N. et al. 1988. “On Cauchy's Notion of Infinitesimal.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 39:375–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauben, J. 1977. “Georg Cantor and Pope Leo XIII: Mathematics, Theology, and the Infinite.” Journal of the History of Ideas 38:85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauben, J. 1990. Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M. 1977. Applied Non-Standard Analysis. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Day, T. 1987a. “Aquinas on Infinite Regress.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 22:151–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, T. 1987b. “Infinite Regress Arguments.” Philosophical Papers 16:155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detlefsen, M. 1986. Hilbert's Program: An Essay on Mathematical Instrumentalism. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, K. 1991. The Joy of Sets. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. 1965. “The Evaluation of Infinite Utility Streams.” Econometrica 33:170–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, R. 1964. “Resolution of the Paradox of Tristram Shandy.” Philosophy of Science 31:55–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, F. 1974. Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dreier, J. 2003. “Boundless Good.” Unpublished ms.
Dretske, F. 1965. “Counting to Infinity.” Analysis 25:99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 1975. “Infinities, Infinitesimals, and Indivisibles: The Leibnizian Labyrinth.” Studia Logica 7:236–51.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 1995. Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J., and Norton, J.. 1993. “Forever Is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes.” Philosophy of Science 60:22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J., and J. Norton. 1996. “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks.” In Morton, A. and Stich, S. (eds.), Benacerraf and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eells, E. 1988. “Quentin Smith on Infinity and the Past.” Philosophy of Science 55:453–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1982. “Negative, Infinite and Hotter Than Infinite Temperatures.” Synthese. 50:233–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1994. Real Numbers, Generalisations of the Real, and Theories of Continua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1997. “From Completeness to Archimedean Completeness.” Synthese 110:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1978. “Can There Be Vague Objects?” Analysis 38:208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faris, J. 1996. The Paradoxes of Zeno. Gateshead: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. 1989. “Infinity in Mathematics: Is Cantor Necessary?” Philosophical Topics 17:23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenstad, J. 1985. “Is Non-Standard Analysis Relevant for the Philosophy of Mathematics?” Synthese 62:289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. (ed.) 1984. Principles of Philosophical Reasoning. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P. 1972. Mathematics of Decision Theory. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fitch, F. 1955. “A Logical Analysis of Some Value Concepts.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 28:135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, P. 1996. “How Innocent Is Mereology?” Analysis 56:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, A., Bar-Hillel, Y., and Levy., A. 1973. Foundations of Set Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gale, R., and Pruss, A.. 1999. “A New Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 35:461–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamow, G. 1946. 1, 2, 3, … Infinity. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gellman, J. 1994. “Experiencing God's Infinity.” American Philosophical Quarterly 31:53–61.Google Scholar
George, A. 1991. “Goldbach's Conjecture Can Be Decided in One Minute: On an Alleged Problem for Intuitionism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 91:187–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, R. 1993. “Paradoxes and Infinite Numbers.” Philosophy 68:541–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonshor, H. 1986. An Introduction to the Theory of Surreal Numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. 1971. “Ghazālī's Argument from Creation.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 2:67–85, 168–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, M. 1998. “Transcendental Illusion and Transcendental Realism in Kant's Second Antinomy.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 98:47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruender, C. 1966. “The Achilles Paradox and Transfinite Numbers.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 17:219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1950. “Relativity and the Atomicity of Becoming.” Review of Metaphysics 4:143–86.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1952a. “A Consistent Conception of the Extended Linear Continuum as an Aggregate of Unextended Elements.” Philosophy of Science 19:288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1952b. “Messrs. Black and Taylor on Temporal Paradoxes.” Analysis 12:144–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1953. “Whitehead's Method of Extensive Abstraction.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 4:215–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1955. “Modern Science and Refutation of the Paradoxes of Zeno.” Scientific Monthly 81:234–9. Reprinted in Salmon (1970), 164–75.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1967. Modern Science and Zeno's Paradoxes. Middleton, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press; especially “Zeno's Metrical Paradox of Extension,” 115–35. Reprinted in Salmon (1970), 176–99.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1968. “Are ‘Infinity Machines’ Paradoxical?” Science 159:396–406.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. 1973a. “Can an Infinitude of Operations Be Performed in a Finite Time?” In Grünbaum (1973b).
Grünbaum, A. 1973b. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. 2003. “Waging War on Pascal's Wager.” Philosophical Review 112:27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. 1983. “A Benign Regress.” Analysis 43:115–16.Google Scholar
Harrison, C. 1996. “The Three Arrows of Zeno.” Synthese 107:271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, E. 1987. Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, W. 1975/6. “The Potential Infinite.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76:247–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. 1976. “Expressive Completeness in Modal Language.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 5:25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. 1993. “Slicing It Thin.” Analysis 53:189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazewinkel, M., ed. 1989. Encyclopedia of Mathematics, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hinton, J., and Martin., C. 1953/4. “Achilles and the Tortoise.” Analysis 14:56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holgate, P. 1994. “Mathematical Notes on Ross' Paradox.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 45:302–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, T. 2000. “The Two-Envelope Paradox, Non-Standard Expected Utility, and the Intensionality of Probability.” Nous 34:578–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, P. 1971. “Kant or Cantor: That the Universe, If Real, Must Be Finite in Both Space and Time.” Philosophy 46:121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, P. 1973. “Cosmology and Infinity.” Philosophy 48:186–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, N. 1999. “Atomic Metaphysics.” Journal of Philosophy 96:5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P., and Brecht., G. 1975. Vicious Circles and Infinity. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Humphrey, T. 1974. “How Descartes Avoids the Hidden Faculties Trap.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 12:371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isles, D. 1992. “What Evidence Is There That 265536 Is a Natural Number?” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33:465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F., Menzies, P., and Oppy, G.. 1994. “The Two Envelope Paradox.” Analysis 54:43–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquette, D. 1993. “Kant's Second Antinomy and Hume's Theory of Extensionless Indivisibles.” Kant-Studien 84:38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaki, S. 1969. The Paradox of Olber's Paradox. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1983. The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. 1993. “Wholes, Parts, and Infinite Collections.” Philosophy 67:367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. 1994. “More about Infinite Numbers.” Philosophy 69:369–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. 1946. “Achilles and the Tortoise.” Mind 55:341–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J., ed. 1994. Gambling on God. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jourdain, P. 1910. “The Flying Arrow: An Anachronism.” Mind 19:42–55.Google Scholar
Jozsa, R. 1986. “An Approach to the Modelling of the Physical Continuum.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37:395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanomori, A. 1991. The Higher Infinite. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Katĕtor, M., and P. Simon. 1997. “Origins of Dimension Theory.” In Aull, C. and Lower, R. (eds.), Handbook of the History of General Topology, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 113–34.
King, H. 1949. “Aristotle and the Paradoxes of Zeno.” Journal of Philosophy 46:657–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. 2003. “When Infinite Regresses Are Not Vicious.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66:718–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr, 1982. “Infinity and Continuity: The Interaction of Mathematics and Philosophy in Antiquity.” In Kretzmann (1982).
Knuth, D. 1974. Surreal Numbers. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Koetsier, T., and Allis, V.. 1997. “Assaying Supertasks.” Logique et Analyse 159:291–313.Google Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. 1933/56. Foundations of the Theory of Probability, translated by N. Morrison. New York: Chelsea.Google Scholar
Koons, R. 1997. “A New Look at a Cosmological Argument.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34:193–211.Google Scholar
Kragh, H. 1996. Cosmology and Controversy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krausser, P. 1988. “On the Antinomies and the Appendix to Kant's Dialectic in Kant's Critique and Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 77:375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzmann, N., ed. 1982. Infinity and Continuity in Ancient and Medieval Thought. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kusraer, A., and Kutateladze., S. 1990. Non-Standard Methods of Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lauwers, L. 1997. “Infinite Utility: Insisting on Strong Monotonicity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75:222–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, S. 1991. “Is Quantum Mechanics an Atomistic Theory?” Synthese 89:253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, S. 1994. Understanding the Infinite. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, S. 1995. “Finite Mathematics.” Synthese 103:389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, N. 1950. “Whitehead's Method of Extensive Abstraction.” Philosophy of Science 17:142–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lear, J. 1981. “A Note on Zeno's Arrow.” Phronesis 26:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. 1965. “Are Zeno's Paradoxes Based on a Mistake?” Mind 74:563–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 1980. The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Littlewood, J. 1953. A Mathematician's Miscellany. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Loparic, Z. 1990. “The Logical Structure of the First Antinomy.” Kant-Studien 81:280–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machover, M. 1993. “The Place of Non-Standard Analysis in Mathematics and Mathematics Teaching.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 44:205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Maor, E. 1987. To Infinity and Beyond. Boston: Birkhaüser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmura, M. 1957. “The Logical Role of the Argument from Time in the Tahāfut's Second Proof for the World's Pre-Eternity.” Muslim World 47:306–14.Google Scholar
McClennan, E. 1994. “Finite Decision Theory.” In Jordan (1994).
McGrew, T., Shier, D., and Silverstein, H.. 1997. “The Two Envelope Paradox Resolved.” Analysis 57:28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, W. 1994. “Resolving Zeno's Paradoxes.” Scientific American (November): 66–71.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, W. 1998. “Thomson's Lamp Is Dysfunctional.” Synthese 116:281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, W., and Miller, S.. 1992. “An Epistemological Use of Non-Standard Analysis to Answer Zeno's Objections against Motion.” Synthese 92:371–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClennen, E. 1994. “Pascal's Wager and Finite Decision Theory.” In Jordan (1994).
Monk, N. 1997. “Conceptions of Space-Time: Problems and Possible Solutions.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28, no. 1:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. 1988. “Aspects of the Infinite in Kant.” Mind 97:205–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. 1989. “A Problem for Intuitionism: The Apparent Possibility of Performing Infinitely Many Tasks in a Finite Time.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 89:17–34.Google Scholar
Moore, A. 1990. The Infinite. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. 1992. “A Note on Kant's First Antinomy.” Philosophical Quarterly 42:480–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A., ed. 1993. Infinity. Dartmouth: Aldershot.Google Scholar
Moore, M. 2002. A Cantorian Argument against Infinitesimals.” Synthese 133:305–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriston, W. 1999. “Must the Past Have a Beginning?” Philo 2:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriston, W. 2002c. “Craig on the Actual Infinite.” Religious Studies 38:147–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. 1987. “Faithful Representation, Physical Extensive Measurement Theory and Archimedean Axioms.” Synthese 70:373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mycielski, J. 1981. “Analysis without Actual Infinity.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 46:625–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mycielski, J. 1986. “Locally Finite Theories.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 51:59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalebuff, B. 1989. “The Other Person's Envelope Is Always Greener.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3:171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. 1977. “Internal Set Theory: A New Approach to Non-Standard Analysis.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 83, no. 6:1165–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. 1987. Radically Elementary Probability Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. 1991. “Utilitarian Eschatology.” American Philosophical Quarterly 28:339–47.Google Scholar
Ng, Y. 1995. “Infinite Utility and van Liedekerke's Impossibility: A Solution.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. 1996. “Recombination Unbound.” Philosophical Studies 84:239–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. 2001. “What Wrong with Infinite Regresses?” Metaphilosophy 32:523–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. 2002. Topics in the Philosophy of Possible Worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
North, J. 1983. “Finite and Otherwise: Aristotle and Some Seventeenth Century Views.” In Shea (1983):113–48.
Oakes, R. 1997. “The Divine Infinity: Can Traditional Theists Justifiably Reject Pantheism.” Monist 80:251–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Briant, W. 1979. “Is Descartes' Evil Spirit Finite or Infinite?” Sophia 18:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oderberg, D. 2002a. “Traversal of the Infinite, the ‘Big Bang,’ and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Philosophia Christi 4, no. 2: 303–34.Google Scholar
Oderberg, D. 2002b. “The Tristram Shandy Paradox: A Reply to Graham Oppy.” Philosophia Christi 4, no. 2: 351–60.Google Scholar
O'Leary-Hawthorne, J., and Cortens, A.. 1995. “Towards Ontological Nihilism.” Philosphical Studies 79, no. 2:143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1990. “On Rescher on Pascal's Wager.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30:159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1991. “Craig, Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 27:189–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995a. “Inverse Operations with Transfinite Numbers and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” International Philosophical Quarterly 35, no. 2:219–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995b. “Kalām Cosmological Arguments: Reply to Professor Craig.” Sophia 34:15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995c. Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 1995d. “Professor William Craig's Criticisms of Critiques of Kalām Cosmological Arguments by Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and Adolf Grünbaum.” Faith and Philosophy 12:237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1996a. “Pascal's Wager Is a Possible Bet (but Not a Very Good One): Reply to Harmon Holcomb III.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40:101–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1996b. “Review of W. Craig and Q. Smith, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology.” Faith and Philosophy 13:125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1997a. “Countable Fusion Not Yet Proven Guilty: It May Be the Whiteheadian Account of Space Whatdunnit.” Analysis 57, no. 4:249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 1997b. “Pantheism, Quantification, and Mereology.” Monist 80, no. 2:320–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2000a. “Humean Supervenience?” Philosophical Studies 101, no. 1:75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2000b. “On ‘A New Cosmological Argument.’” Religious Studies 36:345–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2001. “Time, Successive Addition, and the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Philosophia Christi 3:181–91.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2002a. “Arguing about the Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Philo 5, no 1:34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2002b. “More Than a Flesh Wound: Reply to Oderberg.” Ars Disputandi 2:1–11. [Http://www.ArsDisputandi.org].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. 2002c. “The Tristram Shandy Paradox: A Response to David S. Oderberg.” Philosophia Christi 4, no. 2:335–49.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2003. “From the Tristram Shandy Paradox to the Christmas Shandy Paradox: Reply to Oderberg.” Ars Disputandi 3:1–24. [Http://www.ArsDisputandi.org].Google Scholar
Oppy, G. 2004. “Faulty Reasoning about Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments.” Faith and Philosophy 21:242–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G. 1958. “Zeno and the Mathematicians.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 58:199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasyakov, B. 1989. “Dimension.” In Hazewinkel (1989), pp. 188–90.
Peers, A. 1975. Dimension Theory of General Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 1997. “Classical Particle Dynamics, Indeterminism, and a Supertask.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 1998. “Infinity Machines and Creation Ex Nihilo.” Synthese 115:259–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2000. “Priest on the Paradox of the Gods.” Analysis 60:152–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2002a. “On the Dynamics of Alper and Bridger.” Synthese 131:157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2002b. “Just as Beautiful but Not (Necessarily) a Supertask.” Mind 111:281–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2002c. “Two Ways of Looking at a Newtonian Supertask.” Synthese 131:173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Laraudogoitia, J. 2003. “A Variant of Benardette's Paradox.” Analysis 63:124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerlau, W. 1985. “Does Reason Demand That God Be Infinite?” Sophia 24:18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. 1996. “Taming the Infinite.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47:609–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. 1992. “Metaphysical Pluralism.” Journal of Philosophy 89:387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1987. In Contradiction. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1991. “The Limits of Thought — and Beyond.” Mind 100:361–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 1995. Beyond the Limits of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 1999. “On a Version of One of Zeno's Paradoxes.” Analysis 59:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
qFiasco, F. 1980. “Another Look at Some of Zeno's Paradoxes.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10:119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. 1953. “On What There Is.” In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1–19.Google Scholar
Radner, M. 1998. “Unlocking the Second Antinomy: Kant and Wulff.” Journal for the History of Philosophy 36:413–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapaport, A. 1998. Decision Theory and Decision Behaviour. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, A. 1961. “Non Standard Analysis.” Indagationes Mathematicae 23:432–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, A. 1966. Non-Standard Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Robinson, A. 1973. “Metamathematical Problems.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 38:500–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. 1988. A First Course in Probability, 3rd ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rucker, R. 1982. Infinity and the Mind. Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1929. Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Norton, 182–98. Reprinted in Salmon (1970), 45–58.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. 1995. Paradoxes. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W., ed. 1970. Zeno's Paradoxes. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1977. “St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected and Historically Described.” Journal of Economic Literature 15:24–55.Google Scholar
Sanford, D. 1969. “Time May Have a Stop.” Analysis 29:206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, D. 1975. “Infinity and Vagueness.” Philosophical Review 87:520–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, D. 2003. “Fusion Confusion.” Analysis 63:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, G. 1994. “A Central Theistic Argument.” In Jordan (1994).
Schock, R. 1982. “Dividing by Zero.” Logique et Analyse 25:213–15.Google Scholar
Schoen, E. 1990. “The Sensory Presentation of Divine Infinity.” Faith and Philosophy 7:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A., and Scott, D.. 1997. “What Is in the Two Envelope Paradox?” Analysis 57:34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segel, L. 1991. “The Infinite and Infinitesimal in Models for Natural Phenomena.” Reviews of Modern Physics 63:225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, K. 1976. “A Neglected Family of Aggregation Problems in Ethics.” Nous 10:221–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, G. 1997. “Some Definitions of ‘The Smallest Infinity.’” Logique et Analyse 160:345–56.Google Scholar
Shearman, J. 1908. “Infinite Divisibility.” Mind 17:394–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherry, D. 1988. “Zeno's Metrical Paradox Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 55:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierpinski, W. 1965. Cardinal and Ordinal Numbers. Warsaw: PWN-Polish Scientific.Google Scholar
Simons, P. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1966. Choice and Chance. Belmont: Dickenson.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1983. “Zeno's Paradox of Measure.” In Cohen and Lauden (1983):223–54.
Skyrms, B. 1993. “A Uniform Positive Probability on Natural Numbers.” Unpublished ms.
Skyrms, B., and Harper, W., eds. 1988. Causation, Chance and Credence, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, R. 1986. “Tristram Shandy's Last Page.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37:213–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1985. “Kant and the Beginning of the World.” New Scholasticism 59:339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1987. “Infinity and the Past.” Philosophy of Science 54:63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1988. “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” Philosophy of Science 55:39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1991. “Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69:48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1993. “Reply to Craig: The Possible Infinitude of the Past.” International Philosophical Quarterly 33:109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1995a. “A Defence of a Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Metaphilosophy 26:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1995b. “Internal and External Causal Explanation of the Universe.” Philosophical Studies 79:283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1997. “Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists.” Philosophy 72:125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 1999. “The Reason the Universe Exists Is That It Caused Itself to Exist.” Philosophy 74:579–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. 2000. “Problem's with John Earman's Attempt to Reconcile Theism with General Relativity.” Erkenntnis 52:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorabji, R. 1983. Time, Creation and the Continuum. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Sorenson, R. 1994. “Infinite Decision Theory.” In Jordan (1994).
Stroyon, K., and Luxemburg., W. 1976. Introduction to the Theory of Infinitesimals. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Stump, E. 1997. “Simplicity.” In Quinn, P. and Taliaferro, C. (eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweeney, E. 1993. “Thomas Aquinas' Double Metaphysics of Simplicity and Infinity.” International Philosophical Quarterly 33:297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. 1966. “The Beginning of the Universe.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 40:125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. 1968. Space and Time. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. 1951. “Mr. Black on Temporal Paradoxes.” Analysis 12:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. 1952. “Mr. Wisdom on Temporal Paradoxes.” Analysis 13:15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. 1963. Metaphysics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Teller, P. 1989. “Infinite Renormalisation.” Philosophy of Science 56:238–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. 1982. “Euclidean Infinitesimals.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63:168–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. 1954. “Tasks and Supertasks.” Analysis 15:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. 1970. “Comments on Professor Benacerraf's Paper.” In Salmon (1970), 130–8.
Tomberlin, J., ed. 1988. Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 2. Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Ushenko, A. 1946. “Zeno's Paradoxes.” Mind 55:151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P. 1993. “Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71:212–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P. 1995. “Infinite Utility: Anonymity and Person-Centredness.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P., and Kagan, S.. 1997. “Infinite Utility and Finitely Additive Value Theory.” Journal of Philosophy 94:5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendegem, J. 1987. “Zeno's Paradoxes and the Tile Argument.” Philosophy of Science 54:295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendegem, J. 1994. “Ross' Paradox Is an Impossible Super-task.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 45:743–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleve, J. 1981. “Reflections on Kant's Second Antimony.” Synthese 47:481–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzig, D. 1955. “Is a Finite Number?” Dialectica 9:273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B. 1995. “‘World’ Is Not a Count Noun.” Nous 29:139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liederkerke, L. 1995. “Should Utilitarians Be Cautious about an Infinite Future?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:405–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaught, R. 1995. Set Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Boston: Birkhaüser.Google Scholar
Vilenkin, N. 1995. In Search of Infinity. Boston: Birkhaüser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1966a. “A Note on Zeno's Arrow.” Phronesis 11:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1966b. “Zeno's Race Course.” Journal of History of Philosophy 4:95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, C. 1999. “Misadventures in Conditional Expectation: The Two Envelope Paradox.” Erkenntnis 51:233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. 1997. “Sufficient Reason.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 97:109–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watling, J. 1952. “The Sum of an Infinite Series.” Analysis 13:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingard, R. 1979. “General Relativity and the Length of the Past.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30:170–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weirich, P. 1984. “The St. Petersburg Gamble and Risk.” Theory and Decision 17:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. 1946. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
White, A. 1965. “Achilles at the Shooting Gallery.” Mind 74:141–2.Google Scholar
White, M. 1987. “The Spatial Arrow Paradox.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 68:71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitrow, G. 1978. “On the Impossibility of an Infinite Past.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 29:39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, D. 1996. “Sufficient Reason: A Principle in Diverse Guises, Both Ancient and Modern.” Acta Philosophica Fennica 61:117–32.Google Scholar
Williams, J. 1981. “Justified Belief and the Infinite Regress Argument.” American Philosophical Quarterly 18:85–8.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1991. “What Is the Explanandum of the Anthropic Principle?” American Philosophical Quarterly 28:167–73.Google Scholar
Wisdom, J. 1941. “Why Achilles Does Not Fail to Catch the Tortoise.” Mind 50:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisdom, J. 1952. “Achilles on a Physical Racecourse.” Analysis 12:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1975. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfson, H. 1966. “Patristic Arguments against the Eternity of the World.” Harvard Theological Review 59:354–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. 1976. The Philosophy of the Kalām. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 1985. “Skolem and the Sceptic.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society supp. vol.: 116–37.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. 2000. “A Reply to New Zeno.” Analysis 60:148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabell, S. 1988. “Symmetry and Its Discontents.” In Skyrms and Harper (1988), 155–90.
Zangari, M. 1994. “Zeno, Zero, and Indeterminate Forms: Instants in the Logic of Motion.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72:187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckero, M. 2001. “A Dissolution of Zeno's Paradoxes of the Dichotomy and the Flight of the Arrow.” Dialogue 43:46–51.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Graham Oppy, Monash University, Victoria
  • Book: Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity
  • Online publication: 31 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498985.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Graham Oppy, Monash University, Victoria
  • Book: Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity
  • Online publication: 31 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498985.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Graham Oppy, Monash University, Victoria
  • Book: Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity
  • Online publication: 31 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498985.013
Available formats
×