New Foundations and the Beginnings of Quine’s Philosophy of Set Theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-394
Author(s):  
Michael Potter

Abstract In his recent book, Quine, New Foundations, and the Philosophy of Set Theory (2018), Sean Morris attempts to rehabilitate Quine’s NF as a possible foundation for mathematics. I explain why he does not succeed.


Author(s):  
Tim Button ◽  
Sean Walsh

In this chapter, the focus shifts from numbers to sets. Again, no first-order set theory can hope to get anywhere near categoricity, but Zermelo famously proved the quasi-categoricity of second-order set theory. As in the previous chapter, we must ask who is entitled to invoke full second-order logic. That question is as subtle as before, and raises the same problem for moderate modelists. However, the quasi-categorical nature of Zermelo's Theorem gives rise to some specific questions concerning the aims of axiomatic set theories. Given the status of Zermelo's Theorem in the philosophy of set theory, we include a stand-alone proof of this theorem. We also prove a similar quasi-categoricity for Scott-Potter set theory, a theory which axiomatises the idea of an arbitrary stage of the iterative hierarchy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 158
Author(s):  
Neil Barton ◽  
Claudio Ternullo ◽  
Giorgio Venturi

In the contemporary philosophy of set theory, discussion of new axioms that purport to resolve independence necessitates an explanation of how they come to be justified. Ordinarily, justification is divided into two broad kinds: intrinsic justification relates to how ‘intuitively plausible’ an axiom is, whereas extrinsic justification supports an axiom by identifying certain ‘desirable’ consequences. This paper puts pressure on how this distinction is formulated and construed. In particular, we argue that the distinction as often presented is neither well-demarcated nor sufficiently precise. Instead, we suggest that the process of justification in set theory should not be thought of as neatly divisible in this way, but should rather be understood as a conceptually indivisible notion linked to the goal of explanation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 158
Author(s):  
Neil Barton ◽  
Claudio Ternullo ◽  
Giorgio Venturi

In the contemporary philosophy of set theory, discussion of new axiomsthat purport to resolve independence necessitates an explanation of howthey come to bejustified. Ordinarily, justification is divided into two broadkinds:intrinsicjustification relates to how ‘intuitively plausible’ an axiomis, whereasextrinsicjustification supports an axiom by identifying certain‘desirable’ consequences. This paper puts pressure on how this distinctionis formulated and construed. In particular, we argue that the distinction asoften presented is neitherwell-demarcatednor sufficientlyprecise. Instead, wesuggest that the process of justification in set theory should not be thoughtof as neatly divisible in this way, but should rather be understood as a con-ceptually indivisible notion linked to the goal ofexplanation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document