A new foundational crisis in mathematics, is it really happening?

The article reconsiders the position of the foundations of mathematics after the discovery of HoTT. Discussion that this discovery has generated in the community of mathematicians, philosophers and computer scientists might indicate a new crisis in the foundation of mathematics. By examining the mathematical facts behind HoTT and their relation with the existing foundations, we conclude that the present crisis is not one. We reiterate a pluralist vision of the foundations of mathematics. The article contains a short survey of the mathematical and historical background needed to understand the main tenets of the foundational issues.Comment: Final versio

On the Origin of Abstraction : Real and Imaginary Parts of Decidability-Making

International audienceThe behavioral tradition has largely anchored on Simon's early conception of bounded rationality, it is important to engage more explicitly cognitive approaches particularly ones that might link to the issue of identifying novel competitive positions. The purpose of the study is to describe the cognitive processes by which decision-makers manage to work, individually or collectively, through undecidable situations and design innovatively. Most widespread models of rationality developed for preference-making and based on a real dimension should be extended for abstraction-making by adding a visible imaginary one. A development of a core analytical/conceptual apparatus is proposed to purposely account this dual form of reasoning, deductive to prove (then make) equivalence and abstractive to represent (then unmake) it. Complex numbers, comfortable to describe repetitive, expansional and superimposing phenomena (like waves, envelope of waves, interferences or holograms, etc.) appear as generalizable to cognitive processes at work when redesigning a decidable space by abstraction (like relief vision to design a missing depth dimension, Loyd's problem to design a missing degree of freedom, etc.). This theoretical breakthrough may open up vistas capacity in the fields of information systems, knowledge and decision

The set-theoretic multiverse

The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view, in contrast, asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with a corresponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I argue, explains our experience with the enormous diversity of set-theoretic possibilities, a phenomenon that challenges the universe view. In particular, I argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for.Comment: 35 page

Arithmetic, Set Theory, Reduction and Explanation

Philosophers of science since Nagel have been interested in the links between intertheoretic reduction and explanation, understanding and other forms of epistemic progress. Although intertheoretic reduction is widely agreed to occur in pure mathematics as well as empirical science, the relationship between reduction and explanation in the mathematical setting has rarely been investigated in a similarly serious way. This paper examines an important particular case: the reduction of arithmetic to set theory. I claim that the reduction is unexplanatory. In defense of this claim, I offer evidence from mathematical practice, and I respond to contrary suggestions due to Steinhart, Maddy, Kitcher and Quine. I then show how, even if set-theoretic reductions are generally not explanatory, set theory can nevertheless serve as a legitimate foundation for mathematics. Finally, some implications of my thesis for philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science are discussed. In particular, I suggest that some reductions in mathematics are probably explanatory, and I propose that differing standards of theory acceptance might account for the apparent lack of unexplanatory reductions in the empirical sciences