Higher-Order Platonism and Multiversism

Joel Hamkins has described his multiverse position as being one of `higher-order realism -- Platonism about universes', whereby one takes models of set theory to be actually existing objects (vis-\`a-vis `first-order realism', which takes only sets to be actually existing objects). My goal in this paper is to make sense of the view in the very context of Hamkins' own multiversism. To this end, I will explain what may be considered the central features of higher-order platonism, and then will focus on Zalta and Linsky's Object Theory, which, I will argue, is able to faithfully express Hamkins' conception. I will then show how the embedding of higher-order platonism into Object Theory may help the Hamkinsian multiversist to respond to salient criticisms of the multiverse conception, especially those relating to its articulation, skeptical attitude, and relationship with set-theoretic practice

Gödel’s Cantorianism

Gödel’s philosophical conceptions bear striking similarities to Cantor’s. Although there is no conclusive evidence that Gödel deliberately used or adhered to Cantor’s views, one can successfully reconstruct and see his “Cantorianism” at work in many parts of his thought. In this paper, I aim to describe the most prominent conceptual intersections between Cantor’s and Gödel’s thought, particularly on such matters as the nature and existence of mathematical entities (sets), concepts, Platonism, the Absolute Infinite, the progress and inexhaustibility of mathematics

Intrinsic Justification for Large Cardinals and Structural Reflection

We deal with the complex issue of whether large cardinals are intrinsically justified principles of set theory (we call this the Intrinsicness Issue). In order to do this, we review, in a systematic fashion, (1.) the abstract principles that have been formulated to motivate them, as well as (2.) their mathematical expressions, and assess the justifiability of both on the grounds of the (iterative) concept of set. A parallel, but closely linked, issue is whether there exist mathematical principles able to yield all known large cardinals (we call this the Universality Issue), and we also test principles for their responses to this issue. Finally, we discuss the first author's Structural Reflection Principles (SRPs), and their response to Intrinsicness and Universality. We conclude the paper with some considerations on the global justifiability of SRPs, and on alternative construals of the concept of set also potentially able to intrinsically justify large cardinals

Fallacious Analogical Reasoning and the Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference (MFDI)

In this article, we address fallacious analogical reasoning and the Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference (MFDI), recently discussed by B. Lightbody and M. Berman (2010). We claim that the authors’ proposal to introduce a new fallacy is only partly justified. We also argue that, in some relevant cases, fallacious analogical reasoning involving metaphors is only affected by the use of quaternio terminorum

Ipotesi del Continuo

L’Ipotesi del Continuo, formulata da Cantor nel 1878, è una delle congetture più note della teoria degli insiemi. Il Problema del Continuo, che ad essa è collegato, fu collocato da Hilbert, nel 1900, fra i principali problemi insoluti della matematica. A seguito della dimostrazione di indipendenza dell’Ipotesi del Continuo dagli assiomi della teoria degli insiemi, lo status attuale del problema è controverso. In anni più recenti, la ricerca di una soluzione del Problema del Continuo è stata anche una delle ragioni fondamentali per la ricerca di nuovi assiomi in matematica. L’articolo fornisce un quadro generale dei risultati matematici fondamentali, e un’analisi di alcune delle questioni filosofiche connesse al Problema del Continuo

On Forms of Justification in Set Theory

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

Steel's Programme: Evidential Framework, the Core and Ultimate-_L_

We address Steel’s Programme to identify a ‘preferred’ universe of set theory and the best axioms extending ZFC by using his multiverse axioms MV and the ‘core hypothesis’. In the first part, we examine the evidential framework for MV, in particular the use of large cardinals and of ‘worlds’ obtained through forcing to ‘represent’ alternative extensions of ZFC. In the second part, we address the existence and the possible features of the core of MV_T (where T is ZFC+Large Cardinals). In the last part, we discuss the hypothesis that the core is Ultimate-L, and examine whether and how, based on this fact, the Core Universist can justify V=Ultimate-L as the best (and ultimate) extension of ZFC. To this end, we take into account several strategies, and assess their prospects in the light of MV’s evidential framework

Maximality Principles in the Hyperuniverse Programme

In recent years, one of the main thrusts of set-theoretic research has been the investigation of maximality principles for V, the universe of sets. The Hyperuniverse Programme (HP) has formulated several maximality principles, which express the maximality of V both in height and width. The paper provides an overview of the principles which have been investigated so far in the programme, as well as of the logical and model-theoretic tools which are needed to formulate them mathematically, and also briefly shows how optimal principles, among those available, may be selected in a justifiable way

On Forms of Justification in Set Theory

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