Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:56:12.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Many Worlds Interpretation of Set Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Geoffrey Hellman
Geoffrey Hellman*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As standardly presented in axiomatic form, set theory exhibits two fundamental features which together give rise to a number of foundational and philosophical problems. These features are so basic that they are seldom even isolated. The first is that the axioms are taken as categorical assertions (e.g. “There exists an empty set”, “There exists an infinite set”, “The power set of any set exists”, etc.). The second is that actualist quantifiers are employed in these axioms, so that they appear to be about actual objects; the domain of these quantifiers forms the fixed universe of sets (up to a choice of urelement basis), relata of a unique, fixed membership relation entering into the statement of the axioms.

Such presentations are associated with the philosophical positions of platonism and set-theoretic foundationalism.

Type
Part XIV. Set Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 445 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Benacerraf, P. (1965), “What numbers could not be”, in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H., eds., Philosophy of Mathematics, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 272–294.Google Scholar
Boolos, G (1985), “Nominalist Platonism”, Philosophical Review, 94: 327-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J (unpublished), “Sources on the Foundations of Set Theory”.Google Scholar
Chuaqui, R. (1972), “Forcing and the Impredicative Theory of Classes”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37, 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, P.J. (1966), Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, New York: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Dedekind, R. (1888), Was Sind und Was Sollen die Zahlen, Brunswick: Vieweg, translated as “The Nature and Meaning of Numbers”, in Essays on the Theory of Numbers, New York: Dover, 1963, pp. 31–115.Google Scholar
Drake, F.R. (1974), Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Geroch, R. (1984), “The Everett Interpretation”, Noûs, 18, 4: 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. (1977), The Structure of Appearance, third edition, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (1989), Mathematics without Numbers, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (forthcoming), “Toward a Modal-Structuralist Interpretation of Set Theory”, Synthese.Google Scholar
Kanamori, A., and Magidor, M. (1978), “The Evolution of Large Cardinal Axioms in Set Theory”, in Muller, G.H. and Scott, D.S., eds., Higher Set Theory, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 669, Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1972), Review of Putnam (1967), Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37: 402-4.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963), “Semantical Considerations on Modal Logics”, Acta Philosophica Fennica, pp. 83-94.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967), “Mathematics without Foundations”, in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983), pp. 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, W. (1974), “Remarks on Reflection Principles, Large Cardinals, and Elementary Embeddings”, in Jech, T., ed., Axiomatic Set Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 13, Part 2, pp. 189–205, Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (1974), “Axiomatizing Set Theory”, in Jech, T., ed., op. cit Reinhardt (1974), pp. 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1985), “Second Order Languages and Mathematical Practice”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50: 714–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1930), “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre”, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16: 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar