|
18189
|
ZFC could contain a contradiction, and it can never prove its own consistency [MacLane]
|
|
Full Idea:
We have at hand no proof that the axioms of ZFC for set theory will never yield a contradiction, while Gödel's second theorem tells us that such a consistency proof cannot be conducted within ZFC.
|
|
From:
Saunders MacLane (Mathematics: Form and Function [1986], p.406), quoted by Penelope Maddy - Naturalism in Mathematics
|
|
A reaction:
Maddy quotes this, while defending set theory as the foundation of mathematics, but it clearly isn't the most secure foundation that could be devised. She says the benefits of set theory do not need guaranteed consistency (p.30).
|
|
14596
|
Call 'nominalism' the denial of numbers, properties, relations and sets [Dorr]
|
|
Full Idea:
Just as there are no numbers or properties, there are no relations (like 'being heavier than' or 'betweenness'), or sets. I will provisionally use 'nominalism' for the conjunction of these four claims.
|
|
From:
Cian Dorr (There Are No Abstract Objects [2008], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
If you are going to be a nominalist, do it properly! My starting point in metaphysics is strong sympathy with this view. Right now [Tues 22nd Nov 2011, 10:57 am GMT] I think it is correct.
|
|
14598
|
Abstracta imply non-logical brute necessities, so only nominalists can deny such things [Dorr]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there are abstract objects, there are necessary truths about these things that cannot be reduced to truths of logic. So only the nominalist, who denies that there are any such things, can adequately respect the idea that there are no brute necessities.
|
|
From:
Cian Dorr (There Are No Abstract Objects [2008], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is where two plates of my personal philosophy grind horribly against one another. I love nominalism, and I love natural necessities. They meet like a ring-species in evolution. I'll just call it a 'paradox', and move on (swiftly).
|