Online research in philosophy

Scientifi c theories and hypotheses make claims that go well beyond what we can immediately observe. How can we come to know whether such claims are true? The obvious approach is to see what a hypothesis says about the observationally accessible parts of the world. If it gets that wrong, then it must be false; if it gets that right, then it may have some claim to being true. Any sensible a empt to construct a logic that captures how we may come to reasonably believe the falsehood or truth of scientifi c hypotheses must be built on this idea. Philosophers refer to such logics as logics of confi rmation or as confi rmation theories.

Axiom of Combinatorial Sets is defined and used to derive Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.

I examine various claims to the effect that Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis and other problems of higher set theory are ill-posed questions. The analysis takes into account the viability of the underlying philosophical views and recent mathematical developments.

The dynamical hypothesis is strong in that, for it to be true, every cognitive phenomenon must be best modeled by a dynamical system. Depending on how it is interpreted, however, the hypothesis may be seen as probably false or even unfalsifiable. Strengthening the hypothesis to require unification, or at least coherence, across models in different cognitive domains alleviates this problem.

Eliminative induction is a method for finding the truth by using evidence to eliminate false competitors. It is often characterized as "induction by means of deduction"; the accumulating evidence eliminates false hypotheses by logically contradicting them, while the true hypothesis logically entails the evidence, or at least remains logically consistent with it. If enough evidence is available to eliminate all but the most implausible competitors of a hypothesis, then (and only then) will the hypothesis become highly confirmed. I will argue that, with regard to the evaluation of hypotheses, Bayesian inductive inference is essentially a probabilistic form of induction by elimination. Bayesian induction is an extension of eliminativism to cases where, rather than contradict the evidence, false hypotheses imply that the evidence is very unlikely, much less likely than the evidence would be if some competing hypothesis were true. This is not, I think, how Bayesian induction is usually understood. The recent book by Howson and Urbach, for example, provides an excellent, comprehensive explanation and defense of the Bayesian approach; but this book scarcely remarks on Bayesian induction's eliminative nature. Nevertheless, the very essence of Bayesian induction is the refutation of false competitors of a true hypothesis, or so I will argue.

It is well known that, for example, the Continuum Hypothesis can’t be proved or disproved from the standard axioms of set theory or their familiar extensions (unless those axiom systems are themselves inconsistent). Some think it follows that CH has no determinate truth value; others insist that this conclusion is false, not because there is some objective world of sets in which CH is either true or false, but on logical grounds. Claims of indeterminacy have also been made on the basis of such considerations as the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic, with similar rejoinders. We’ll read some representative examples of the various positions and replies. (For background on second-order logic, see Stewart Shapiro.

The purpose of this article is to explain why I believe that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is not a definite mathematical problem. My reason for that is that the concept of arbitrary set essential to its formulation is vague or underdetermined and there is no way to sharpen it without violating what it is supposed to be about. In addition, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to support the view that CH is not definite.

Jaakko Hintikka 1. How to Study Set Theory The continuum hypothesis (CH) is crucial in the core area of set theory, viz. in the theory of the hierarchies of infinite cardinal and infinite ordinal numbers. It is crucial in that it would, if true, help to relate the two hierarchies to each other. It says that the second infinite cardinal number, which is known to be the cardinality of the first uncountable ordinal, equals the cardinality 2 o of the continuum. (Here o is the smallest infinite cardinal.).

This paper explores how the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) arose from Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis in the work of Peirce, Jourdain, Hausdorff, Tarski, and how GCH was used up to Gödel's relative consistency result.