A theory of strong indiscernibles
| Abstract | The Complete Theory of Everything (CTE) is based on certain axioms of indiscernibility. Such axioms of indiscernibility have been given a philosophical justification by Kit Fine. I want to report on an attempt to give strong indiscernibility axioms which might also be subject to such philosophical analysis, and which prove the consistency of set theory; i.e., ZFC or more. In this way, we might obtain a (new kind of) philosophical consistency proof for mathematics. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesJohn P. Burgess (2004). E Pluribus Unum: Plural Logic and Set Theory. Philosophia Mathematica 12 (3):193-221.
Décio Krause & Antonio Mariano Nogueira Coelho (2005). Identity, Indiscernibility, and Philosophical Claims. Axiomathes 15 (2).
Paul Strauss (1991). Arithmetical Set Theory. Studia Logica 50 (2):343 - 350.
Penelope Maddy (2011). Defending the Axioms: On the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory. Oxford University Press.
George Kafkoulis (1994). The Consistency Strength of an Infinitary Ramsey Property. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (4):1158-1195.
Mauro Di Nasso (2002). An Axiomatic Presentation of the Nonstandard Methods in Mathematics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (1):315 - 325.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #123,218 of 549,550 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,790 of 549,550 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
