Graduate studies at Western
|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)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
John 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):191-210.
Décio Krause & Antonio M. N. Coelho (2005). Identity, Indiscernibility, and Philosophical Claims. Axiomathes 15 (2):191-210.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #132,105 of 751,289 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #62,995 of 751,289 )
How can I increase my downloads?