Petrification in Contemporary Set Theory: The Multiverse and the Later Wittgenstein.

Kriterion (Salzburg, Austria) Pub Date : 2024-11-05 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1515/krt-2023-0016
José Antonio Pérez-Escobar, Colin Jakob Rittberg, Deniz Sarikaya
{"title":"Petrification in Contemporary Set Theory: The Multiverse and the Later Wittgenstein.","authors":"José Antonio Pérez-Escobar, Colin Jakob Rittberg, Deniz Sarikaya","doi":"10.1515/krt-2023-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper has two aims. First, we argue that Wittgenstein's notion of petrification can be used to explain phenomena in advanced mathematics, sometimes better than more popular views on mathematics, such as formalism, even though petrification usually suffers from a diet of examples of a very basic nature (in particular a focus on addition of small numbers). Second, we analyse current disagreements on the absolute undecidability of CH under the notion of petrification and hinge epistemology. We argue that in contemporary set theory the usage of construction techniques for set-theoretic models in which the Continuum Hypothesis holds and those in which it fails have petrified into the normative demand that CH remain undecidable. That is, the continuous and successful practices involving the construction of various set-theoretic models now act as a normative hinge shared among practitioners, i.e., have normative force in the discipline. However, not all hinges are universal, which is why we find disagreements in set theory. We will show that this is a refinement of, and partially conflicts with, the arguments presented by set theorist Joel David Hamkins.</p>","PeriodicalId":521067,"journal":{"name":"Kriterion (Salzburg, Austria)","volume":"39 1-2","pages":"97-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12459636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kriterion (Salzburg, Austria)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2023-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper has two aims. First, we argue that Wittgenstein's notion of petrification can be used to explain phenomena in advanced mathematics, sometimes better than more popular views on mathematics, such as formalism, even though petrification usually suffers from a diet of examples of a very basic nature (in particular a focus on addition of small numbers). Second, we analyse current disagreements on the absolute undecidability of CH under the notion of petrification and hinge epistemology. We argue that in contemporary set theory the usage of construction techniques for set-theoretic models in which the Continuum Hypothesis holds and those in which it fails have petrified into the normative demand that CH remain undecidable. That is, the continuous and successful practices involving the construction of various set-theoretic models now act as a normative hinge shared among practitioners, i.e., have normative force in the discipline. However, not all hinges are universal, which is why we find disagreements in set theory. We will show that this is a refinement of, and partially conflicts with, the arguments presented by set theorist Joel David Hamkins.

当代集合论的僵化:多元宇宙与后来的维特根斯坦。
本文有两个目的。首先,我们认为维特根斯坦的僵化概念可以用来解释高等数学中的现象,有时比更流行的数学观点(如形式主义)更好,即使僵化通常受到非常基本性质的例子的影响(特别是关注小数的加法)。其次,我们分析了在石化和铰链认识论的概念下,目前关于汉语的绝对不可判定性的分歧。我们认为,在当代集合理论中,连续统假设成立和不成立的集合理论模型的构建技术的使用已经僵化为对CH保持不可确定的规范性要求。也就是说,涉及构建各种集合论模型的持续和成功的实践现在成为实践者之间共享的规范铰链,即在该学科中具有规范力量。然而,并不是所有的铰链都是普遍的,这就是为什么我们在集合论中发现分歧。我们将证明这是对集合理论家Joel David Hamkins提出的论点的改进,部分地与之冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书