Models as Fundamental Entities in Set Theory: A Naturalistic and Practice-based Approach

Erkenntnis 89 (4):1683-1710 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article addresses the question of fundamental entities in set theory. It takes up J. Hamkins’ claim that models of set theory are such fundamental entities and investigates it using the methodology of P. Maddy’s naturalism, Second Philosophy. In accordance with this methodology, I investigate the historical case study of the use of models in the introduction of forcing, compare this case to contemporary practice and give a systematic account of how set-theoretic practice can be said to introduce models as new entities. In conclusion, I argue for a view that takes both sets and models to be fundamental entities in set theory.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,551

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-08-20

Downloads
42 (#534,616)

6 months
10 (#415,916)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Carolin Antos
Universität Konstanz

References found in this work

Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology.Stewart Shapiro - 2000 - Philosophical Quarterly 50 (198):120-123.
The set-theoretic multiverse.Joel David Hamkins - 2012 - Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (3):416-449.
Internal cohen extensions.D. A. Martin & R. M. Solovay - 1970 - Annals of Mathematical Logic 2 (2):143-178.
On the question of absolute undecidability.Peter Koellner - 2010 - In Kurt Gödel, Solomon Feferman, Charles Parsons & Stephen G. Simpson (eds.), Kurt Gödel: essays for his centennial. Ithaca, NY: Association for Symbolic Logic. pp. 153-188.

View all 26 references / Add more references