Can we resolve the continuum hypothesis?

Synthese 197 (2):599-622 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I argue that contemporary set theory, as depicted in the 2011–2012 EFI lecture series, lacks a program that promises to decide, in a genuinely realist fashion, the continuum hypothesis (CH) and related questions about the “width” of the universe. We can distinguish three possible objectives for a realist completion of set theory: maximizing structures, maximizing sets, and maximizing interpretive power. However, none of these is allied to a program that can plausibly decide CH. I discuss the implications of this for set theory and other foundational programs.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,597

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
2020-03-05

Downloads
29 (#779,834)

6 months
4 (#1,260,583)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Shivaram Lingamneni
University of California, Berkeley

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Naturalism in mathematics.Penelope Maddy - 1997 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology.Stewart Shapiro - 2002 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2):467-475.
The set-theoretic multiverse.Joel David Hamkins - 2012 - Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (3):416-449.
Why a Little Bit Goes a Long Way: Logical Foundations of Scientifically Applicable Mathematics.Solomon Feferman - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:442 - 455.

View all 7 references / Add more references