This thesis considers the following problem: What methods should the epistemology of science use to gain insight into the structure and behaviour of scientific knowledge and method in actual scientific practice? After arguing that the elucidation of epistemological and methodological phenomena in science requires a method that is rooted in formal methods, I consider two alternative methods for epistemology of science. One approach is the classical approaches of the syntactic and semantic views of theories. I show that typical approaches of (...) this sort are inadequate and inaccurate in their representation of scientific knowledge by showing how they fail to account for and misrepresent important epistemological structure and behaviour in science. The other method for epistemology of science I consider is modeled on the methods used to construct valid models of natural phenomena in applied mathematics. This new epistemological method is itself a modeling method that is developed through the detailed consideration of two main examples of theory application in science: double pendulum systems and the modeling of near-Earth objects to compute probability of future Earth impact. I show that not only does this new method accurately represent actual methods used to apply theories in applied mathematics, it also reveals interesting structural and behavioural patterns in the application process and gives insight into what underlies the stability of methods of application. I therefore conclude that for epistemology of science to develop fully as a scientific discipline it must use methods from applied mathematics, not only methods from pure mathematics and metamathematics as traditional formal epistemology of science has done. (shrink)

We investigate Hilbert’s varepsilon -calculus in the context of intuitionistic type theories, that is, within certain systems of intuitionistic higher-order logic. We determine the additional deductive strength conferred on an intuitionistic type theory by the adjunction of closed varepsilon -terms. We extend the usual topos semantics for type theories to the varepsilon -operator and prove a completeness theorem. The paper also contains a discussion of the concept of “partially defined‘ varepsilon -term. MSC: 03B15, 03B20, 03G30.

We introduce an extension of the propositional calculus to include abstracts of predicates and quantifiers, employing a single rule along with a novel comprehension schema and a principle of extensionality, which are substituted for the Bernays postulates for quantifiers and the comprehension schemata of ZF and other set theories. We prove that it is consistent in any finite Boolean subset lattice. We investigate the antinomies of Russell, Cantor, Burali-Forti, and others, and discuss the relationship of the system to other set-theoretic (...) systems ZF, NBG, and NF. We discuss two methods of axiomatizing higher order quantification and abstraction, and then very briefly discuss the application of one of these methods to areas of mathematics outside of logic. (shrink)

We give arguments explaining why, when adopting a minimalist approach to constructive mathematics as that formalized in our two-level minimalist foundation, the choice for a pointfree approach to topology is not just a matter of convenience or mathematical elegance, but becomes compulsory. The main reason is that in our foundation real numbers, either as Dedekind cuts or as Cauchy sequences, do not form a set.

Lobachevsky's Imaginary geometry in its original form involved an extension of rather than a radical departure from Euclidean intuition. It wasn't anything like a formal theory in Hilbert's sense and hence didn't require anything like a model. However, rather surprisingly, Lobachevsky uses what in modern terms can be called a non-standard model of Euclidean plane, namely as a specific surface (a horisphere) in a Hyperbolic space. In this paper I critically review some popular accounts of the discovery of Non-Euclidean geometries (...) and suggest a revision of the epistemic view on the issue dating back to Hilbert's Grundlagen. (shrink)

We analyze Zorn's Lemma and some of its consequences for Boolean algebras in a constructive setting. We show that Zorn's Lemma is persistent in the sense that, if it holds in the underlying set theory, in a properly stated form it continues to hold in all intuitionistic type theories of a certain natural kind. (Observe that the axiom of choice cannot be persistent in this sense since it implies the law of excluded middle.) We also establish the persistence of some (...) familiar results in the theory of (complete) Boolean algebras--notably, the proposition that every complete Boolean algebra is an absolute subretract. This (almost) resolves a question of Banaschewski and Bhutani as to whether the Sikorski extension theorem for Boolean algebras is persistent. (shrink)

In this paper we develop the notion of formal precover in a topos by defining a relation between elements and sets in a local set theory. We show that such relations are equivalent to modalities and to universal closure operators. Finally we prove that these relations are well characterized by a convenient restriction to a particular set.

Hellman [2003] raises interesting challenges to categorical structuralism. He starts citing Awodey [1996] which, as Hellman sees, is not intended as a foundation for mathematics. It offers a structuralist framework which could denned in any of many different foundations. But Hellman says Awodey's work is 'naturally viewed in the context of Mac Lane's repeated claim that category theory provides an autonomous foundation for mathematics as an alternative to set theory' (p. 129). Most of Hellman's paper 'scrutinizes the formulation of category (...) theory' specifically in 'its alleged role as providing a foundation' (p. 130). I will also focus on the foundational question. Page numbers in parentheses are page references to Hellman [2003]. (shrink)

The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid's axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago” (Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel & Levy 1973, §II.4). The fulsomeness of this description might lead those unfamiliar with the axiom to expect it to be as startling as, say, the Principle of the Constancy of (...) the Velocity of Light or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But in fact the Axiom of Choice as it is usually stated appears humdrum, even self-evident. For it amounts to nothing more than the claim that, given any collection of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, it is possible to assemble a new set — a transversal or choice set — containing exactly one element from each member of the given collection. Nevertheless, this seemingly innocuous principle has far-reaching mathematical consequences — many indispensable, some startling — and has come to figure prominently in discussions on the foundations of mathematics. It (or its equivalents) have been employed in countless mathematical papers, and a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it. (shrink)

Some aspects of the theory of Boolean algebras and distributive lattices–in particular, the Stone Representation Theorems and the properties of filters and ideals–are analyzed in a constructive setting.

Contemporary scientific perspectivism is primarily viewed as a methodological framework of how we obtain and form scientific knowledge of nature, through a broadly perspectivist process, especially, with reference to quantum mechanics. In the present study, this is implemented by representing categorically the global structure of a quantum algebra of events in terms of structured interconnected families of local Boolean probing frames, realized as suitable perspectives or contexts for measuring physical quantities. The essential philosophical meaning of the proposed approach implies that (...) the quantum world can be consistently approached and comprehended through a multilevel structure of locally variable perspectives, which interlock, in a category-theoretical environment, to form a coherent picture of the whole in a non-trivial way. (shrink)

This dissertation makes two primary contributions. The first three chapters develop an interpretation of Carnap's Meta-Philosophical Program which places stress upon his methodological analysis of the sciences over and above the Principle of Tolerance. Most importantly, I suggest, is that Carnap sees philosophy as contiguous with science—as a part of the scientific enterprise—so utilizing the very same methods and subject to the same limitations. I argue that the methodological reforms he suggests for philosophy amount to philosophy as the explication of (...) the concepts of science through the construction and use of suitably robust meta-logical languages. My primary interpretive claim is that Carnap's understanding of logic and mathematics as a set of formal auxiliaries is premised upon this prior analysis of the character of logico-mathematical knowledge, his understanding of its role in the language of science, and the methods used by practicing mathematicians. Thus the Principle of Tolerance, and so Carnap's logical pluralism, is licensed and justified by these methodological insights. This interpretation of Carnap's program contrasts with the popular Deflationary reading as proposed in Goldfarb & Ricketts. The leading idea they attribute to Carnap is a Logocentrism: That philosophical assertions are always made relative to some particular language, and that our choice of syntactical rules for a language are constitutive of its inferential structure and methods of possible justification. Consequently Tolerance is considered the foundation of Carnap's entire program. My third chapter argues that this reading makes Carnap's program philosophically inert, and I present significant evidence that such a reading is misguided. The final chapter attempts to extend the methodological ideals of Carnap's program to the analysis of the ongoing debate between category- and set-theoretic foundations for mathematics. Recent criticism of category theory as a foundation charges that it is neither autonomous from set theory, nor offers a suitable ontological grounding for mathematics. I argue that an analysis of concepts can be foundationally informative without requiring the construction of those concepts from first principles, and that ontological worries can be seen as methodologically unfruitful. (shrink)

The volume includes twenty-five research papers presented as gifts to John L. Bell to celebrate his 60th birthday by colleagues, former students, friends and admirers. Like Bell’s own work, the contributions cross boundaries into several inter-related fields. The contributions are new work by highly respected figures, several of whom are among the key figures in their fields. Some examples: in foundations of maths and logic ; analytical philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics and decision theory and foundations of economics. (...) Most articles are contributions to current philosophical debates, but contributions also include some new mathematical results, important historical surveys, and a translation by Wilfrid Hodges of a key work of arabic logic. (shrink)

Transitive extensional well founded relations provide an intuitionistic notion of ordinals which admits transfinite induction. However these ordinals are not directed and their successor operation is poorly behaved, leading to problems of functoriality. We show how to make the successor monotone by introducing plumpness, which strengthens transitivity. This clarifies the traditional development of successors and unions, making it intuitionistic; even the (classical) proof of trichotomy is made simpler. The definition is, however, recursive, and, as their name suggests, the plump ordinals (...) grow very rapidly. Directedness must be defined hereditarily. It is orthogonal to the other four conditions, and the lower powerdomain construction is shown to be the universal way of imposing it. We treat ordinals as order-types, and develop a corresponding set theory similar to Osius' transitive set objects. This presents Mostowski's theorem as a reflection of categories, and set-theoretic union is a corollary of the adjoint functor theorem. Mostowski's theorem and the rank for some of the notions of ordinal are formulated and proved without the axiom of replacement, but this seems to be unavoidable for the plump rank. The comparison between sets and toposes is developed as far as the identification of replacement with completeness, and there are some suggestions for further work in this area. Each notion of set or ordinal defines a free algebra for one of the theories discussed by Joyal and Moerdijk, namely joins of a family of arities together with an operation s satisfying conditions such as x ≤ sx, monotonicity or s(x ∨ y) ≤ sx ∨ sy. Finally we discuss the fixed point theorem for a monotone endofunction s of a poset with least element and directed joins. This may be proved under each of a variety of additional hypotheses. We explain why it is unlikely that any notion of ordinal obeying the induction scheme for arbitrary predicates will prove the pure result. (shrink)

By means of models in toposes of C-sets (where C is a small category), necessary conditions are found for the minimum quantified extension of a propositional (intermediate, modal) logic to be complete with respect to Kripke semantics; in particular, many well-known systems turn out to be incomplete.

Call a family F of subsets of a set E inductive if ∅ ∈ F and F is closed under unions with disjoint singletons, that is, if ∀X∈F ∀x∈E–X(X ∪ {x} ∈ F]. A Frege structure is a pair (E.

In this paper we analyze an extension of Martin-Löf s intensional set theory by means of a set contructor P such that the elements of P are the subsets of the set S. Since it seems natural to require some kind of extensionality on the equality among subsets, it turns out that such an extension cannot be constructive. In fact we will prove that this extension is classic, that is “ true holds for any proposition A.