The present paper aims at showing that there are times when set theoretical knowledge increases in a non-cumulative way. In other words, what we call ‘set theory’ is not one theory which grows by simple addition of a theorem after the other, but a finite sequence of theories T1, ..., Tn in which Ti+1, for 1 ≤ i < n, supersedes Ti. This thesis has a great philosophical significance because it implies that there is a sense in which mathematical theories, (...) like the theories belonging to the empirical sciences, are fallible and that, consequently, mathematical knowledge has a quasi-empirical nature. The way I have chosen to provide evidence in favour of the correctness of the main thesis of this article consists in arguing that Cantor–Zermelo set theory is a Lakatosian Mathematical Research Programme (MRP). (shrink)

The present article aims at showing that it is possible to construct a realist philosophy of mathematics which commits one neither to dream the dreams of Platonism nor to reduce the word ''realism'' to mere noise. It is argued that mathematics is a science of patterns, where patterns are not objects (or properties of objects), but aspects, or aspects of aspects, etc. of objects. (The notion of aspect originates from ideas sketched by Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations.).

In this paper I discuss some issues concerning the semantics of set theory. The set-theoretical nature of the semantics of axiomatic set theory raises a problem of circularity. It is well-known that when we adopt the model-theoretic point of view in the study of mathematical theories we decide to consider primarily structures in their relationship with languages. But for the fundamental structure adopted in a set-theoretic setting, namely the collection of all sets, together with the relation of membership, we would (...) have in that case a structure whose universe would be a set, and at the same time it would have the power of the collection of all sets. This is precisely the origin of the fundamental problem in the semantics of set theory. Apparently, the recourse to an intuitive or pre-theoretic semantics in terms of the iterative conception of sets is unavoidable. However, this strategy doesn´t seem to solve some basic philosophical topics involved and linked to the central semantic problem of set theory, namely, how to understand quantification over the totality of sets. Finally, I put forward some meta-philosophical considerations concerning the semantic problem I deal with. (shrink)

The book provides a historical and systematic exposition of the semantic theory of truth formulated by Alfred Tarski in the 1930s. This theory became famous very soon and inspired logicians and philosophers. It has two different, but interconnected aspects: formal-logical and philosophical. The book deals with both, but it is intended mostly as a philosophical monograph. It explains Tarski’s motivation and presents discussions about his ideas as well as points out various applications of the semantic theory of truth to philosophical (...) problems. (shrink)

We introduce a new simple first-order framework for theories whose objects are well-orderings (lists). A system ALT (axiomatic list theory) is presented and shown to be equiconsistent with ZFC (Zermelo Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice). The theory sheds new light on the power set axiom and on Gs axiom of constructibility. In list theory there are strong arguments favoring Gs axiom, while a bare analogon of the set theoretic power set axiom looks artificial. In fact, there is (...) a natural and attractive modification of ALT where every object is constructible and countable. In order to substantiate our foundational interest in lists, we also compare sets and lists from the perspective of finite objects, arguing that lists are, from a certain point of view, conceptually simpler than sets. (shrink)