Does science justify any part of mathematics and, if so, what part? These questions are related to the so-called indispensability arguments propounded, among others, by Quine and Putnam; moreover, both were led to accept significant portions of set theory on that basis. However, set theory rests on a strong form of Platonic realism which has been variously criticized as a foundation of mathematics and is at odds with scientific realism. Recent logical results show that it is possible to directly formalize (...) almost all, if not all, scientifically applicable mathematics in a formal system that is justified simply by Peano Arithmetic (via a proof-theoretical reduction). It is argued that this substantially vitiates the indispensability arguments. (shrink)

We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy’s foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to Bishop’s constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.

To what extent can constructive mathematics based on intuitionistc logic recover the mathematics needed for spacetime physics? Certain aspects of this important question are examined, both technical and philosophical. On the technical side, order, connectivity, and extremization properties of the continuum are reviewed, and attention is called to certain striking results concerning causal structure in General Relativity Theory, in particular the singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose. As they stand, these results appear to elude constructivization. On the philosophical side, it (...) is argued that any mentalist-based radical constructivism suffers from a kind of neo-Kantian apriorism. It would be at best a lucky accident if objective spacetime structure mirrored mentalist mathematics. the latter would seem implicitly committed to a Leibnizian relationist view of spacetime, but is it doubtful if implementation of such a view would overcome the objection. As a result, an anti-realist view of physics seems forced on the radical constructivist. (shrink)

The small, the tiny, and the infinitesimal have been the object of both fascination and vilification for millenia. One of the most vitriolic reviews in mathematics was that written by Errett Bishop about Keisler’s book Elementary Calculus: an Infinitesimal Approach. In this skit we investigate both the argument itself, and some of its roots in Bishop George Berkeley’s criticism of Leibnizian and Newtonian Calculus. We also explore some of the consequences to students for whom the infinitesimal approach is congenial. The (...) casual mathematical reader may be satisfied to read the text of the five act play, whereas the others may wish to delve into the 130 footnotes, some of which contain elucidation of the mathematics or comments on the history. (shrink)

Within the current mainstream research in the foundations of physics, much attention has been turned to the program of Axiomatic Reconstruction of Quantum Theory in terms of Information-Theoretic principles (ARQIT). ARQIT aims at finding a few general information-theoretic principles from which, once translated into mathematical terms, one can formally derive the structure of quantum theory. This chapter explores the role of mechanistic explanations and mathematical explanations (in particular, structural explanations) within ARQIT. With such considerations as a point of departure, we (...) investigate how ARQIT contributes to the explanation of quantum phenomena, and the possible prospects for explanations provided by mechanical interpretations of quantum theory. (shrink)

As argued in Hellman (1993), the theorem of Pour-El and Richards (1983) can be seen by the classicist as limiting constructivist efforts to recover the mathematics for quantum mechanics. Although Bridges (1995) may be right that the constructivist would work with a different definition of 'closed operator', this does not affect my point that neither the classical unbounded operators standardly recognized in quantum mechanics nor their restrictions to constructive arguments are recognizable as objects by the constructivist. Constructive substitutes that may (...) still be possible necessarily involve additional 'incompleteness' in the mathematical representation of quantum phenomena. Concerning a second line of reasoning in Hellman (1993), its import is that constructivist practice is consistent with a 'liberal' stance but not with a 'radical', verificationist philosophical position. Whether such a position is actually espoused by certain leading constructivists, they are invited to clarify. (shrink)

claims that constructive mathematics is inadequate for spacetime physics and hence that constructive mathematics cannot be considered as an alternative to classical mathematics. He also argues that the contructivist must be guilty of a form of a priorism unless she adopts a strong form of anti-realism for science. Here I want to dispute both claims. First, even if there are non-constructive results in physics this does not show that adequate constructive alternatives could not be formulated. Secondly, the constructivist adopts a (...) 'philosophy first' approach that Hellman rejects. This deep difference means that the viability of constructive mathematics cannot yet be decided by determining whether current scientific theories require classical mathematics. We need to decide which approach is most appropriate before we can even determine how we should go about deciding whether we should be constructive or classical mathematicians. (shrink)

The nature of modern constructive mathematics, and its applications, actual and potential, to classical and quantum physics, are discussed.

When Bishop published Foundations of Constructive Analysis he showed that it was possible to do ordinary analysis within a constructive framework. Bishop's reasons for doing his mathematics constructively are explicitly philosophical. In this paper, I will expound, examine, and amplify his philosophical arguments for constructivism in mathematics. In the end, however, I argue that Bishop's philosophical comments cannot be rounded out into an adequate philosophy of constructive mathematics.

The constructive mathematics developed by Bishop in Foundations of Constructive Analysis succeeded in gaining the attention of mathematicians, but discussions of its underlying philosophy are still rare in the literature. Commentators seem to conclude, from Bishop’s rejection of choice sequences and his severe criticism of Brouwerian intuitionism, that he is not an intuitionist–broadly understood as someone who maintains that mathematics is a mental creation, mathematics is meaningful and eludes formalization, mathematical objects are mind-dependent constructions given in intuition, and mathematical truths (...) are experienceable. This paper develops and defends an intuitionistic interpretation of Bishop’s philosophical views. (shrink)

Je propose d’analyser une pratique de la recherche en mathématiques constructives, celle qui consiste à reformuler constructivement les théories physiques. Je discute plus précisément trois aspects de cette pratique. Je montre d’abord que celle-ci a la particularité d’être motivée par des considérations philosophiques et comment la physique est utilisée pour arbitrer un débat de philosophie des mathématiques entre constructivisme et classicisme. Ensuite, j’identifie la méthodologie de la recherche en mathématiques que cette pratique implique et montre qu’il s’agit, selon une terminologie (...) empruntée à Poincaré, d’une méthodologie de « logiciens ». Enfin, je montre que dans cette pratique, les théories physiques ont un rôle heuristique sur le développement des mathématiques constructives. Elles permettent avec succès de stimuler la recherche d’énoncés constructifs et d’orienter la recherche en mathématiques constructives vers de nouveaux domaines. (shrink)

We show that the following results in the classical theory of unbounded linear operators on Hilbert spaces can be proved within the framework of Bishop's constructive mathematics: the Kato-Rellich theorem, the spectral theorem, Stone's theorem, and the self-adjointness of the most common quantum mechanical operators, including the Hamiltonians of electro-magnetic fields with some general forms of potentials.

Errett Bishop's work in constructive mathematics is overwhelmingly regarded as a turning point for mathematics based on intuitionistic logic. It brought new life to this form of mathematics and prompted the development of new areas of research that witness today's depth and breadth of constructive mathematics. Surprisingly, notwithstanding the extensive mathematical progress since the publication in 1967 of Errett Bishop's Foundations of Constructive Analysis, there has been no corresponding advances in the philosophy of constructive mathematics Bishop style. The aim of (...) this paper is to foster the philosophical debate about this form of mathematics. I begin by considering key elements of philosophical remarks by Bishop, especially focusing on Bishop's assessment of Brouwer. I then compare these remarks with ``traditional'' philosophical arguments for intuitionistic logic and argue that the latter are in tension with Bishop's views. ``Traditional'' arguments for intuitionistic logic turn out to be also in conflict with significant recent developments in constructive mathematics. This rises pressing questions for the philosopher of mathematics, especially with regard to the possibility of offering alternative philosophical arguments for constructive mathematics. I conclude with the suggestion to look anew at Bishop's own remarks for inspiration. (shrink)

We show that the notion of cardinality of a set is independent from that of wellordering, and that reasonable total notions of cardinality exist in every model of ZF where the axiom of choice fails. Such notions are either definable in a simple and natural way, or non-definable, produced by forcing. Analogous cardinality notions exist in nonstandard models of arithmetic admitting nontrivial automorphisms. Certain motivating phenomena from quantum mechanics are also discussed in the Appendix.

This paper examines the problem of extending the programme of mathematical constructivism to applied mathematics. I am not concerned with the question of whether conventional mathematical physics makes essential use of the principle of excluded middle, but rather with the more fundamental question of whether the concept of physical infinity is constructively intelligible. I consider two kinds of physical infinity: a countably infinite constellation of stars and the infinitely divisible space-time continuum. I argue (contrary to Hellman) that these do not. (...) pose any insuperable problem for constructivism, and that constructivism may have a useful new perspective to offer on physics. (shrink)

This paper focuses on a constructive treatment of the mathematical formalism of quantum theory and a possible role of constructivist philosophy in resolving the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, particularly, the controversy over the meaning of the wave function of the universe. As it is demonstrated in the paper, unless the number of the universe’s degrees of freedom is fundamentally upper bounded or hypercomputation is physically realizable, the universal wave function is a non-constructive entity in the sense of constructive recursive (...) mathematics. This means that even if such a function might exist, basic mathematical operations on it would be undefinable and subsequently the only content one would be able to deduce from this function would be pure symbolical. (shrink)