We address Steel’s Programme to identify a ‘preferred’ universe of set theory and the best axioms extending $\mathsf {ZFC}$ by using his multiverse axioms $\mathsf {MV}$ and the ‘core hypothesis’. In the first part, we examine the evidential framework for $\mathsf {MV}$, in particular the use of large cardinals and of ‘worlds’ obtained through forcing to ‘represent’ alternative extensions of $\mathsf {ZFC}$. In the second part, we address the existence and the possible features of the core of $\mathsf {MV}_T$ (where (...) T is $\mathsf {ZFC}$ +Large Cardinals). In the last part, we discuss the hypothesis that the core is Ultimate-L, and examine whether and how, based on this fact, the Core Universist can justify V=Ultimate-L as the best (and ultimate) extension of $\mathsf {ZFC}$. To this end, we take into account several strategies, and assess their prospects in the light of $\mathsf {MV}$ ’s evidential framework. (shrink)

The resurrection axioms are forms of forcing axioms that were introduced recently by Hamkins and Johnstone, who developed on earlier ideas of Chalons and Veličković. In this note, we introduce a stronger form of resurrection and show that it gives rise to families of axioms which are consistent relative to extendible cardinals, and which imply the strongest known instances of forcing axioms, such as Martin’s Maximum++. In addition, we study the unbounded resurrection postulates in terms of consistency lower bounds, obtaining, (...) for example, failures of the weak square principle. (shrink)

In this note, we start with the notion of a superhuge cardinal and strengthen it by requiring that the elementary embeddings witnessing this property are, in addition, sufficiently superstrong above their target. This modification leads to a new large cardinal which we call ultrahuge. Subsequently, we study the placement of ultrahugeness in the usual large cardinal hierarchy, while at the same time show that some standard techniques apply nicely in the context of ultrahuge cardinals as well.

We show that, in terms of both implication and consistency strength, an extendible with a larger strong cardinal is stronger than an enhanced supercompact, which is itself stronger than a hypercompact, which is itself weaker than an extendible. All of these are easily seen to be stronger than a supercompact. We also study Cn‐supercompactness.