Geoffrey Hellman

Recently Bell has conjectured that, with “epsilonics,” one should be able to argue, à la EPR, from “almost ideal correlations” (in parallel Bohm-Bell pair experiments) to “almost determinism,” and that this should suffice to derive an approximate Bell-type inequality. Here we prove that this is indeed the case. Such an inequality—in principle testable—is derived employing only weak locality conditions, imperfect correlation, and a propensity interpretation of certain conditional probabilities. Outcome-independence (Jarrett's “completeness” condition), hence “factorability” of joint probabilities, is not assumed, but rather an approximate form of this is derived. An alternative proof to the original one of Bell [1971] constraining stochastic, contextual hidden-variables theories is thus provided

This book explores the research of Professor Hilary Putnam, a Harvard professor as well as a leading philosopher, mathematician and computer scientist. It features the work of distinguished scholars in the field as well as a selection of young academics who have studied topics closely connected to Putnam’s work. It includes 12 papers that analyze, develop, and constructively criticize this notable professor's research in mathematical logic, the philosophy of logic and the philosophy of mathematics. In addition, it features a short essay presenting reminiscences and anecdotes about Putnam from his friends and colleagues, and also includes an extensive bibliography of his work in mathematics and logic. The book offers readers a comprehensive review of outstanding contributions in logic and mathematics as well as an engaging dialogue between prominent scholars and researchers. It provides those interested in mathematical logic, the philosophy of logic, and the philosophy of mathematics unique insights into the work of Hilary Putnam.

In previous technical work ([1] and [2]) on which his present paper [3] draws, Benioff has presented results conforming with the following argument-scheme:First, if we construe Quantum Mechanics as making claims to the effect that infinite outcome sequences (generated by repeated measurements on a system for a given observable in a given state) be random; and second, if a strong definition of “random” is adopted in this construal, then certain models of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) cannot be “carriers for the mathematics of physics”.How interesting is this? One can approach the matter on two levels, the level of the specific technical results, and the level of more general implications of this pattern of argument for understanding connections between mathematics and physics. The second more general level should be our primary focus, but it will pay at the outset to look briefly at the technical level.

This compact volume, belonging to the Cambridge Elements series, is a useful introduction to some of the most fundamental questions of philosophy and foundations of mathematics. What really distinguishes realist and platonist views of mathematics from anti-platonist views, including fictionalist and nominalist and modal-structuralist views?1 They seem to confront similar problems of justification, presenting tradeoffs between which it is difficult to adjudicate. For example, how do we gain access to the abstract posits of platonist accounts of arithmetic, analysis, geometry, etc., including numbers, functions, sets, points, lines, spaces, etc., whether it be such objects themselves or the possibilities of such, as postulated by modal and modal structural accounts?2 What real difference does it make, whether it be the existence of such things or the mathematical possibility of such things? Even fictionalist views seem to confront analogous problems. After all, we rely on mathematics for myriad scientific applications; so such mathematics had better at least be coherent, even if not true. But coherence requires at least formal consistency; so we seem implicitly to be committed to things like formal derivations, viz. the absence of any such having contradictory consequences, framed within the appropriate system of axioms and rules. But derivations are themselves akin to mathematical objects, as derivations are strings of strings of symbols. Moreover, derivations provided by axioms and rules form an infinite class, such that, at any future time, infinitely many will not have been written down. Moreover, such strings, as Gödel famously showed, can be coded as natural numbers. Thus, even fictionalist accounts (such as that of Field in his Science without Numbers [2016]) seem to confront problems very much like those plaguing platonist accounts.

In these essays Geoffrey Hellman presents a strong case for a healthy pluralism in mathematics and its logics, supporting peaceful coexistence despite what appear to be contradictions between different systems, and positing different frameworks serving different legitimate purposes. The essays refine and extend Hellman's modal-structuralist account of mathematics, developing a height-potentialist view of higher set theory which recognizes indefinite extendability of models and stages at which sets occur. In the first of three new essays written for this volume, Hellman shows how extendability can be deployed to derive the axiom of Infinity and that of Replacement, improving on earlier accounts; he also shows how extendability leads to attractive, novel resolutions of the set-theoretic paradoxes. Other essays explore advantages and limitations of restrictive systems - nominalist, predicativist, and constructivist. Also included are two essays, with Solomon Feferman, on predicative foundations of arithmetic.

After recapitulating in summary form our basic regions-based theory of the classical one-dimensional continuum (which we call a semi-Aristotelian theory), and after presenting relevant background on predicativity in foundations of mathematics, we consider what adjustments would be needed for a predicative version of our regions-based theory, and then we develop them. As we’ll see, such a predicative version sits between our semi-Aristotelian system and an Aristotelian one, as well as falling generally between fully constructive and fully classical theories. Finally, we compare the resulting predicative theory and our original semi-Aristotelian one with respect to their power and unity.

The present work is a systematic study of five frameworks or perspectives articulating mathematical structuralism, whose core idea is that mathematics is concerned primarily with interrelations in abstraction from the nature of objects. The first two, set-theoretic and category-theoretic, arose within mathematics itself. After exposing a number of problems, the book considers three further perspectives formulated by logicians and philosophers of mathematics: sui generis, treating structures as abstract universals, modal, eliminating structures as objects in favor of freely entertained logical possibilities, and finally, modal-set-theoretic, a sort of synthesis of the set-theoretic and modal perspectives.

In an imagined dialogue between two figures called “Carnap*” and “Quine*” that appeared in the Library of Living Philosophers volume in 1986, certain proposals and clarifications of the linguistic doctrine were offered by Carnap* answering Quinean objections, but these were brushed aside rather breezily in a reply to this dialogue in the same volume by Quine himself. After a brief summary of the questions at issue in that earlier dialogue, Carnap* is here allowed a final reply, introducing yet another variant on his series of more precise formulations of the linguistic doctrine of logical truth and touching on other issues raised both by Quine* in the earlier dialogue and by Quine himself in his reply.

Recent technical developments in the logic of nominalism make it possible to improve and extend significantly the approach to mathematics developed in Mathematics without Numbers. After reviewing the intuitive ideas behind structuralism in general, the modal-structuralist approach as potentially class-free is contrasted broadly with other leading approaches. The machinery of nominalistic ordered pairing (Burgess-Hazen-Lewis) and plural quantification (Boolos) can then be utilized to extend the core systems of modal-structural arithmetic and analysis respectively to full, classical, polyadic third- and fourthorder number theory. The mathenatics of many structures of central importance in functional analysis, measure theory, and topology can be recovered within essentially these frameworks.

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

Three questions are highlighted concerning the scope and force of indispensability arguments supporting classical, infinitistic mathematics. The first concerns the need for non-constructive reasoning for scientifically applicable mathematics; the second concerns the need for impredicative set existence principles for finitistic and scientifically applicable mathematics, respectively; and the third concerns the general status of such arguments in light of recent work in mathematical logic, especially that of Friedman et al. and Feferman et al. Some recent results are then presented bearing on the first question on the need for non-constructive analysis, especially for quantum physics. Despite the impressive work of Bishop et al. in constructive analysis, Hilbert's objection to intuitionism still carries significant force, and may be decisive depending in part on one's conception of "physics"

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.

We develop a point-free construction of the classical one- dimensional continuum, with an interval structure based on mereology and either a weak set theory or logic of plural quantification. In some respects this realizes ideas going back to Aristotle,although, unlike Aristotle, we make free use of classical "actual infinity". Also, in contrast to intuitionistic, Bishop, and smooth infinitesimal analysis, we follow classical analysis in allowing partitioning of our "gunky line" into mutually exclusive and exhaustive disjoint parts, thereby demonstrating the independence of "indecomposability" from a non-punctiform conception. It is surprising that such simple axioms as ours already imply the Archimedean property and that they determine an isomorphism with the Dedekind-Cantor structure of R as a complete, separable, ordered field. We also present some simple topological models of our system, establishing consistency relative to classical analysis. Finally, after describing how to nominalize our theory, we close with comparisons with earlier efforts related to our own.