Jairo Da Silva

In this paper I argue for the view that the axioms of ZF are analytic truths of a particular concept of set. By this I mean that these axioms are true by virtue only of the meaning attached to this concept, and, moreover, can be derived from it. Although I assume that the object of ZF is a concept of set, I refrain from asserting either its independent existence, or its dependence on subjectivity. All I presuppose is that this concept is given to us with a certain sense as the objective focus of a ”phenomenologically reduced“ intentional experience.The concept of set that ZF describes, I claim, is that of a multiplicity of coexisting elements that can, as a consequence, be a member of another multiplicity. A set is conceived as a quantitatively determined collection of objects that is, by necessity, ontologically dependent on its elements, which, on the other hand, must exist independently of it. A close scrutiny of the essential characters of this conception seems to be sufficient to ground the set-theoretic hierarchy and the axioms of ZF.

I carry out in this paper a philosophical analysis of the principle of excluded middle (or, as it is often called in the version I favor here, principle of bivalence: any meaningful assertion is either true or false). This principle has been criticized, and sometimes rejected, on the charge that its validity depends on presuppositions that are not, some believe, universally obtainable; in particular, that any well-posed problem is solvable. My goal here is to show that, although excluded middle does indeed rest on certain presuppositions, they do not have the character of hypotheses that may or may not be true, or matters of fact that may or may not be the case. These presuppositions have, I claim, a transcendental character. Hence, the acceptance of excluded middle does not necessarily require, as some have claimed, an allegiance to ontological realism or some sort of cognitive optimism, construed as factual theses concerning the ontological status of domains of objects and our capability of accessing them cognitively. DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n2p333

Husserl left many unpublished drafts explaining (or trying to) his views on spatial representation and geometry, such as, particularly, those collected in the second part of Studien zur Arithmetik und Geometrie (Hua XXI), but no completely articulate work on the subject. In this paper, I put forward an interpretation of what those views might have been. Husserl, I claim, distinguished among different conceptions of space, the space of perception (constituted from sensorial data by intentionally motivated psychic functions), that of physical geometry (or idealized perceptual space), the space of the mathematical science of physical nature (in which science, not only raw perception has a word) and the abstract spaces of mathematics (free creations of the mathematical mind), each of them with its peculiar geometrical structure. Perceptual space is proto-Euclidean and the space of physical geometry Euclidean, but mathematical physics, Husserl allowed, may find it convenient to represent physical space with a non-Euclidean structure. Mathematical spaces, on their turn, can be endowed, he thinks, with any geometry mathematicians may find interesting. Many other related questions are addressed here, in particular those concerning the a priori or a posteriori character of the many geometric features of perceptual space (bearing in mind that there are at least two different notions of a priori in Husserl, which we may call the conceptual and the transcendental a priori). I conclude with an overview of Weyl’s ideas on the matter, since his philosophical conceptions are often traceable back to his former master, Husserl

In this paper I discuss the version of predicative analysis put forward by Hermann Weyl in "Das Kontinuum". I try to establish how much of the underlying motivation for Weyl's position may be due to his acceptance of a phenomenological philosophical perspective. More specifically, I analyze Weyl's philosophical ideas in connexion with the work of Husserl, in particular "Logische Untersuchungen" and "Ideen I". I believe that this interpretation of Weyl can clarify the views on mathematical existence and mathematical intuition which are implicit in "Das Kontinuum".

This monograph offers a fresh perspective on the applicability of mathematics in science. It explores what mathematics must be so that its applications to the empirical world do not constitute a mystery. In the process, readers are presented with a new version of mathematical structuralism. The author details a philosophy of mathematics in which the problem of its applicability, particularly in physics, in all its forms can be explained and justified. Chapters cover: mathematics as a formal science, mathematical ontology: what does it mean to exist, mathematical structures: what are they and how do we know them, how different layers of mathematical structuring relate to each other and to perceptual structures, and how to use mathematics to find out how the world is. The book simultaneously develops along two lines, both inspired and enlightened by Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological philosophy. One line leads to the establishment of a particular version of mathematical structuralism, free of “naturalist” and empiricist bias. The other leads to a logical-epistemological explanation and justification of the applicability of mathematics carried out within a unique structuralist perspective. This second line points to the “unreasonable” effectiveness of mathematics in physics as a means of representation, a tool, and a source of not always logically justified but useful and effective heuristic strategies.

The main concern of this paper is the justification of the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, either as true statements about a concept of set or, alternatively, as true statements about abstract objects . I want to argue here that, in either case, set theory can be seen as a body of knowledge largely built on intuitive foundations . I call this inquiry “phenomenological” for it approaches its subject from the perspective of the intentional acts that originate sets as doubly dependent objects . Such an inquiry, I believe, brings to light the essential characters of sets as objects or, alternatively, the concept of set, which the axioms of the theory express

In his book Chateaubriand points out some differences between the mathematical and the formal notions of proof. I argue here that the contrast between both cannot be exaggerated, and that the latter fails to represent essential aspects of the former. I also sketch a view of the nature of mathematics that can accommodate one particular feature of mathematical proofs the formal notion, by its very nature, cannot: their freedom.Em seu livro, Chateaubriand aponta algumas diferenças entre a noção formal e a noção matemática de demonstração. Eu argumento que o contraste entre ambas não pode ser maior, e que aquela é incapaz de capturar alguns aspectos essenciais desta. Eu apresento também um esboço de uma teoria sobre a natureza da matemática capaz de acomodar um aspecto particular das demonstrações matemáticas que a noção formal, pela sua própria natureza, não pode: a liberdade que por direto cabe àquelas

In this paper I study the variants of the notion of completeness Husserl pre-sented in “Ideen I” and two lectures he gave in Göttingen in 1901. Introduced primarily in connection with the problem of imaginary numbers, this notion found eventually a place in the answer Husserl provided for the philosophically more im-portant problem of the logico-epistemological foundation of formal knowledge in sci-ence. I also try to explain why Husserl said that there was an evident correlation between his and Hilbert’s notion of completeness introduced in connection with the axiomatisation of geometry and the theory of real numbers when, as many commen-tators have already observed, these two notions are independent. I show in this paper that if a system of axioms is complete in Husserl’s sense, then its formal domain, the manifold of formal objects it determines, does not admit any extension. This is precisely the idea behind Hilbert’s notion of completeness in question. Therefore, the correlation Husserl noted indeed exists. But, in order to see it, we must consider the formal domain determined by a formal theory, not its models

The main concern of this paper is the justification of the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, either as true statements about a concept of set or, alternatively, as true statements about abstract objects. I want to argue here that, in either case, set theory can be seen as a body of knowledge largely built on intuitive foundations. I call this inquiry “phenomenological” for it approaches its subject from the perspective of the intentional acts that originate sets as doubly dependent objects. Such an inquiry, I believe, brings to light the essential characters of sets as objects or, alternatively, the concept of set, which the axioms of the theory express.

I present here my criticism of Chateaubriand’s account of propositions as having an identifying character with respect to reality. I claim that propositions are better understood as pictures of possible states-of-affairs, and that this account is more natural considering the acts of judgment that are at the origin of propositions. I also present a possible way of understanding the notion of a possible state-of-affairs that takes care of the seemingly absurd case of necessarily false, but meaningful propositions.