Enrico Martino

This chapter argues against predicative analyses of plurality, which force plurals into the familiar mould of singular logic by turning an apparently plural term standing for several objects into a singular predicate standing for a concept or property. Michael Dummett enlists support from Fregean semantics in favour of a predicative analysis, but his arguments do not stand up, either as exegesis of Frege or on their own merits. As well as facing difficulties in eliminating plural content, predicative analyses are sunk by the equivocity objection: they misrepresent single English predicates as equivocal, by treating the predicate differently according as it combines with singular or plural arguments. Although George Boolos does not offer a predicative analysis, it is argued that his second-order treatment of plurals is also sunk by the equivocity objection. And Ian Rumfitt fails in his attempt to avoid the objection by modifying Boolos's scheme.

Dialetheism holds the thesis that certain sentences are dialetheias, i.e. both true and false, and devises several strategies for avoiding trivialism, the (classical) consequence that all sentences are true. Two such strategies are aimed at invalidating one of the most direct arguments for trivialism, viz. Curry's Paradox: a proof that you will win the lottery, a proof that only resorts to naive truth-principles, Conditional Proof (CP), modus ponens (MPP) and the standardly accepted structural rules. The first strategy simply consists in observing that the most well-known dialetheist logic, sometimes referred to as the Logic of Paradox (LP), invalidates MPP. The second strategy consists in rather taking one of the primary senses of 'if' to be captured by an entailment connective which does not validate CP. We argue that both strategies are problematic. © 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

In section 1 we argue that the adoption of a tenseless notion of truth entails a realistic view of propositions and provability. This view, in turn, opens the way to the intelligibility of theclassical meaning of the logical constants, and consequently is incompatible with the antirealism of orthodox intuitionism. In section 2 we show how what we call the potential intuitionistic meaning of the logical constants can be defined, on the one hand, by means of the notion of atemporal provability and, on the other, by means of the operator K of epistemic logic. Intuitionistic logic, as reconstructed within this perspective, turns out to be a part of epistemic logic, so that it loses its traditional foundational role, antithetic to that of classical logic. In section 3 we uphold the view that certain consequences of the adoption of atemporal notion of truth, despite their apparent oddity, are quite acceptable from an antirealist point of view.

I propose a fictional-factual interpretation of first-order arithmetic compatible both with classical logic and with the intuitionistic philosophical perspective. That should make the classical truth value of any arithmetical sentence accessible to the intuitionist. Using such a device, I explore the interplay between informal classical and intuitionistic proofs. I argue that the Gödel incompleteness theorems suggest a similarity between classical and intuitionistic informal proofs much stricter than it may appear at first sight. As a consequence, I try to show how intuitionistic reasoning can endorse some classical intuitive proofs.

In this chapter we extend the notion of arbitrary reference to individuals to that of arbitrary interpretation. We want to explain how a single arbitrary interpretation of the working mathematician relates to the various possible interpretations in model theory. To this purpose we introduce some arbitrary fictional models. Additionally, we aim to clarify how one can deduce logical consequences of the axioms by reasoning on a single interpretation, even when a theory has non-equivalent elementary models.

The aim of this chapter is to argue that: (a) our semantics of acts of choices (SAC), as developed in Chap. 2, defends second-order logic from claims of ontological commitment; (b) understanding our semantics does not require any prior mathematical concepts; and (c) although SAC is not universally applicable, it still offers significant applicability, especially in mathematics. We conclude the chapter arguing that second-order logic, as interpreted through our semantics, can indeed be considered a genuine logic. One might object that, since only concrete objects can be referred to by arbitrary acts of choice, SAC lacks the logical requirement of universal applicability. However, such limitation is superseded by the structuralist conception of mathematics, according to which arbitrary entities, independently of their very nature, can play the role of mathematical objects.

In this chapter we show how, assuming the existence of a pairing function on atoms, as the unique assumption non expressed in a mereological language, a mereological foundation of set theory is achievable within first order logic. Furthermore, we show how a mereological codification of ordered pairs is achievable with a very restricted use of the notion of plurality. Finally, in the last section of this chapter we show that, adopting a relativistic notion of atom, according to which any individual can play the role of atom, one can reconstruct Cantor’s theorem and prove that, given any infinite, mereology with plural quantification (MPQ) guarantees the existence of large and large infinities. This result seems in conflict with the alleged ontological innocence of MPQ.

This chapter introduces a new approach to plural quantification through the concept of plural arbitrary reference. It highlights the implicit presupposition in mathematical reasoning that any individual in the universe of discourse can be referred to. By introducing a team of ideal agents capable of direct access to any individual, plural arbitrary reference is achieved through simultaneous acts of choice by each agent. This idealized notion of reference provides a basis for understanding plural quantification without second-order entities, maintaining the ontological innocence of second-order logic by distinguishing between acts and entities.

This paper proposes a new dialetheic logic, a Dialetheic Logic with Exclusive Assumptions and Conclusions ( $$\mathsf {DLEAC}$$ DLEAC ), including classical logic as a particular case. In $$\mathsf {DLEAC}$$ DLEAC, exclusivity is expressed via the speech acts of assuming and concluding. In the paper we adopt the semantics of the logic of paradox extended with a generalized notion of model and we modify its proof theory by refining the notions of assumption and conclusion. The paper starts with an explanation of the adopted philosophical perspective, then we propose our $$\mathsf {DLEAC}$$ DLEAC logic. Finally, we show how $$\mathsf {DLEAC}$$ DLEAC supports the dialetheic solution of the liar paradox.

In the 1951 Gibbs lecture, Gödel asserted his famous dichotomy, where the notion of informal proof is at work. G. Priest developed an argument, grounded on the notion of naïve proof, to the effect that Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem suggests the presence of dialetheias. In this paper, we adopt a plausible ideal notion of naïve proof, in agreement with Gödel’s conception, superseding the criticisms against the usual notion of naïve proof used by real working mathematicians. We explore the connection between Gödel’s theorem and naïve proof so understood, both from a classical and a dialetheic perspective.

This paper investigates the question of how we manage to single out the natural number structure as the intended interpretation of our arithmetical language. Horsten submits that the reference of our arithmetical vocabulary is determined by our knowledge of some principles of arithmetic on the one hand, and by our computational abilities on the other. We argue against such a view and we submit an alternative answer. We single out the structure of natural numbers through our intuition of the absolute notion of finiteness.

This book develops a new approach to plural arbitrary reference and examines mereology, including considering four theses on the alleged innocence of mereology. The authors have advanced the notion of plural arbitrary reference in terms of idealized plural acts of choice, performed by a suitable team of agents. In the first part of the book, readers will discover a revision of Boolosʼ interpretation of second order logic in terms of plural quantification and a sketched structuralist reconstruction of second-order arithmetic based on the axiom of infinite, a la Dedekind, as the unique non-logical axiom. The work goes on to analyse the pros and cons of the new interpretation, also with respect to Linneboʼs objections to the thesis that second order logic is genuine logic. A theory of concepts that can be labelled as a theory of logical concepts is expounded. In the second part of the book, the authors consider grounding megethology on plural arbitrary reference and argue that the arguments for the ontological innocence of mereology are not conclusive and that – for a certain use of mereology – a thesis of innocence, similar to that of plural arbitrary reference, is defensible. The work proposes a virtual theory of mereology in which the role of individuals is played by plural choices of atoms. This considered work will appeal to scholars from branches of analytic philosophy, logic and the philosophy of mathematics in particular.

In Parts of Classes [Lewis 1991] David Lewis attempts to draw a sharp contrast between mereology and set theory and to assimilate mereology to logic. He argues that, like logic but unlike set theory, mereology is “ontologically innocent”. In mereology, given certain objects, no further ontological commitment is required for the existence of their sum. On the contrary, by accepting set theory, given certain objects, a further commitment is required for the existence of the set of them. The latter – unlike the sum of the given objects – seems to be an abstract entity whose existence is not directly entailed by the existence of the objects themselves. The argument for the innocence of mereology is grounded on the thesis of “Composition as identity”. Lewis analyses two different versions of the thesis: the first is the Strong composition thesis, according to which certain objects are their sum, where the use of “are” would mean that composition is literally identity. The second version is the Weak composition thesis, according to which composition is analogous, under some aspects, to identity. He criticises the first version of the thesis and argues for the second one. In the paper we argue that (T1) arguments for the ontological innocence of mereology are not conclusive. An obvious objection to the Strong composition thesis is that – given certain objects Xs – they cannot be their sum because none of them is the sum. One could reply to this objection by observing that the “are” in the sentence “The Xs are their sum” is to be understood collectively and not distributively. But the crux is that the collective reading fails to generate a new entity, whereas mereology, in particular in Lewis’ use for the reconstruction of set theory as “megethology”, needs to consider sums as real objects. Besides, we contend that Lewis’ argument for the innocence of mereology based on the Weak composition thesis is a petitio principii. The reason is that the aspects of the analogy between composition and identity, which Lewis emphasises, obtain under the presupposition of the existence of sums. But this is just what a denier of innocence would refuse. (T2) Some arguments against the ontological innocence of mereology show a certain ambiguity in the innocence thesis itself. Some defences of the innocence seem to implicitly presuppose that the sum of certain objects Xs is not a genuine entity. Speaking of the sum of the Xs would be just another way of speaking plurally of the Xs. However, the relevant use of sums in mereology treats them as well determined objects. The relevant innocence thesis takes for granted that, though sums are genuine objects, nevertheless their existence does not require any further commitment. (T3) The innocence thesis, apart from Lewis’ defence, seems to depend on a general conception of the nature of objects and on how the notion of ontological commitment is understood. We think that the thesis is the manifesto of a realistic conception of parts and sums. This conception consists of the following clauses: (i) given any object x, it is well determined which parts it possesses; these are in turn objects whose existence is a necessary consequence of the existence of x. (ii) However any objects Xs are given, they automatically constitute a well determined object x which is their sum; (iii) We can refer singularly and plurally to parts and sums of given objects. Obviously, one might wonder if such a conception is really ontologically innocent. One could object that it is not innocent because clauses (i) – (iii) are not. For example, clause (i) could be considered as an ontological commitment to the existence of sums. But the innocence at issue does not concern the above-sketched conception. The innocence is embedded in the conception itself. In other words, someone who argues for clauses (i) – (iii) takes a point of view from which mereology appears to be innocent. For, such a point of view forces us to consider as well determined the parts of any object and does not allow us to separate the existence of certain objects form the existence of their sum. (T4) is the claim that the alleged innocence of mereology is subject to Quine’s notorious criticisms of the set-theoretical interpretation of second order logic. To the purpose, we construct a mereological model of a substantive fragment of set theory, i.e. the one that grounds the principal model semantics of second order logic. First, we construct a mereological model under the assumption of the existence of infinitely many atoms. Then, we replace this assumption with that of the existence of any infinite object (with or without atoms). Finally, let us make a general point about the innocence thesis of mereology. A conclusive argument for that would be a refutation of the thesis that there are only denumerably many entities. For, since the parts of an infinite object constitute a non-denumerable infinity, such an argument would entail that there could be no infinite without a non-denumerable infinity. However, the thesis that any genuine infinity is a denumerable one has had some important advocates. So, a conclusive argument for the innocence of mereology seems to be highly implausible.

In Mathematics is megethology. Philosophia Mathematica, 1, 3–23) David K. Lewis proposes a structuralist reconstruction of classical set theory based on mereology. In order to formulate suitable hypotheses about the size of the universe of individuals without the help of set-theoretical notions, he uses the device of Boolos’ plural quantification for treating second order logic without commitment to set-theoretical entities. In this paper we show how, assuming the existence of a pairing function on atoms, as the unique assumption non expressed in a mereological language, a mereological foundation of set theory is achievable within first order logic. Furthermore, we show how a mereological codification of ordered pairs is achievable with a very restricted use of the notion of plurality without plural quantification.

Aim of the paper is to revise Boolos’ reinterpretation of second-order monadic logic in terms of plural quantification ([4], [5]) and expand it to full second order logic. Introducing the idealization of plural acts of choice, performed by a suitable team of agents, we will develop a notion of plural reference. Plural quantification will be then explained in terms of plural reference. As an application, we will sketch a structuralist reconstruction of second-order arithmetic based on the axiom of infinite à la Dedekind, as the unique non-logical axiom. We will also sketch a virtual interpretation of the classical continuum involving no other infinite than a countable plurality of individuals.

This paper proposes a new dialetheic logic, a Dialetheic Logic with Exclusive Assumptions and Conclusions ), including classical logic as a particular case. In \, exclusivity is expressed via the speech acts of assuming and concluding. In the paper we adopt the semantics of the logic of paradox extended with a generalized notion of model and we modify its proof theory by refining the notions of assumption and conclusion. The paper starts with an explanation of the adopted philosophical perspective, then we propose our \ logic. Finally, we show how \ supports the dialetheic solution of the liar paradox.

In Lewis reconstructs set theory using mereology and plural quantification (MPQ). In his recontruction he assumes from the beginning that there is an infinite plurality of atoms, whose size is equivalent to that of the set theoretical universe. Since this assumption is far beyond the basic axioms of mereology, it might seem that MPQ do not play any role in order to guarantee the existence of a large infinity of objects. However, we intend to demonstrate that mereology and plural quantification are, in some ways, particularly relevant to a certain conception of the infinite. More precisely, though the principles of mereology and plural quantification do not guarantee the existence of an infinite number of objects, nevertheless, once the existence of any infinite object is admitted, they are able to assure the existence of an uncountable infinity of objects. So, ifMPQ were parts of logic, the implausible consequence would follow that, given a countable infinity of individuals, logic would be able to guarantee an uncountable infinity of objects.

In Parts of Classes (1991) and Mathematics Is Megethology (1993) David Lewis defends both the innocence of plural quantification and of mereology. However, he himself claims that the innocence of mereology is different from that of plural reference, where reference to some objects does not require the existence of a single entity picking them out as a whole. In the case of plural quantification. Instead, in the mereological case: (Lewis, 1991, p. 87). The aim of the paper is to argue that one—an innocence thesis similar to that of plural reference is defensible. To give a precise account of plural reference, we use the idea of plural choice. We then propose a virtual theory of mereology in which the role of individuals is played by plural choices of atoms.

In Mathematics is megethology Lewis reconstructs set theory combining mereology with plural quantification. He introduces megethology, a powerful framework in which one can formulate strong assumptions about the size of the universe of individuals. Within this framework, Lewis develops a structuralist class theory, in which the role of classes is played by individuals. Thus, if mereology and plural quantification are ontologically innocent, as Lewis maintains, he achieves an ontological reduction of classes to individuals. Lewis’work is very attractive. However, the alleged innocence of mereology and plural quantification is highly controversial and has been criticized by several authors. In the present paper we propose a new approach to megethology based on the theory of plural reference developed in To be is to be the object of a possible act of choice. Our approach shows how megethology can be grounded on plural reference without the help of mereology.