Leon Horsten

There are two perspectives from which formal theories can be viewed. On the one hand, one can take a theory to be about some privileged models. On the other hand, one can take all models of a theory to be on a par. In contrast with what is usually done in philosophical debates, we adopt the latter viewpoint. Suppose that from this perspective we want to add an adequate truth predicate to a background theory. Then on the one hand the truth theory ought to be semantically conservative over the background theory. At the same time, it is generally recognised that the central function of a truth predicate is an expressive one. A truth predicate ought to allow us to express propositions that we could not express before. In this article we argue that there are indeed natural truth theories which satisfy both the demand of semantical conservativeness and the demand of adequately extending the expressive power of our language.

We investigate axiomatizations of Kripke's theory of truth based on the Strong Kleene evaluation scheme for treating sentences lacking a truth value. Feferman's axiomatization KF formulated in classical logic is an indirect approach, because it is not sound with respect to Kripke's semantics in the straightforward sense: only the sentences that can be proved to be true in KF are valid in Kripke's partial models. Reinhardt proposed to focus just on the sentences that can be proved to be true in KF and conjectured that the detour through classical logic in KF is dispensable. We refute Reinhardt's Conjecture, and provide a direct axiomatization PKF of Kripke's theory in partial logic. We argue that any natural axiomatization of Kripke's theory in Strong Kleene logic has the same proof-theoretic strength as PKF, namely the strength of the system RA&lt ωω ramified analysis or a system of Tarskian ramified truth up to ωω. Thus any such axiomatization is much weaker than Feferman's axiomatization KF in classical logic, which is equivalent to the system RA&ltε₀ of ramified analysis up to ε₀

In this paper, a general perspective on criteria of identity of kinds of objects is developed. The question of the admissibility of impredicative or circular identity criteria is investigated in the light of the view that is articulated. It is argued that in and of itself impredicativity does not constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting a putative identity criterion. The view that is presented is applied to Davidson’s criterion of identity for events and to the structuralist criterion of identity of places in a structure.

In his Gibbs lecture, Gödel argued for the thesis that either the human mind is not a Turing machine, or there exist absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions. He believed that this disjunction can be deduced with mathematical certainty from certain results in mathematical logic. He thought that his disjunctive thesis is of great philosophical importance. First, Gödel's argument for his disjunctive thesis is discussed. It is argued that thisargument contains an ambiguity. But when it is made precise in a certain way, the argument is seen to be ultimately inescapable. Second, the disjuncts of the thesis are considered in their own right. It is argued that there are today no convincing arguments in favor of the first disjunct, nor are there at present convincing arguments against it. But there do exist today strong reasons to believe the second disjunct to be true, although these reasons do not establish the disjunct with anything like mathematical certainty