Patrick Reeder

For almost twenty years, Penelope Maddy has been one of the most consistent expositors and advocates of naturalism in philosophy, with a special focus on the philosophy of mathematics, set theory in particular. Over that period, however, the term ‘naturalism’ has come to mean many things. Although some take it to be a rejection of the possibility of a priori knowledge, there are philosophers calling themselves ‘naturalists’ who willingly embrace and practice an a priori methodology, not a whole lot different from traditional conceptual analysis. Along a different line, some take naturalism to involve the rejection of abstract objects—a sort of physicalism—while other naturalists not only allow the existence of abstracta; they take this existence to be all but obvious.For present purposes, we can begin with W.V.O. Quine, who once characterized naturalism as ‘the abandonment of the goal of first philosophy’ and ‘the recognition that it is within science itself …that reality is to be identified and described’. For Quine, the ‘naturalistic philosopher begins his reasoning within the inherited world theory as a going concern …[The] inherited world theory is primarily a scientific one, the current product of the scientific enterprise’ [Quine, 1981, p. 72]. This characterizes at least the bulk of contemporary philosophers who call themselves ‘naturalists’, and it characterizes the targets of many who oppose what they call ‘naturalism’. But as Maddy notes at the start, ‘the term has come to mark little more than a vague science-friendliness’.An attempt to define naturalism more fully would surely require a characterization of science—at least so that the reader can see when someone sins against that naturalism by being unscientific. But, as Maddy notes, one ‘lesson won through decades of study in the philosophy of science [is that] there is no …

This is a survey of the concept of continuity. Efforts to explicate continuity have produced a plurality of philosophical conceptions of continuity that have provably distinct expressions within contemporary mathematics. I claim that there is a divide between the conceptions that treat the whole continuum as prior to its parts, and those conceptions that treat the parts of the continuum as prior to the whole. Along this divide, a tension emerges between those conceptions that favor philosophical idealizations of continuity and those that are more readily available for mathematico-scientific use.

We apply Benacerraf’s distinction between mathematical ontology and mathematical practice to examine contrasting interpretations of infinitesimal mathematics of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, in the work of Bos, Ferraro, Laugwitz, and others. We detect Weierstrass’s ghost behind some of the received historiography on Euler’s infinitesimal mathematics, as when Ferraro proposes to understand Euler in terms of a Weierstrassian notion of limit and Fraser declares classical analysis to be a “primary point of reference for understanding the eighteenth-century theories.” Meanwhile, scholars like Bos and Laugwitz seek to explore Eulerian methodology, practice, and procedures in a way more faithful to Euler’s own. Euler’s use of infinite integers and the associated infinite products are analyzed in the context of his infinite product decomposition for the sine function. Euler’s principle of cancellation is compared to the Leibnizian transcendental law of homogeneity. The Leibnizian law of continuity similarly finds echoes in Euler. We argue that Ferraro’s assumption that Euler worked with a classical notion of quantity is symptomatic of a post-Weierstrassian placement of Euler in the Archimedean track for the development of analysis, as well as a blurring of the distinction between the dual tracks noted by Bos. Interpreting Euler in an Archimedean conceptual framework obscures important aspects of Euler’s work. Such a framework is profitably replaced by a syntactically more versatile modern infinitesimal framework that provides better proxies for his inferential moves.

The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between the familiar non-Archimedean field of hyperreals from Abraham Robinson’s nonstandard analysis and Paolo Giordano’s ring extension of the real numbers containing nilpotents. There is an interesting nontrivial homomorphism from the limited hyperreals into the Giordano ring, whereas the only nontrivial homomorphism from the Giordano ring to the hyperreals is the standard part function, namely, the function that maps a value to its real part. We interpret this asymmetry to mean that the nilpotent infinitesimal values of Giordano’s ring are “smaller” than the hyperreal infinitesimals. By viewing things from the “point of view” of the hyperreals, all nilpotents are zero, whereas by viewing things from the “point of view” of Giordano’s ring, nonnilpotent, nonzero infinitesimals register as nonzero infinitesimals. This suggests that Giordano’s infinitesimals are more fine-grained.