What makes a `good' modal theory of sets?

Abstract

I provide an examination and comparison of modal theories for underwriting different non-modal theories of sets. I argue that there is a respect in which the `standard' modal theory for set construction---on which sets are formed via the successive individuation of powersets---raises a significant challenge for some recently proposed `countabilist' modal theories (i.e. ones that imply that every set is countable). I examine how the countabilist can respond to this issue via the use of regularity axioms and raise some questions about this approach. I argue that by comparing them with the `standard' uncountabilist theory, a new approach that brings in arbitrariness rather than the strict controls of forcing is desirable.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Bi-Modal Naive Set Theory.John Wigglesworth - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Logic 15 (2):139-150.
Modal Structuralism and Reflection.Sam Roberts - 2019 - Review of Symbolic Logic 12 (4):823-860.
Modal primitivism.Jennifer Wang - 2013 - Dissertation, Rutgers University
The Search for New Axioms.Peter Koellner - 2003 - Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-07-03

Downloads
446 (#64,054)

6 months
130 (#40,221)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Neil Barton
University of Oslo

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Reflection and potentialism.Sam Roberts - 2016 - Dissertation, Birkbeck College, University of London

Add more references