On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Barker, Sean (UK) wrote:
> The objection to ontologism from the mathematical point of view is
> that alternative choices of axioms give alternative mathematical
> systems. The non-Euclidean geometries are variations on the fifth
> postulate that all non-parallel lines meet. The way I was taught, say,
> ring theory, was that it was group theory with additional axioms. That
> is, the mathematical system you get is dependent on the axioms you
> use. Similarly, the logic you get depends on the axioms, such as the
> number of truth values you choose.
>
> Given that systems can contradict each other if they have different
> axioms, it is difficult to see that a single meta system could derive
> all mathematical principles... (01)
Worse, even if we ignore this cogent objection, the mathematical goal of
"ontologism" is (provably) impossible to reach. By Gödel's
incompleteness theorem, we can't even have a complete set of principles
for elementary arithmetic, let alone all of mathematics. (02)
-chris (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|