[FOM] iterative conception/cumulative hierarchy
david.roberts at adelaide.edu.au
Mon Feb 27 17:41:58 EST 2012
If I may play devil's advocate, this statement (quoted from Michael
>Nik Weaver distinguishes two questions:
>(1) how we are to repair our naive ideas about sets ... in the face of the paradoxes. (2)to what extent our modified understanding will support the ZFC axioms.
seems to me a bit strange. To me it looks like asking "How do we
change what we think sets are, and then make sure that this concept
shoehorns in to a pre-existing collection of axioms?", when there are
alternatives to ZFC.
Would not the best approach be to have a new conception of what sets
are, and then axiomatise that?
More information about the FOM