[FOM] Reverse Mathematics and underdetermination
Sam Sanders
sasander at cage.ugent.be
Thu Jul 19 05:40:30 EDT 2012
Dear members of the FOM-list,
During a recent conference, a number of philosophers presented the usual
problem of underdetermination (in the context of FOM).
1) There are (potentially) infinitely many mathematical theorems.
2) We can only know a limited number of mathematical theorems.
3) Given 1) and 2), how can we know that an axiomatization (of a part of) mathematics is a good one,
as we only know it to agree with a limited number of theorems?
The obvious slogan of underdetermination is that "any model is underdetermined by the data".
I was wondering what your opinions are on underdetermination in light of Reverse Mathematics? For instance:
Could we not say that e.g. WKL_0 is OVERdetermined (even if you only agree with a weak version of the Main Theme of Reverse Mathematics)?
In particular, are the large number of equivalences over RCA_0 with WKL_0 not a mountain of evidence in support of the
claim that WKL_0 corresponds very tightly to a certain part of mathematics?
Furthermore, the claim has been made that Reverse Mathematics is too dependent on e.g. the choice of base theory (RCA_0).
Would this dependence claim nullify the overdetermination claim?
With kindest regards,
Sam Sanders
ps: Please note that I did not claim that RM is too dependent on choice of the base theory RCA_0.
I believe RM is not (too dependent on …).
More information about the FOM
mailing list