Volume 39, Issue 1-2 - Special Issue: 10 Years in Multiverse: Reflections and perspectives for the set-theoretic multiverse; Guest Editor: Matteo de Ceglie

According to the math tea argument, there must be real numbers that we cannot describe or define, because there are uncountably many real numbers, but only countably many definitions. And yet, the existence of pointwise-definable models of set theory, in which every individual is definable without parameters, challenges this conclusion. In this article, I introduce a flexible new method for constructing pointwise-definable models of arithmetic and set theory, showing furthermore that every countable model of Zermelo-Fraenkel ZF set theory and of Peano arithmetic PA has a pointwise-definable end extension. In the arithmetic case, I use the universal algorithm and its Σ n generalizations to build a progressively elementary tower making any desired individual a n definable at each stage n , while preserving these definitions through to the limit model, which can thus be arranged to be pointwise definable. A similar method works in set theory, and one can moreover achieve V = L in the extension or indeed any other suitable theory holding in an inner model of the original model, thereby fulfilling the resurrection phenomenon. For example, every countable model of ZF with an inner model with a measurable cardinal has an end extension to a pointwise-definable model of ZFC + V = L [ μ ].

Hamkins’ multiverse view is a prominent position on the nature of set theory. It is posited against the universe view and proposed as a philosophical theory explaining current set-theoretic practice. This paper confronts the multiverse view with the results of an interview study investigating current set-theoretic practice. The study reveals a heterogeneity of set-theoretic research practices. The multiverse view is found to align well with pluralist research practices but not with absolutist practices. The generalisation claim of the multiverse view fails because of this heterogeneity; only a reduced interpretation of the multiverse view might hold generally. Furthermore, Hamkins’ prediction that the community as a whole will not adopt axioms deciding the continuum hypothesis is found probably true, but for different reasons: although part of the community has already accepted axioms beyond ZFC, another part of the community will withdraw from doing so. In conclusion, I argue that Hamkins’ multiverse view is best interpreted as a valuable perspective on pluralist set-theoretic practices.

Measurement holds a special place in the epistemology of the physical world. Knowledge that has been verified by measurement is considered more reliable than that deduced from unmeasurable theories. However, relativity shows that the act of measurement is not independent of our frame of reference. From quantum mechanics we learned that the states of some systems cannot be known without a measurement that itself alters the state of that system, and furthermore that there exist certain systems all of whose states we cannot simultaneously know. We propose that certain fundamental functions of set theory are measurements and apply this interpretation to the debate surrounding whether there is a single universe of sets or a multiverse of universes of sets.

This paper has two aims. First, we argue that Wittgenstein’s notion of petrification can be used to explain phenomena in advanced mathematics, sometimes better than more popular views on mathematics, such as formalism, even though petrification usually suffers from a diet of examples of a very basic nature (in particular a focus on addition of small numbers). Second, we analyse current disagreements on the absolute undecidability of CH under the notion of petrification and hinge epistemology. We argue that in contemporary set theory the usage of construction techniques for set-theoretic models in which the Continuum Hypothesis holds and those in which it fails have petrified into the normative demand that CH remain undecidable. That is, the continuous and successful practices involving the construction of various set-theoretic models now act as a normative hinge shared among practitioners, i.e., have normative force in the discipline. However, not all hinges are universal, which is why we find disagreements in set theory. We will show that this is a refinement of, and partially conflicts with, the arguments presented by set theorist Joel David Hamkins.