Modal Structuralism. Thought of the Day 106.0

Structuralism holds that mathematics is ultimately about the shared structures that may be instantiated by particular systems of objects. Eliminative structuralists, such as Geoffrey Hellman (Mathematics Without Numbers Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation), try to develop this insight in a way that does not assume the existence of abstract structures over and above any instances. But since not all mathematical theories have concrete instances, this brings a modal element to this kind of structuralist view: mathematical theories are viewed as being concerned with what would be the case in any system of objects satisfying their axioms. In Hellman’s version of the view, this leads to a reinterpretation of ordinary mathematical utterances made within the context of a theory. A mathematical utterance of the sentence S, made against the context of a system of axioms expressed as a conjunction AX, becomes interpreted as the claim that the axioms are logically consistent and that they logically imply S (so that, were we to find an interpretation of those axioms, S would be true in that interpretation). Formally, an utterance of the sentence S becomes interpreted as the claim:

◊ AX & □ (AX ⊃ S)

Here, in order to preserve standard mathematics (and to avoid infinitary conjunctions of axioms), AX is usually a conjunction of second-order axioms for a theory. The operators “◊” and “□” are modal operators on sentences, interpreted as “it is logically consistent that”, and “it is logically necessary that”, respectively.

This view clearly shares aspects of the core of algebraic approaches to mathematics. According to modal structuralism what makes a mathematical theory good is that it is logically consistent. Pure mathematical activity becomes inquiry into the consistency of axioms, and into the consequences of axioms that are taken to be consistent. As a result, we need not view a theory as applying to any particular objects, so certainly not to one particular system of objects. Since mathematical utterances so construed do not refer to any objects, we do not get into difficulties with deciding on the unique referent for apparent singular terms in mathematics. The number 2 in mathematical contexts refers to no object, though if there were a system of objects satisfying the second-order Peano axioms, whatever mathematical theorems we have about the number 2 would apply to whatever the interpretation of 2 is in that system. And since our mathematical utterances are made true by modal facts, about what does and does not follow from consistent axioms, we no longer need to answer Benacerraf’s question of how we can have knowledge of a realm of abstract objects, but must instead consider how we know these (hopefully more accessible) facts about consistency and logical consequence.

Stewart Shapiro’s (Philosophy of Mathematics Structure and Ontology) non-eliminative version of structuralism, by contrast, accepts the existence of structures over and above systems of objects instantiating those structures. Specifically, according to Shapiro’s ante rem view, every logically consistent theory correctly describes a structure. Shapiro uses the terminology “coherent” rather than “logically consistent” in making this claim, as he reserves the term “consistent” for deductively consistent, a notion which, in the case of second-order theories, falls short of coherence (i.e., logical consistency), and wishes also to separate coherence from the model-theoretic notion of satisfiability, which, though plausibly coextensive with the notion of coherence, could not be used in his theory of structure existence on pain of circularity. Like Hellman, Shapiro thinks that many of our most interesting mathematical structures are described by second-order theories (first-order axiomatizations of sufficiently complex theories fail to pin down a unique structure up to isomorphism). Mathematical theories are then interpreted as bodies of truths about structures, which may be instantiated in many different systems of objects. Mathematical singular terms refer to the positions or offices in these structures, positions which may be occupied in instantiations of the structures by many different officeholders.

While this account provides a standard (referential) semantics for mathematical claims, the kinds of objects (offices, rather than officeholders) that mathematical singular terms are held to refer to are quite different from ordinary objects. Indeed, it is usually simply a category mistake to ask of the various possible officeholders that could fill the number 2 position in the natural number structure whether this or that officeholder is the number 2 (i.e., the office). Independent of any particular instantiation of a structure, the referent of the number 2 is the number 2 office or position. And this office/position is completely characterized by the axioms of the theory in question: if the axioms provide no answer to a question about the number 2 office, then within the context of the pure mathematical theory, this question simply has no answer.

Elements of the algebraic approach can be seen here in the emphasis on logical consistency as the criterion for the existence of a structure, and on the identification of the truths about the positions in a structure as being exhausted by what does and does not follow from a theory’s axioms. As such, this version of structuralism can also respond to Benacerraf’s problems. The question of which instantiation of a theoretical structure one is referring to when one utters a sentence in the context of a mathematical theory is dismissed as a category mistake. And, so long as the basic principle of structure-existence, according to which every logically consistent axiomatic theory truly describes a structure, is correct, we can explain our knowledge of mathematical truths simply by appeal to our knowledge of consistency.

Platonist Assertory Mathematics. Thought of the Day 88.0

Traditional Platonism, according to which our mathematical theories are bodies of truths about a realm of mathematical objects, assumes that only some amongst consistent theory candidates succeed in correctly describing the mathematical realm. For platonists, while mathematicians may contemplate alternative consistent extensions of the axioms for ZF (Zermelo–Fraenkel) set theory, for example, at most one such extension can correctly describe how things really are with the universe of sets. Thus, according to Platonists such as Kurt Gödel, intuition together with quasi-empirical methods (such as the justification of axioms by appeal to their intuitively acceptable consequences) can guide us in discovering which amongst alternative axiom candidates for set theory has things right about set theoretic reality. Alternatively, according to empiricists such as Quine, who hold that our belief in the truth of mathematical theories is justified by their role in empirical science, empirical evidence can choose between alternative consistent set theories. In Quine’s view, we are justified in believing the truth of the minimal amount of set theory required by our most attractive scientific account of the world.

Despite their differences at the level of detail, both of these versions of Platonism share the assumption that mere consistency is not enough for a mathematical theory: For such a theory to be true, it must correctly describe a realm of objects, where the existence of these objects is not guaranteed by consistency alone. Such a view of mathematical theories requires that we must have some grasp of the intended interpretation of an axiomatic theory that is independent of our axiomatization – otherwise inquiry into whether our axioms “get things right” about this intended interpretation would be futile. Hence, it is natural to see these Platonist views of mathematics as following Frege in holding that axioms

. . . must not contain a word or sign whose sense and meaning, or whose contribution to the expression of a thought, was not already completely laid down, so that there is no doubt about the sense of the proposition and the thought it expresses. The only question can be whether this thought is true and what its truth rests on. (Frege to Hilbert Gottlob Frege The Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence)

On such an account, our mathematical axioms express genuine assertions (thoughts), which may or may not succeed in asserting truths about their subject matter. These Platonist views are “assertory” views of mathematics. Assertory views of mathematics make room for a gap between our mathematical theories and their intended subject matter, and the possibility of such a gap leads to at least two difficulties for traditional Platonism. These difficulties are articulated by Paul Benacerraf (here and here) in his aforementioned papers. The first difficulty comes from the realization that our mathematical theories, even when axioms are supplemented with less formal characterizations of their subject matter, may be insufficient to choose between alternative interpretations. For example, assertory views hold that the Peano axioms for arithmetic aim to assert truths about the natural numbers. But there are many candidate interpretations of these axioms, and nothing in the axioms, or in our wider mathematical practices, seems to suffice to pin down one interpretation over any other as the correct one. The view of mathematical theories as assertions about a specific realm of objects seems to force there to be facts about the correct interpretation of our theories even if, so far as our mathematical practice goes (for example, in the case of arithmetic), any ω-sequence would do.

Benacerraf’s second worry is perhaps even more pressing for assertory views. The possibility of a gap between our mathematical theories and their intended subject matter raises the question, “How do we know that our mathematical theories have things right about their subject matter?”. To answer this, we need to consider the nature of the purported objects about which our theories are supposed to assert truths. It seems that our best characterization of mathematical objects is negative: to account for the extent of our mathematical theories, and the timelessness of mathematical truths, it seems reasonable to suppose that mathematical objects are non-physical, non- spatiotemporal (and, it is sometimes added, mind- and language-independent) objects – in short, mathematical objects are abstract. But this negative characterization makes it difficult to say anything positive about how we could know anything about how things are with these objects. Assertory, Platonist views of mathematics are thus challenged to explain just how we are meant to evaluate our mathematical assertions – just how do the kinds of evidence these Platonists present in support of their theories succeed in ensuring that these theories track the truth?