Timeline for What is against having distinct membership relations on sets in the Platonic realm?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2018 at 11:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 17, 2018 at 3:01 | |||||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | |||||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 11, 2018 at 18:56 | |||||
| Mar 10, 2018 at 11:07 | comment | added | Not Mike | @Zuhair and form the perspective of many set-theorists, $ZF$ is a weak collection of axioms. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 10:58 | comment | added | Not Mike | @Zuhair No, you're speaking about collections of ordered pairs, whose nature you presuppose as being paradoxical relative to an inconsistent interpretation of mathematical platonism. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 10:08 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | @NotMike I'm speaking about membership relations of $\text{ZF}$ and I don't think $\text{ZF}$ is a weak base theory? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 1:16 | answer | added | Andreas Blass | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 0:09 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 9, 2018 at 23:12 | comment | added | Qfwfq | There is no such thing as a Platonic realm. | |
| Mar 9, 2018 at 22:59 | comment | added | Not Mike | It would seem to me that only a young and naive Platonist would be willing to argue for the existence of an idealized true theory. Since each abstract object which interprets a base theory can be considered an idealized object representing the entirety of the statements it satisfies. The very fact that you would have differing interpretations of a weak base theory which disagree on certain statements would seem to me to imply they are approximations to distinct and incomparable abstract objects. | |
| Mar 9, 2018 at 22:31 | history | asked | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |