Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Neo-Fregeanism: An Embarrassment of Riches

Alan Weir

Abstract

Neo-Fregeans argue that substantial mathematics can be derived from a priori abstraction principles, Hume's Principle connecting numerical identities with one:one correspondences being a prominent example. The embarrassment of riches objection is that there is a plurality of consistent but pairwise inconsistent abstraction principles, thus not all consistent abstractions can be true. This paper considers and criticizes various further criteria on acceptable abstractions proposed by Wright settling on another one—stability—as the best bet for neo-Fregeans. However, an analogue of the embarrassment of riches objection resurfaces in the metatheory and I conclude by arguing that the neo-Fregean program, at least insofar as it includes a platonistic ontology, is fatally wounded by it.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 44, Number 1 (2003), 13-48.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 21 April 2004

http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1082637613

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1082637613

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR2060054

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
02187138

Keywords
neologicism Frege abstraction

Citation

Weir, Alan. Neo-Fregeanism: An Embarrassment of Riches. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 44 (2003), no. 1, 13--48. doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1082637613. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1082637613.

References

• [1] Boolos, G., "Saving Frege from contradiction", pp. 171--82 in Logic, Logic, and Logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
• [2] Boolos, G., "The standard of equality of numbers", pp. 202--19 in Logic, Logic, and Logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
• [3] Boolos, G., Whence the contradiction?'' pp. 220--36 in Logic, Logic, and Logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
• [4] Dummett, M., Frege. Philosophy of Mathematics, Duckworth, London, 1991.
• [5] Field, H., Realism, Mathematics and Modality, Basil Blackwell, New York, 1989.
• [6] Fine, K., "The limits of abstraction", pp. 503--629 in The Philosophy of Mathematics Today, edited by M. Schirn, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
• [7] Forster, T. E., Set Theory with a Universal Set, vol. 20 of Oxford Logic Guides, The Clarendon Press, New York, 1992.
• [8] Frege, G., The Foundations of Arithmetic. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1974. Translation by J. L. Austin.
• [9] Garland, S. J., "Second-order cardinal characterizability", pp. 127--46 in Axiomatic Set Theory, edited by T. Jech, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1974.
• [10] Hale, B., Abstract Objects, Blackwell, Oxford, 1987.
• [11] Hale, B., and C. Wright, "Implicit definition and the a priori", pp. 286--319 in New Essays on the A Priori, edited by P. Boghossian and C. Peacocke, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2000.
• [12] Hale, B., and C. Wright, The Reason's Proper Study, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001.
• [13] Hale, B., "Reals by abstraction", Philosophia Mathematica, vol. 8 (2000), pp. 100--23.
• [14]špace-1pt Heck, R. G., Jr., "On the consistency of second-order contextual definitions", Noûs, vol. 26 (1992), pp. 491--94.
• [15]špace-1pt Heck, R. G., Jr., "The consistency of predicative fragments of Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik", History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 17 (1996), pp. 209--20.
• [16]špace-1pt Heck, R. G., Jr., "Finitude and Hume's Principle", Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 26 (1997), pp. 589--617.
• [17]špace-1pt Lévy, A., "The definability of cardinal numbers", pp. 15--38 in Foundations of Mathematics, edited by erseeditorsnames J. Bulloff and T. Holyoke and S. Hahn, Springer, New York, 1969.
• [18]špace-1pt Moore, G. H., "Beyond first-order logic: The historical interplay between mathematical logic and axiomatic set theory", pp. 95--137 in History and Philosophy of Logic, Vol. 1, edited by I. Grattan-Guinness, Abacus, Tunbridge Wells, 1980.
• [19]špace-1pt Moore, G. H., "The emergence of first-order logic", pp. 95--135 in History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, edited by W. Aspray and P. Kitcher, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. XI, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1988.
• [20] Oberschelp, A., "Set theory over classes", Dissertationes Mathematicae, vol. 106 (1973), p. 62.
• [21] Parsons, T., "On the consistency of the first-order portion of Frege's logical system", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 28 (1987), pp. 161--68.
• [22] Priest, G., In Contradiction. A Study of the Transconsistent, vol. 39 of Nijhoff International Philosophy Series, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1987.
• [23] Priest, G., What is so bad about contradictions?'' The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 95 (1998), pp. 410--26.
• [24] Shapiro, S., Foundations without Foundationalism. A Case for Second-Order Logic, vol. 17 of Oxford Logic Guides, The Clarendon Press, New York, 1991. Oxford Science Publications.
• [25] Shapiro, S., Induction and indefinite extensibility: The Gödel sentence is true, but did someone change the subject?'' Mind, vol. 107 (1998), pp. 597--624.
• [26] Shapiro, S., and A. Weir, "New V, ZF" and abstraction, Philosophia Mathematica. Series III, vol. 7 (1999), pp. 293--321.
• [27] Shapiro, S., and A. Weir, ,Neo-logicist' logic is not epistemically innocent,'' Philosophia Mathematica. Series III, vol. 8 (2000), pp. 160--89.
• [28] Tennant, N., Anti-Realism and Logic, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978.
• [29] Tennant, N., "On the necessary existence of numbers", Noûs, vol. 31 (1997), pp. 307--36.
• [30] Tennant, N., The Taming of the True, The Clarendon Press, New York, 1997.
• [31] Weir, A., "Classical harmony", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 27 (1986), pp. 459--82.
• [32] Weir, A., "Dummett on impredicativity", pp. 65--101 in New Essays on the Philosophy of Michael Dummett, edited by J. Brandl and P. Sullivan, vol. 55 of Grazer Philosophische Studien, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1998.
• [33] Weir, A., Naï"ve set theory is innocent!'' Mind, vol. 107 (1998), pp. 763--98.
• [34] Weir, A., "Naï"ve set theory, paraconsistency and indeterminacy. I", Logique et Analyse. Nouvelle Série, vol. 41 (1998), pp. 219--66.
• [35] Wright, C., Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects, Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen, 1983.
• [36] Wright, C., "On the philosophical significance of Frege's theorem", pp. 201--44 in Language, Thought, and Logic: Essays in Honour of Michael Dummett, edited by R. G. Heck, Jr., Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.
• [37] Wright, C., "On the harmless impredicativity of $\rm N\sp =$" (Hume's Principle'), pp. 339--68 in The Philosophy of Mathematics Today, edited by M. Schirn, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
• [38] Wright, C., Is Hume's Principle analytic?'' Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 40 (1999), pp. 6--30.