[FOM] The boundary of objective mathematics

[Monroe Eskew]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Henrik Nordmark <henriknordmark at mac.com> wrote:
>
> What I find interesting is that you seem to suggest that mathematical
> statements can be partitioned into objective statements and non-
> objective statements. Most philosophical camps attempt to have one
> overarching status for all mathematical statements. You seem to be a
> realist for a certain subclass of statements and an anti-realist for
> the rest. Regardless of where exactly where one draws a boundary, I am
> wondering what kinds of problems does drawing a boundary generate.
> Clearly, having one status for all mathematical statements is more
> elegant but that hardly seems like a serious philosophical objection
> against your stance.
>

It is not so strange.  Finitism and Intuitionism are two philosophies
of mathematics that nontrivially divide classical math into objective
and non-objective parts.  (Though instead of objective/non-objective,
they might say correct/erroneous, meaningful/meaningless, etc.)

Monroe