[FOM] A proof that ZFC has no any omega-models

[Timothy Y. Chow]

Monroe Eskew wrote:

> Hence my conclusion, the advocacy of this scheme would be just a 
> philosophical footnote, and should not make set theory any more 
> palatable to those who want more conservative mathematical assumptions, 
> unless their concerns are purely metaphysical.

It seems to me that the camp of people whose "concerns are purely 
metaphysical" is pretty large.  Isn't metaphysics one of the main driving 
forces behind conservative mathematical assumptions?

Whether or not it's "just a philosophical footnote," it seems like a 
significant observation to me if it adequately addresses the metaphysical 
objections to set theory.

Tim