Foundations and Foundationalism
Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at math.princeton.edu
Tue Jun 14 00:00:42 EDT 2022
Harvey Friedman wrote:
> This points to a possible disagreement with Tim.
> Are there foundational advances that cannot be greatly improved by some
> supporting philosophically coherent advance?
It is true that I am rather pessimistic about the prospects of replicating
the success of foundationalism in mathematics in other arenas. That
mathematics is an outlier has been apparent for a very long time. Ever
since Euclid, it has been clear---in rough outline if not in full
detail---that foundationalism (or something close to it) in mathematics
ought to be possible. As for foundationalism in any other philosophical
arena, the entire history of Western philosophy can be regarded as a huge
mountain of heuristic evidence that it is at best a very distant hope, and
quite likely a wild goose chase.
That is not to say that what I have been calling foundational thinking is
worthless in philosophy; it's just that I think that we can only
realistically expect "local" success and not "global" success.
> For example, at this point we do not have any philosophically coherent
> understanding of, for example,
> 1. what is mathematics?
> 2. given 1, what is algebraic? what is geometric? what is combinatorial?
> what is set theoretic?
> 3. given 1,2 what is an important question or conjecture, or definition or
> 4. what is theory building and what is problem solving?
These questions are close enough to mathematical questions that it is
perhaps not futile to hope that the success of foundationalism in
mathematics could extend to cover them, but I remain doubtful. For #2, I
think that our best bet for making progress in the foreseeable future is
to pursue "foundations of X" for the X in question.
Anyone who has followed the FOM mailing list closely for a long time will
know that the archives are full of vehement rejections of overblown claims
that advances in the "foundations of X" entail a complete overhaul of the
foundations of mathematics. There is certainly a place for calling out
overblown claims for what they are, and I have done my share of that, but
at the same time, we should be wary of throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. Higher topos theory, homotopy type theory, condensed
mathematics, etc., are not just esoteric advances in esoteric branches of
mathematics; some very powerful foundational thinking has gone into their
creation, and they provide fresh insight into fundamental questions such
as "what is algebraic topology?" or "what is the difference between
algebra and analysis?" If one is really interested in arriving at
definitive answers to such questions, then paying close attention to the
foundational work being doing in these areas is a must.
Incidentally, for those who are not already aware of it, there was a very
interesting discussion in the comments section of Michael Harris's blog
some years ago, in which (among other things) Jacob Lurie expressed doubts
about whether homotopy type theory would be of any value in answering the
types of foundational questions that he (Lurie) was interested in.
The discussion illustrates that even a seemingly narrow question like
"what is homotopy theory?" is far from having a settled answer.
More information about the FOM