Optimus prime: paraphrasing prime number talk
- 279 Downloads
- 6 Citations
Abstract
Baker (Mind 114:223–238, 2005; Brit J Philos Sci 60:611–633, 2009) has recently defended what he calls the “enhanced” version of the indispensability argument for mathematical Platonism. In this paper I demonstrate that the nominalist can respond to Baker’s argument. First, I outline Baker’s argument in more detail before providing a nominalistically acceptable paraphrase of prime-number talk. Second, I argue that, for the nominalist, mathematical language is used to express physical facts about the world. In endorsing this line I follow moves made by Saatsi (Brit J Philos Sci 62(1):143–154, 2011). But, unlike Saatsi, I go on to argue that the nominalist requires a paraphrase of prime-number talk, for otherwise we lack an account of what that ‘physical fact’ is in the case of mathematics that seemingly makes reference to prime numbers.
Keywords
Mathematical Platonism Nominalism Indispensability argument Enhanced indispensability argument Baker SaatsiPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Arntzenius F. (2008) Gunk, topology and measure. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 4: 225–247Google Scholar
- Baker A. (2005) Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena?. Mind 114: 223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker A. (2009) Mathematical explanation in science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 611–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Colyvan M. (2001) The indispensability of mathematics. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dixon L. E. (1919) On quaternions and their generalization and the history of the eight square theorem. The Annals of Mathematics Second Series 20(3): 155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dorr C. (2008) There are no abstract objects. In: Sider T., Hawthorne J., Zimmerman D. (eds) Contemporary debates in metaphysics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 32–64Google Scholar
- Field H. (1980) Science without numbers. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Huemer M. (2009) When is parsimony a virtue?. Philosophical Quarterly 59: 216–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lewis D. (1993) Mathematics is megethology. Philosophica Mathematica 3: 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liggins D. (2006) Is there a good epistemological argument against Platonsim?. Analysis 66: 135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lyon A., Colyvan M. (2008) The explanatory power of phase spaces. Philosophia Mathematica 16: 227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Melia J. (1995) On what there’s not. Analysis 55: 223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Melia J. (1998) Field’s program: Some interference. Analysis 58: 63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saatsi J. (2011) The enhanced indispensability argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62(1): 143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zalta, E. (2010). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-logic/index.html