, Volume 192, Issue 8, pp 2463–2488 | Cite as

Multiverse conceptions in set theory

  • Carolin Antos
  • Sy-David Friedman
  • Radek Honzik
  • Claudio TernulloEmail author


We review different conceptions of the set-theoretic multiverse and evaluate their features and strengths. In Sect. 1, we set the stage by briefly discussing the opposition between the ‘universe view’ and the ‘multiverse view’. Furthermore, we propose to classify multiverse conceptions in terms of their adherence to some form of mathematical realism. In Sect. 2, we use this classification to review four major conceptions. Finally, in Sect. 3, we focus on the distinction between actualism and potentialism with regard to the universe of sets, then we discuss the Zermelian view, featuring a ‘vertical’ multiverse, and give special attention to this multiverse conception in light of the hyperuniverse programme introduced in Arrigoni and Friedman (Bull Symb Logic 19(1):77–96, 2013). We argue that the distinctive feature of the multiverse conception chosen for the hyperuniverse programme is its utility for finding new candidates for axioms of set theory.


Set theory Universe of sets Set-theoretic multiverse Hyperuniverse programme New axioms of set theory 


  1. Arrigoni, T., & Friedman, S. (2013). The hyperuniverse program. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 19(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balaguer, M. (1995). A platonist epistemology. Synthèse, 103, 303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balaguer, M. (1998). Platonism and anti-platonism in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, J. (1975). Admissible sets and structures. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colyvan, M., & Zalta, E. (1999). Review of Balaguer’s ‘Platonism and anti-platonism in mathematics’. Philosophia Mathematica, 7, 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dales, H. G., & Oliveri, G. (Eds.). (1998). Truth in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ewald, W. (Ed.). (1996). From Kant to Hilbert: A source book in the foundations of mathematics (Vol. II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Feferman, S. (1999). Does mathematics need new axioms? American Mathematical Monthly, 106, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feferman, S. (2014). The Continuum Hypothesis is neither a definite mathematical problem or a definite logical problem. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  10. Feferman, S., Maddy, P., Friedman, H., & Steel, J. R. (2000). Does mathematics need new axioms? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6(4), 401–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman, S., & Honzik, R. (forthcoming). On strong forms of reflection in set theory. Mathematical Logic Quarterly.Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, S., Welch, P., & Woodin, W. H. (2008). On the consistency strength of the Inner Model Hypothesis. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 73(2), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gödel, K. (1947). What is Cantor’s continuum problem? American Mathematical Monthly, 54, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gödel, K. (1990). Collected Works, II: Publications 1938–1974. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hallett, M. (1984). Cantorian set theory and limitation of size. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hamkins, J. D. (2012). The set-theoretic multiverse. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(3), 416–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauser, K. (2001). Objectivity over Objects: A case study in theory formation. Synthèse, 128(3), 245–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauser, K. (2002). Is the continuum problem inherently vague? Philosophia Mathematica, 10, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hellman, G. (1989). Mathematics without numbers. Towards a modal-structural interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jané, I. (1995). The role of the absolute infinite in Cantor’s conception of set. Erkenntnis, 42, 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kanamori, A. (2003). The higher infinite. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Koellner, P. (2009a). On reflection principles. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 157(2–3), 206–219.Google Scholar
  23. Koellner, P. (2009b). Truth in mathematics: The question of pluralism. In O. Bueno & Ø. Linnebo (Eds.), New waves in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 80–116). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Koellner, P. (2013). Hamkins on the multiverse. Unpublished, May 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Kunen, K. (2011). Set theory. An introduction to independence proofs. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Linnebo, Ø. (2013). The potential hierarchy of sets. Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(2), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maddy, P. (1997). Naturalism in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Maddy, P. (2011). Defending the axioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, D. A. (1998). Mathematical evidence. In H. G. Dales & G. Oliveri (Eds.), Truth in mathematics (pp. 215–231). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Potter, M. (2004). Set theory and its philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Putnam, H. (1979). Models and reality. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 45(3), 464–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reinhardt, W. N. (1974). Remarks on reflection principles, large cardinals and elementary embeddings. In T. Jech (Ed.), Proceedings of symposia in pure mathematics, (2nd ed., Vol. XIII). Providence (Rhode Island): American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  33. Shapiro, S. (2000). Thinking about mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shapiro, S. (Ed.). (2005). Oxford handbook of philosophy of mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Shelah, S. (2003). Logical dreams. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 40(2), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steel, J.R. (2012). Gödel’s program. Unpublished, October 2012.Google Scholar
  37. van Atten, M., & Kennedy, J. (2003). On the philosophical development of Kurt Gödel. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 9(4), 425–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, H. (1974). From mathematics to philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Wang, H. (1996). A logical journey. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Woodin, W. H. (2011a). The realm of the infinite. In W. H. Woodin & M. Heller (Eds.), Infinity. New research frontiers (pp. 89–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Woodin, W. H. (2011b). The transfinite universe. In M. Baaz, C. H. Papadimitriou, D. S. Scott, & H. Putnam (Eds.), Horizons of truth. Kurt Gödel and the foundations of mathematics (pp. 449–474). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Zermelo, E. (1930). Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16, 29–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin Antos
    • 1
  • Sy-David Friedman
    • 1
  • Radek Honzik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudio Ternullo
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.KGRCViennaAustria
  2. 2.Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations