Abstract:Despite some discomfort with this grandly philosophical topic, I do in fact hope to address a venerable pair of philosophical chestnuts: mathematical truth and existence. My plan is to set out three possible stands on these issues, for an exercise in compare and contrast. A word of warning, though, to philosophical purists (and perhaps of comfort to more mathematical readers): I will explore these philosophical positions with an eye to their interconnections with some concrete issues of set theoretic method. Let me begin with a brief look at what to count as ‘philosophy’. To some extent, this is a matter of usage, and mathematicians sometimes classify as ‘philosophical’ any considerations other than outright proofs. So, for example, discussions of the propriety of particular mathematical methods would fall under this heading: should we prefer analytic or synthetic approaches in geometry? Should elliptic functions be treated in terms of explicit representations (as in Weierstrass) or geometrically (as in Riemann)? Should we allow impredicative definitions? Should we restrict ourselves to a logic without bivalence or the law of the excluded middle? Also included in this category would be the trains of thought that shaped our central concepts: should a function always be defined by a formula? Should a group be required to have an inverse for every element? Should ideal divisors be defined contextually or explicitly, treated computationally or abstractly? In addition, there are more general questions concerning mathematical values, aims and goals: Should we strive for powerful theories or low-risk theories? How much stress should be placed on the fact or promise of physical applications? How important are interconnections between the various branches of mathematics? These philosophical questions of method naturally include several peculiar to set theory: should set theorists focus their efforts on drawing consequences for areas of interest to mathematicians outside mathematical logic? Should exploration of the standard axioms of ZFC be preferred to the exploration and exploitation of new axioms? How should axioms for set theory be chosen? What would a solution to the Continuum Problem look like?

Accepted proofs: Objective truth, or culturally robust

Proof in the time of machines

Truth, Proof, and Reproducibility: There's no counter-attack for the codeless

Hard Proofs and Good Reasons

If it's Provably Secure, It Probably Isn't: Why Learning from Proof Failure is Hard

Motivated proofs: What they are, why they matter and how to write them

Proofs, proofs, proofs, and proofs

Intuitive acceptance of proof by contradiction

Strange new universes: Proof assistants and synthetic foundations

Transitioning to proof via writing scripts on the rules of a new discourse

Euclid After Computer Proof-checking

Fail better: What formalized math can teach us about learning

Computer-Aided Verification of P/NP Proofs: A Survey and Discussion

Interactive Proofs For Quantum Computations

An essay on proof, conviction, and explanation: multiple representation systems in combinatorics

Theorem Proving and Algebra

Mathematical Existence

Machine-Checked Proofs For Realizability Checking Algorithms

Prawitz's Conjecture is False; So What?

Proof phenomenon as a function of the phenomenology of proving