Satisfaction is not absolute
Joel David Hamkins (University of Notre Dame), Ruizhi Yang (Fudan University, Shanghai)

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that the truth of first-order statements varies between models of set theory, showing that satisfaction is not absolute and depends on higher-order commitments beyond the structure itself.
Contribution
It provides mathematical proofs that satisfaction relations are non-absolute across models, challenging philosophical assumptions about the determinateness of truth.
Findings
Models with same natural numbers can disagree on arithmetic truth
Models with same reals can disagree on projective truth
Higher-order truths depend on additional commitments
Abstract
We prove that the satisfaction relation of first-order logic is not absolute between models of set theory having the structure and the formulas all in common. Two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers, for example, and the same standard model of arithmetic , yet disagree on their theories of arithmetic truth; two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and the same arithmetic truths, yet disagree on their truths-about-truth, at any desired level of the iterated truth-predicate hierarchy; two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and the same reals, yet disagree on projective truth; two models of set theory can have the same or the same rank-initial segment , yet…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy and Theoretical Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
