On mathematical realism and the applicability of hyperreals

TL;DR

The paper defends the applicability of Robinson's hyperreals, arguing that recent critiques lack convincing evidence and rely on outdated philosophical assumptions, emphasizing their practical use in sciences.

Contribution

It challenges recent philosophical critiques of hyperreals, defending their applicability and criticizing the superficiality of the arguments against their use in scientific contexts.

Findings

Hyperreals have practical applications in physics, probability, and economics.

Critiques based on automorphisms of hyperreal models are unconvincing.

Recent philosophical arguments rely on outdated realism and superficial analysis.

Abstract

We argue that Robinson's hyperreals have just as much claim to applicability as the garden variety reals. In a recent text, Easwaran and Towsner (ET) analyze the applicability of mathematical techniques in the sciences, and introduce a distinction between techniques that are applicable and those that are merely instrumental. Unfortunately the authors have not shown that their distinction is a clear and fruitful one, as the examples they provide are superficial and unconvincing. Moreover, their analysis is vitiated by a reliance on a naive version of object realism which has long been abandoned by most philosophical realists in favor of truth-value realism. ET's argument against the applicability of hyperreals based on automorphisms of hyperreal models involves massaging the evidence and is similarly unconvincing. The purpose of the ET text is to argue that Robinson's infinitesimal analysis is merely instrumental rather than applicable. Yet in spite of Robinson's techniques being applied in physics, probability, and economics, ET don't bother to provide a meaningful analysis of even a single case in which these techniques are used. Instead, ET produce page after page of speculations mainly imitating Connesian chimera-type arguments `from first principles' against Robinson. In an earlier paper Easwaran endorsed real applicability of the sigma-additivity of measures, whereas the ET text rejects real applicability of the axiom of choice, voicing a preference for ZF. Since it is consistent with ZF that the Lebesgue measure is not sigma-additive, Easwaran is thereby walking back his earlier endorsement. We note a related inaccuracy in the textbook Measure Theory by Paul Halmos.