🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.170056.21983@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.
Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

   >I find an
   >AFA world very appealing, but clearly it's not for everyone.  I claim
   >no more.

  But how are your views incompatible with anything claimed by anybody
else (as was suggested by your earlier comments about the cumulative
hierarchy)? The cumulative hierarchy is a mathematical structure
described and envisaged by people like Zermelo. There is nothing in
what Zermelo says that rules out other mathematical structures being
described and envisaged. There is nothing in what Zermelo says that
implies that people who speak about "sets" must mean sets in the sense
of Zermelo. The idea that "set" means something definite, on which
people may have conflicting and incompatible opinions, is not on the
face of it any more justified than the idea that "number" means
something definite on which people may have conflicting and
incompatible opinions. My interest may be in the natural numbers, but
this does not mean that somebody's explanation and investigation of the
complex numbers is in any sense "wrong" from my point of view. Similarly,
I understand (in a general way) sets in the sense of "iterated set of",
but this does not mean that I reject other notions. I'm quite
prepared to consider non-well-founded explanations of "set". I simply
don't see any conflict between such explanations and the cumulative
hiearchy.