We develop a constructive version of nonstandard analysis, extending Bishop's constructive analysis with infinitesimal methods. A full transfer principle and a strong idealisation principle are obtained by using a sheaf-theoretic construction due to I. Moerdijk. The construction is, in a precise sense, a reduced power with variable filter structure. We avoid the nonconstructive standard part map by the use of nonstandard hulls. This leads to an infinitesimal analysis which includes nonconstructive theorems such as the Heine–Borel theorem, the Cauchy–Peano existence theorem for ordinary differential equations and the exact intermediate-value theorem, while it at the same time provides constructive results for concrete statements. A nonstandard measure theory which is considerably simpler than that of Bishop and Cheng is developed within this context.

§1. Overview. Philosophers and mathematicians have drawn lots of conclusions from Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and related results from mathematical logic. Languages, minds, and machines figure prominently in the discussion. Gödel's theorems surely tell us something about these important matters. But what?

A descriptive title for this paper would be “Gödel, Lucas, Penrose, Turing, Feferman, Dummett, mechanism, optimism, reflection, and indefinite extensibility”. Adding “God and the Devil” would probably be redundant. Despite the breath-taking, whirlwind tour, I have the modest aim of forging connections between different parts of this literature and clearing up some confusions, together with the less modest aim of not introducing any more confusions.

I propose to focus on three spheres within the literature on incompleteness. The first, and primary, one concerns arguments that Gödel's theorem refutes the mechanistic thesis that the human mind is, or can be accurately modeled as, a digital computer or a Turing machine. The most famous instance is the much reprinted J. R. Lucas [18]. To summarize, suppose that a mechanist provides plans for a machine, M, and claims that the output of M consists of all and only the arithmetic truths that a human (like Lucas), or the totality of human mathematicians, will ever or can ever know. We assume that the output of M is consistent.

§1. The mission of axiomatic set theory. What is set theory needed for in the foundations of mathematics? Why cannot we transact whatever foundational business we have to transact in terms of our ordinary logic without resorting to set theory? There are many possible answers, but most of them are likely to be variations of the same theme. The core area of ordinary logic is by a fairly common consent the received first-order logic. Why cannot it take care of itself? What is it that it cannot do? A large part of every answer is probably that first-order logic cannot handle its own model theory and other metatheory. For instance, a first-order language does not allow the codification of the most important semantical concept, viz. the notion of truth, for that language in that language itself, as shown already in Tarski (1935). In view of such negative results it is generally thought that one of the most important missions of set theory is to provide the wherewithal for a model theory of logic. For instance Gregory H. Moore (1994, p. 635) asserts in his encyclopedia article “Logic and set theory” that

Set theory influenced logic, both through its semantics, by expanding the possible models of various theories and by the formal definition of a model; and through its syntax, by allowing for logical languages in which formulas can be infinite in length or in which the number of symbols is uncountable.