bacle
Posts:
838
From:
nyc
Registered:
6/6/10
|
|
Re: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Posted:
Jan 7, 2013 4:12 PM
|
|
> An article by Nic Weaver is worth a read:
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.1680v1.p
> df
>
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "An essential incorporation of impredicative
> mathematics in basic physics would involve a
> revolutionary shift in our understanding of physical
> reality of a magnitude which would dwarf the passage
> from classical to quantum mechanics [...} the
> likelihood of ZFC turning out to be inconsistent [is]
> much higher than the likelihood of it turning out to
> be essential to basic physics. The assumption that
> set-theoretically substantial mathematics is of any
> use in
> current science is simply false"
>
> By "impredicative mathematics", he means mathematics
> with the powerset axiom.
>
> I actually think Weaver misses the essential point,
> which is this:
>
> The notion of falsifiability, which is the
> cornerstone of science, can be formalized in such a
> way that it can be made the cornerstone of
> mathematics, and it is eminently reasonable to do so;
> if we don't accept falsifiability as part of the
> e underlying logic of our mathematics, then our
> mathematics is deficient as a language for science.
> Impredicative mathematics is not compatible with
> falsifiability.
>
What is your notion of falsifiability other than that of counterexamples which falsify a theory?
> The conclusion is that the claim that it is even
> remotely possible that impredicative mathematics
> (e.g. ZFC) has an essential role to play in science
> is a truly extraordinary claim that requires truly
> extraordinary evidence, and such evidence is woefully
> lacking.
>
> ZFC is crackpot mathematics.
>
>
>
|
|
