On 4/1/2013 3:43 PM, david petry wrote: > On Monday, April 1, 2013 1:26:45 PM UTC-7, Dan wrote: > >> I hold no liking for set theory , in its current form . CH may as well >> be meaningless. However , the transfinite hierarchy , everything >> including second order arithmetic and complex analysis are >> unambiguous . I see no reason why we should give it up on a whim . > > Let me restate the basic point I've been making. > > Falsifiability is part of our natural thinking processes even if we > don't always recognize it as such.
As noted: a non-falsifiable theory
> It's already part of applied > mathematics, even if applied mathematics has never been fully > formalized.
You have been asked to offer any means by which to formalize it.
You responded with contemptuous remarks toward others instead of objective statements that could be considered as a formalization
> If the mathematicians involved in the debate over the > foundations ofmathematics that occurred in the early part of the > twentieth century > had taken the notion of falsifiability into consideration, it's very > likely the debate would have been resolved in favor of falsifiability > and against Cantorian set theory. >
Fallibilism as a possible ground for the explanation of empirical science did not even exist as a philosophical position in the early part of those debates. The best candidate for an alternative had been Brouwerian intuitionism.
It failed to have equal explanatory force, and, where it could provide satisfactory constructions, those constructions were inordinately complicated. Your own misuse of Ockham's razor would have disqualified it.
> The mathematicians chose to give up falsifiability on a whim. Nothing > of value to society has come from that choice. >
And what social value has come of your choice to harass and demean others in favor of proposing a legitimate defense of your statements?