On Apr 11, 2:31 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 4/9/2013 11:27 AM, Dan wrote: > > > Anyway, may be a little off topic, I found this paper > > interesting ,even though I don't agree with everything it says : > >http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1675 > > Ok. > > I am about halfway through. It seems like > much of the rest will be verifying the > relations for working with reals. > > So, what parts do you find problematic?
I haven't really got the time to look at it comprehensively . Basically, minimal logic seems to be a bit to extreme. Also , I'd take a different approach : namely , consider the "base logic" of the universe classical, and add modalities that can behave as different 'sub-logics' namely, intuitionistic logic . (Something along the lines of "?" where "(?a ) or (?(not a))" doesn't hold . Even if we hold that "CH or (not CH)" is valid , we needn't "complete the universe" with any one of the two . That has consequences, of course , for the modalities : something along the lines of "(not ( ?CH ) ) and (not ( ?(not CH) ) )" should be able to be proven valid . Add different modalities to represent the various aspect of epistemology (constructability, enumerability ,etc.) . Thus we can stop obsessing about things that we can't know (especially of things that we know we can't know ) . These things, of course , should be of no significant consequence, for if they were, the consequence in itself would allow us to deduce their "platonic" truth or falsity . To put it shortly : if the existence of God (pick one definition) would be of no consequence, then, perhaps we might still have theists and atheists, but it would be a meaningless distinction. Once concept I've been able to find who's truth or falsity is of no consequence is "superdeterminism" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism