Prev: Derivations
Next: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
From: malbrain on 2 Aug 2005 17:19
george wrote:
> sradhakr wrote:
> > Thanks for acknowledging
> > that NAFL exists. Now can you take the next
> > step and understand why I
> > am objecting to Cantor, and in fact,
> > classical/intuitionistic logics?
>
> No, not yet. Infinity is problematic but that's
> no reason to wax all phobic about it.

(...)

> essentially as temporary axiomatic declarations in the
> > human mind. An undecidable proposition $P$ in a consistent
> > NAFL theory T is
>
> Is basically a contradiction in terms, because in NAFL
> theories, unlike in classical ones, nothing is undecidable;
> rather, things that WOULD be, classically, undecidable,
> are decided to have some 3rd superposed truth-value.

If you take the CONTRAPOSITIVE, contradictions become the premises and
conclusions become what's decidable. A very powerful concept that
REVERSES 20th century mathematics.

(...)
>
> > NAFL also explains and de-mystifies the phenomenon
> > of entanglement.
>
> Sorry, never heard of it.

Google for SIMPSON'S PARADOX AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

>
> > NAFL severely restricts classical infinitary reasoning,
> > but possibly provides sufficient machinery for a
> > consistent axiomatization of quantum mechanics.
>
> How are we supposed to be doing quantum mechanics if we
> can't even do arithmetic? Isn't one of these supposed
> to be HARDER than the other??

There's your "leap of faith" karl m

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217
Prev: Derivations
Next: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem