[FOM] CH and mathematics

[hendrik@topoi.pooq.com]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:24:49AM -0500, Alasdair Urquhart wrote:
> 
> Pitowsky's construction uses the Banach-Tarski paradox to 
> construct a highly nonstandard "quasi-probability" function that is then 
> employed to construct the theory.  The function has odd features, for
> example, in his model, two events can have quasi-probability 1 
> but their intersection quasi-probability 0 (p. 2320).
> 
> Whatever one thinks of this result, it is very, very far removed
> from the mainstream of physics and so I don't 
> think it provides clear evidence of the relevance of set theory to 
> physics.  I don't mean this as a criticism of Pitowsky, who states
> explicitly: "The proposed model is by no means intended as an
> alternative to quantum mechanics" (p. 2317).

Did it have any testable predictions?

-- hendrik