[FOM] CH and mathematics
joeshipman@aol.com
joeshipman at aol.com
Mon Jan 28 01:22:05 EST 2008
Pitwosky's work by design had no testable predictions differing from
standard quantum mechanics -- its value was philosophical, in showing
that one could replace physical weirdness (spooky actions at a distance
or failures of experimenters' free will or faster-than-light
communication) with mathematical weirdness related to (but stronger
than) Banach-Tarski type phenomena.
To the extent one takes the metaphysics and philosophy seriously, one
can also use his work to argue for certain ZFC-independent mathematical
propositions as necessary to make the physics work, vindicating a
remark of Godel's that new axioms for set theory might come to be
accepted on the basis of their fruitfulness in physics. (Technically,
this depends on my result that "spin-1/2 functions" of the type
envisioned by Pitowsky can not be shown to exist within ZFC; but I do
not personally argue that spin-1/2 functions exist because I do not
agree with the metaphysical assumptions of Pitowsky's model.)
-- JS
-----Original Message-----
From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> 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
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
More information about the FOM
mailing list