If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Glenn Gomes**: *on* 11/23/12 at 17:25pm UTC, wrote Hello Ben, Please forgive me for the lateness of my response! Having just...

**Benjamin Dribus**: *on* 10/5/12 at 3:21am UTC, wrote Dear Glenn, Thanks for your important contribution! After reading your...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 7:11am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/26/12 at 9:10am UTC, wrote Dear Glenn Gomes I think so : Mathematics is just a tool to do the job is...

**Glenn Gomes**: *on* 9/15/12 at 12:03pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much for the kind words and reading my essay! I was having a...

**Glenn Gomes**: *on* 9/15/12 at 11:48am UTC, wrote Vladimir, Thank you for looking at my paper! I shall have to read this...

**Glenn Gomes**: *on* 9/14/12 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Hello Jayakar, Thank you for directing me to your essay. In terms of...

**Glenn Gomes**: *on* 9/14/12 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Eckard, I have tried to be nice, but stop being a troll. You've been doing...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

**Steve Agnew**: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Agnew**: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..."
*in* The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 20, 2019

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Of Mathematics and Radical Change: Alain Badiou’s Set-Theoretical Ontology by Glenn Gomes [refresh]

TOPIC: Of Mathematics and Radical Change: Alain Badiou’s Set-Theoretical Ontology by Glenn Gomes [refresh]

This paper endeavors to describe an ability, right in the Being of mathematics, to sustain a dogmatic set of scientific theories along with the very mechanism for their eventual questioning and upheaval by committed individuals. Mathematics is the indisputable foundation upon which our thought and discourse of the physical universe stands. But what if this foundation is inherently cracked? And what if our well-intentioned attempts to create complete and consistent theories of the world merely act to cover up and repress these congenital cracks, only to have them manifest in the form of anomalies that can rupture our closely-held scientific beliefs and worldviews if we choose to interrogate them? This paper brings these possibilities to light by reviewing the development of the axiomatic set-theory that grounds our modern mathematics, and the resulting opportunity for scientific revolution and theory change that it allows for. Our project proceeds through the lens of philosopher Alain Badiou’s work on a set-theoretical ontology, and his attempt to use the discourse of set theory to describe the very mechanism of revolution within such afar fields as mathematics, politics, and art. We conclude with a case study of the Einsteinian revolution from within the Newtonian world of physical theories, through crucial innovations in non-Euclidian geometry, as an example of how unquestioned and dogmatically reinforced cracks in a quasi-complete scientific system can bear the fruits of radical change and transformation, and how approaches to set-theory provide the ontological description of these important phenomena.

Glenn Gomes is a graduate of Columbia University with a degree in Biomedical Engineering and minors in Philosophy and Religion. He has worked at UC Davis Medical Center as a research specialist, researching schizophrenia and bipolar disorder through EEG and fMRI imaging. He is currently pursuing both his MD and MPH at Tufts University School of Medicine.

Hi Glenn Gomes,

I looked in vain for the radical change promised in the title. Except for who commented on set theory, Riemannian geometry and the like in which fashion, I did not find anything I was not yet aware of. Well, some quoted sentences correspond to my own attitude. However, where are concrete applications?

Some radical comments in my essay will definitely shock you. Please be nonetheless fair, try to understand and possibly refute my factual arguments. If you are an independent thinker I may even hope you will overcome what you learned.

You quoted someone unknown to me who did not mention Euclid: "The axiomatization of set theory as the foundation for mathematics completed the process begun by Descartes and the arithmetization of geometry, namely, the liberation of mathematics from all spatial or sensory intuition."

Descartes resumed ancient geometry which culminated in Euclid's axioms and his anything but intuitive definition of number, I revealed the issue of intuition mainly the other was round than set theorists, and I consider arithmetization a method that does not need illusory intuitively based (set theoretic) rigor. Admittedly there were and still are only a few opponents to set theory.

In my essay I quoted one out of 16 more of less intriguing contributions by Detlef D. Spalt. Perhaps you do not even know his name.

You wrote "... universe of Cantor’s that was properly axiomatized by Ersnt Zermelo and Abaraham Fraenkel ...". Sorry, I see four bewildering details.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I looked in vain for the radical change promised in the title. Except for who commented on set theory, Riemannian geometry and the like in which fashion, I did not find anything I was not yet aware of. Well, some quoted sentences correspond to my own attitude. However, where are concrete applications?

Some radical comments in my essay will definitely shock you. Please be nonetheless fair, try to understand and possibly refute my factual arguments. If you are an independent thinker I may even hope you will overcome what you learned.

You quoted someone unknown to me who did not mention Euclid: "The axiomatization of set theory as the foundation for mathematics completed the process begun by Descartes and the arithmetization of geometry, namely, the liberation of mathematics from all spatial or sensory intuition."

Descartes resumed ancient geometry which culminated in Euclid's axioms and his anything but intuitive definition of number, I revealed the issue of intuition mainly the other was round than set theorists, and I consider arithmetization a method that does not need illusory intuitively based (set theoretic) rigor. Admittedly there were and still are only a few opponents to set theory.

In my essay I quoted one out of 16 more of less intriguing contributions by Detlef D. Spalt. Perhaps you do not even know his name.

You wrote "... universe of Cantor’s that was properly axiomatized by Ersnt Zermelo and Abaraham Fraenkel ...". Sorry, I see four bewildering details.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Hello Eckard,

Thank you for your comments! I'm impressed that none of this was new to you, but I imagine that much of it will be for others. Let me see if I can clarify some of your specific concerns:

1) What is "radical change"? In Badiou's language, radical change would correspond to a complete rupture in the prevailing bodies (sets) and languages (predicates) of a situation through the forcing and incorporation of a generic set. In socio-scientific language, this would correspond to a traditional Kuhnian "paradigm shift" where a new discovery, or change in perspective, in response to theoretical stress may cause a complete break with the current paradigm and create a new paradigm incommensurable to the initial one. (I had wanted to include a section on how I believe Badiou to have, in a way, described a mathematical formalization of Khunian paradigms and paradigm shifts, but there was no space). The key here is a "complete" rupture with the current state of affairs, not due to some mystical intervention, but through the work of committed individuals.

I tried to argue the Einstienian revolution as an example of such a radical change/paradigm shift that may be formally descibed using the set-theoretical ontology outlined in the paper. The beauty of Badiou's philosophy is its being a philosophy of "praxis": a philosophy that claims to tie this mathemtical ideology to actual practice. I will refer you to Badiou's works for how he applies this set-theory (as well as category theory) to actual/historical mathematical, political, and artistic situations. So as not to take up too much space here, I can give more examples myself if you (or others) request them. I personally find these practical applications fascinating.

Additionally, radical change may be contrasted with what Badiou calls mere "modification" or "simple becoming" of a situation; akin to a Khunian "reinforcing" of the dominant paradigm, where a scientific innovation may occur, but still falls under the language of that paradigm.

2) The quote you mention is from Peter Hallward, a philosopher and foremost commentor of Badiou's works. I chose the quote because I felt that it perfectly expressed both the crucial philisophical stakes and mathematical stakes involved in the axiomatization of set theory. I had no intention of mentioning Euclid at that point.

3) I have not heard of Mr. Spalt , but will look him up. I am curently travelling, but will read your essay as soon as I get the chance!

4) While it was Cantor that formulated the basics of set-theory, it was Zermelo and Frankel (amongst others) who axiomatized Cantor's principles. I do not believe this to be a point of contention, unless I am missing something?

Please let me know if you have any more questions, and thank you for the comments!

- Glenn

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comments! I'm impressed that none of this was new to you, but I imagine that much of it will be for others. Let me see if I can clarify some of your specific concerns:

1) What is "radical change"? In Badiou's language, radical change would correspond to a complete rupture in the prevailing bodies (sets) and languages (predicates) of a situation through the forcing and incorporation of a generic set. In socio-scientific language, this would correspond to a traditional Kuhnian "paradigm shift" where a new discovery, or change in perspective, in response to theoretical stress may cause a complete break with the current paradigm and create a new paradigm incommensurable to the initial one. (I had wanted to include a section on how I believe Badiou to have, in a way, described a mathematical formalization of Khunian paradigms and paradigm shifts, but there was no space). The key here is a "complete" rupture with the current state of affairs, not due to some mystical intervention, but through the work of committed individuals.

I tried to argue the Einstienian revolution as an example of such a radical change/paradigm shift that may be formally descibed using the set-theoretical ontology outlined in the paper. The beauty of Badiou's philosophy is its being a philosophy of "praxis": a philosophy that claims to tie this mathemtical ideology to actual practice. I will refer you to Badiou's works for how he applies this set-theory (as well as category theory) to actual/historical mathematical, political, and artistic situations. So as not to take up too much space here, I can give more examples myself if you (or others) request them. I personally find these practical applications fascinating.

Additionally, radical change may be contrasted with what Badiou calls mere "modification" or "simple becoming" of a situation; akin to a Khunian "reinforcing" of the dominant paradigm, where a scientific innovation may occur, but still falls under the language of that paradigm.

2) The quote you mention is from Peter Hallward, a philosopher and foremost commentor of Badiou's works. I chose the quote because I felt that it perfectly expressed both the crucial philisophical stakes and mathematical stakes involved in the axiomatization of set theory. I had no intention of mentioning Euclid at that point.

3) I have not heard of Mr. Spalt , but will look him up. I am curently travelling, but will read your essay as soon as I get the chance!

4) While it was Cantor that formulated the basics of set-theory, it was Zermelo and Frankel (amongst others) who axiomatized Cantor's principles. I do not believe this to be a point of contention, unless I am missing something?

Please let me know if you have any more questions, and thank you for the comments!

- Glenn

report post as inappropriate

Hi Glen,

If I was young and educated as were you and many others, I too would definitely have no chance to question that Kuhnian (you wrote twice Khunian) paradigm shifts towards set theory and Einstein's theory of relativity are necessary steps in the correct direction.

Please do not take it amiss if I suspect your knowledge of German language is at best limited. And since you wrote "Cantor which" instead of "Cantor who" and your name is Gomez, I guess your background could be Spanish. Profound command of German is a must for anybody who intends to read Spalt because his books were not yet translated into English. It is also highly recommendable reading the original papers by Georg Cantor, Zermelo, Hilbert, Fraenkel, Einstein (you wrote Einstien), Hermann Weyl in German.

Is Badiou's philosophy "that claims to tie this mathemtical ideology to actual practice" really practical? The topic of this contest is: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions is Wrong?".

Do you know that Fraenkel (you wrote Frankel) in [7] of my essay could not deny that Cantor's definition of an infinite set was untenable? Zermelo in 1904 and 1908 seemingly rescued Cantor's paradise by fabricating the axiom of choice based on the exhaustion of the inexhaustible. Cantor himself who had driven Kronecker in desperation got insane and died in a madhouse.

Eckard

post approved

If I was young and educated as were you and many others, I too would definitely have no chance to question that Kuhnian (you wrote twice Khunian) paradigm shifts towards set theory and Einstein's theory of relativity are necessary steps in the correct direction.

Please do not take it amiss if I suspect your knowledge of German language is at best limited. And since you wrote "Cantor which" instead of "Cantor who" and your name is Gomez, I guess your background could be Spanish. Profound command of German is a must for anybody who intends to read Spalt because his books were not yet translated into English. It is also highly recommendable reading the original papers by Georg Cantor, Zermelo, Hilbert, Fraenkel, Einstein (you wrote Einstien), Hermann Weyl in German.

Is Badiou's philosophy "that claims to tie this mathemtical ideology to actual practice" really practical? The topic of this contest is: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions is Wrong?".

Do you know that Fraenkel (you wrote Frankel) in [7] of my essay could not deny that Cantor's definition of an infinite set was untenable? Zermelo in 1904 and 1908 seemingly rescued Cantor's paradise by fabricating the axiom of choice based on the exhaustion of the inexhaustible. Cantor himself who had driven Kronecker in desperation got insane and died in a madhouse.

Eckard

post approved

Well now, if this isn't precisely the point.

We are loathe to question the characteristics of our own shadow -- let alone even enumerate them in the first place -- because we're just too busy forcing the rest of the universe to conform to our strict beliefs.

Bravo!

report post as inappropriate

We are loathe to question the characteristics of our own shadow -- let alone even enumerate them in the first place -- because we're just too busy forcing the rest of the universe to conform to our strict beliefs.

Bravo!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edward and Glenn,

You are invited see the result of radical thinking in mathematics in the essay on Five Dimensions of universe .

You will see,w e question validity of arithmatic numbers to express quantity and reach a subset of transfinite numbers that can express the quantity.

Look forward to your evaluation on departure from conventional approach to mathematics.

thanks & Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

You are invited see the result of radical thinking in mathematics in the essay on Five Dimensions of universe .

You will see,w e question validity of arithmatic numbers to express quantity and reach a subset of transfinite numbers that can express the quantity.

Look forward to your evaluation on departure from conventional approach to mathematics.

thanks & Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Dear Glenn Gomes,

Law of sines for tetrahedral, may be applicable to describe the string dynamics of the infinite universe for quantizing in finite conditions, in that its consistency in continuum is expressional.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Law of sines for tetrahedral, may be applicable to describe the string dynamics of the infinite universe for quantizing in finite conditions, in that its consistency in continuum is expressional.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Hello Glenn,

Very interesting and unusual essay for the contest. It makes us look for new ways to solve old problems in the foundations of physics and mathematics. I constantly read and ponder in this regard the paper by Zenkin «Scientific Counter-Revolution in Mathematics» and contemplate his idea: "the truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators".

Sincerely, Vladimir Rogozhin

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting and unusual essay for the contest. It makes us look for new ways to solve old problems in the foundations of physics and mathematics. I constantly read and ponder in this regard the paper by Zenkin «Scientific Counter-Revolution in Mathematics» and contemplate his idea: "the truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators".

Sincerely, Vladimir Rogozhin

report post as inappropriate

Glenn

I noted your attitude to non- euclidean geometry

In the last essay competition my essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

dedicated ANALOGY BETWEEN PHYSICS AND MATH.

Can you comment?

report post as inappropriate

I noted your attitude to non- euclidean geometry

In the last essay competition my essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

dedicated ANALOGY BETWEEN PHYSICS AND MATH.

Can you comment?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Glenn Gomes

I think so :

Mathematics is just a tool to do the job is directed by the thinking of intellectual.

It only accepted to manifest when a result of the thinking of intellectual was accepted.

Mathematics is a great tool, the errors can not be caused by a tool.

In my opinion: we be must to fix for people who have used the tool.

How do you think ?

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

I think so :

Mathematics is just a tool to do the job is directed by the thinking of intellectual.

It only accepted to manifest when a result of the thinking of intellectual was accepted.

Mathematics is a great tool, the errors can not be caused by a tool.

In my opinion: we be must to fix for people who have used the tool.

How do you think ?

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is and was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have of points. After it anyone give you of points so you have of points and is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: or or In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points then the participant`s rating was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Glenn,

Thanks for your important contribution! After reading your essay, I looked at your bio expecting to find you an eminent mathematician in one of the world's great research institutions and was surprised to see that you are on another path entirely! Regarding your essay, some thoughts come to mind:

1. Nice discussion of Cantor, set theory, and ordinals. In my own efforts to understand quantum gravity, I have found it necessary to deal with something similar, though somewhat more general (which I call a "semiordinal;" the object in footnote 14 of my essay is an example of one). All this arises from the most naive physical ideas of cause and effect and reasonable local conditions!

2. I've run into the continuum hypothesis in thinking about physics too! It's funny how most people regard these things (and other "purely mathematical issues" like undecidability and the uncountable axiom of choice) as physically irrelevant when they are anything but.

3. Regarding ZFC, Russell's paradox, etc... as you know the ordinals form a proper class, not a set. Hence, again these issues become physically relevant from the most primitive physical considerations.

4. Regarding Godel's work and model theory... Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga, Jerzy Krol, and Michael Goodband all have excellent essays here that would interest you.

5. Regarding geometry, as an aspiring algebraic geometer, I strongly suspect that the geometry of smooth manifolds may ultimately prove "too good to be true" in regard to spacetime structure. But it's been fantastically useful and astonishingly accurate so far.

6. Excellent endnotes!

Thanks again for the interesting read! Your work rates very highly in my opinion. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your important contribution! After reading your essay, I looked at your bio expecting to find you an eminent mathematician in one of the world's great research institutions and was surprised to see that you are on another path entirely! Regarding your essay, some thoughts come to mind:

1. Nice discussion of Cantor, set theory, and ordinals. In my own efforts to understand quantum gravity, I have found it necessary to deal with something similar, though somewhat more general (which I call a "semiordinal;" the object in footnote 14 of my essay is an example of one). All this arises from the most naive physical ideas of cause and effect and reasonable local conditions!

2. I've run into the continuum hypothesis in thinking about physics too! It's funny how most people regard these things (and other "purely mathematical issues" like undecidability and the uncountable axiom of choice) as physically irrelevant when they are anything but.

3. Regarding ZFC, Russell's paradox, etc... as you know the ordinals form a proper class, not a set. Hence, again these issues become physically relevant from the most primitive physical considerations.

4. Regarding Godel's work and model theory... Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga, Jerzy Krol, and Michael Goodband all have excellent essays here that would interest you.

5. Regarding geometry, as an aspiring algebraic geometer, I strongly suspect that the geometry of smooth manifolds may ultimately prove "too good to be true" in regard to spacetime structure. But it's been fantastically useful and astonishingly accurate so far.

6. Excellent endnotes!

Thanks again for the interesting read! Your work rates very highly in my opinion. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Hello Ben,

Please forgive me for the lateness of my response! Having just started medical school, it has been both exciting and overwhelming. I must say though, reading your comments absolutely made my day, and I very much appreciate them and take them to heart.

I actually had a very hard time deciding whether to go into graduate school for philosophy of science/mathematics, which is my passion. However, I also saw myself doing good community work as a physician. This paper was my attempt to contribute an introduction on Alain Badiou's philosophical work to mathematicians and scientists, before leaving these topics for medicine; at least until the future. I was a bit hesitant to submit it, unsure of how relevant it was to the contest topic, and in comparison to the high level physics papers also submitted by experts in those fields. But it is comments like yours that make it worth it to me, regardless of the contest outcome.

I'm happy that you enjoyed the paper. I will try my best to read the papers you have recommended, and particularly your submission. You will forgive me again if I am delayed with this.

This tension between how we conceptualize mathematics and their relation to physical entities is, I agree, absolutely fascinating. I must read more on the attempts to bring algebra and geometry together, and I wish you all the best in your endeavors. Thank you again for reading my paper, and for your generous comments.

All the best,

Glenn

Please forgive me for the lateness of my response! Having just started medical school, it has been both exciting and overwhelming. I must say though, reading your comments absolutely made my day, and I very much appreciate them and take them to heart.

I actually had a very hard time deciding whether to go into graduate school for philosophy of science/mathematics, which is my passion. However, I also saw myself doing good community work as a physician. This paper was my attempt to contribute an introduction on Alain Badiou's philosophical work to mathematicians and scientists, before leaving these topics for medicine; at least until the future. I was a bit hesitant to submit it, unsure of how relevant it was to the contest topic, and in comparison to the high level physics papers also submitted by experts in those fields. But it is comments like yours that make it worth it to me, regardless of the contest outcome.

I'm happy that you enjoyed the paper. I will try my best to read the papers you have recommended, and particularly your submission. You will forgive me again if I am delayed with this.

This tension between how we conceptualize mathematics and their relation to physical entities is, I agree, absolutely fascinating. I must read more on the attempts to bring algebra and geometry together, and I wish you all the best in your endeavors. Thank you again for reading my paper, and for your generous comments.

All the best,

Glenn

Login or create account to post reply or comment.