- In an elder book of BOCHENSKI (from the 1950ties) I once stumbled on the CLAIM, that ARISTOTELES has given a PROOF, that METHOD OF INDUCTION IN LAST CONSEQUENCE DOES NOT work, because the socalled “complete induction” does not work. Or to put it more popular: If you try to derive human behavior from experiments with rats you will produce a RAT-Morphology but NO REAL THEORY FOR HUMANS, behind which is the OLD assumption, that the HIGHER cannot be reached IN TOTAL from the BELOW, but that the BELOW may be derived from the HIGHER. We may even go as far as to try, that THIS OBSERVATION may be the REASON, why we find in MATHEMATICS some sort of PREVALENCE OF AXIOMATICAL METHODS, so that it SEEMS prima vista, that there is NO EQUIVALENT BALANCE between INDUCTIVE and AXIOMATICAL method, so that you cannnot ‘SWITCH FREELY between them, which seems ANTI-INTUITIVE (at least to me).
Second question would be: What may be according to your professional expertise the MEANING of the GOEDEL theorems? Do they imply a RECURSUS AD INFINITUM, so that the PROGRAM OF HILBERT (for laying certain ground to mathematics) has failed? It is really strange for me: I really wonder, why I so far could not find any sufficient deep discussion of this question, which insofar may turn out DESASTROUS, in that we by Goedel are led into a situation, in which we have SCIENCES, that are WORKING “somehow”, but cannot any longer give SUFFICIENT REASON WHY THIS SHOULD BE SO BEYOND DOUBT. Insofar your chapters on “quantum logics” really were interesting update for me, which leads to the next question.
If we today have COMPUTERISIZED PROOF-TECHNIQUES, which by no PRACTICAL means can be REPEATED FOR CONTROL, may this indicate, that “somehow” MATHEMATICS IS WITHIN THE VERY BASIS OF THIS UNIVERSE, say as some sort of “quasi-PHYSICAL” “function” of minimal potentials within the NEAR-VACUUM? Sorry, this because of shortage tending little bit to SCIENCE-SLANG without exact differentiated meaning!
I once stumbeled upon a 3-value-logics (for language) with 3 values for truth, which are “true”, “false” and “undecided” or “neutral”. Would it now be appropriate, to take for further argumentations an ASSOCIATION, AS IF IT SEEMS, that this somehow SEEMS TO CORRELATE with the Heisenberg “Uncertainty-formula”? And IF such BRIDGE from logics to physics MAY be confirmed, would this mean, that – theoretical possible – MULTIPLE n-value logics would lead to HYPERPHYSICS of some sort, say for instance strange geometries of non-conventional space?
Buike Science and Music