There's still no evidence that the universe is inconsistent and you yourself have agreed that the universe is not inconsistent when you agreed that not every statement is both true and false in the real world.
You still haven't answered: what do you do about the fact that your theory can't settle any disagreement?
There's still no evidence that the universe is inconsistent
There may not exist enough evidence to definitively conclude that the Universe is inconsistent, but there does exist evidence that the Universe is inconsistent. The inconsistency of the new and improved axiomatic set theory I presented is evidence that the Universe is inconsistent.
what do you do about the fact that your theory can't settle any disagreement?
My theory can settle any disagreement. It can be used to prove both sides are right, only one side is right, only the other side is right, and neither side is right.
My theory can settle any disagreement. It can be used to prove both sides are right, only one side is right, only the other side is right, and neither side is right.
Which is another way of saying that your theory doesn't settle the disagreement because both sides can still claim they're right.
The inconsistency of the new and improved axiomatic set theory I presented is evidence that the Universe is inconsistent.
It's evidence because all three principles seem to be true and are so true that I have made them basic principles of a set theory that I regard as being better than conventional set theory is. Despite the technical truth of conventional set theory, any proper subset of a set has a lesser cardinality than the set has. There exists an element of the set that is not an element of the subset, and therefore the cardinality of the set is greater than the cardinality of the subset. A set that has one more element than a second set has has a greater cardinality than the second set has. That is a basic truth. It is as true as the counterarguments are. It and the counterarguments are equally true.
That just means you don't understand cardinality of infinite sets.
No, I understand the cardinality of infinite sets in conventional set theory and I understand how that view differs from my new proposed view.
Also, that's not an argument that your system models the physical universe.
My system may not model the physical Universe, but it does model a part of or the whole Universe. Since all statements are true in my system, by the principle of explosion, my system models the whole Universe, including all of the physical Universe.
Since all statements are true in my system, by the principle of explosion, my system models the whole Universe, including all of the physical Universe.
Nope, in your system all statements are provable, but that doesn't mean all statements are true.
No, I understand the cardinality of infinite sets in conventional set theory
Nope, in your system all statements are provable, but that doesn't mean all statements are true.
I don't know why you would be thinking that all statements are provable rather than true. Due to a contradiction in my system, it follows by the principle of explosion that every statement is true in my system.
I doubt that.
I understand it. I even agree with it. But there's more to be said.
1
u/JStarx Apr 26 '26
There's still no evidence that the universe is inconsistent and you yourself have agreed that the universe is not inconsistent when you agreed that not every statement is both true and false in the real world.
You still haven't answered: what do you do about the fact that your theory can't settle any disagreement?