You state, "Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by
other than the belief of the majority of mathematicians." That's an
interesting observation, and it shows that much of what we take as "proven,"
from math to religion, is something that we accept as true because
authorities have said it's true.
It's certainly true that if a majority of mathematicians (or TOE
theorists) claim that something that I don't understand is proven, then I'll
accept it as proven UNLESS the "proof" is inconsistent. By inconsistent I
mean that if a set of formulae can be used to prove a contradiction, they
are inconsistent. I suppose that definition is the same as Bruno's. Is
that what you mean by inconsistent?
In any case, just because fifty million Frenchmen, mathematicians, TOE
theorists, or True Believers of one sort or another, say that something is
true, doesn't make it true.
And I don't believe that anything can be both true and inconsistent.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
I suppose a person would hope that a theory they propose is in some way
global but I was talking about the idea that "belief" is a factor in
mathematical as well as other discourse.
Bruno said in an earlier post in this thread:
"A proposition P is logically possible, relatively to
1) a consistent set of beliefs A
2) the choice of a deduction system D (and then consistent
means "does not derive 0=1)."
Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by other than the
belief of the majority of mathematicians.