1

Context:

I'm a fan of different kinds of logic. I'm conflicted about whether different logics actually exist beyond, say, a philosophical oddity.

The Question:

Are quasi-sets (and therefore Schrödinger logic(s)) studied by mathematicians or are they purely in the domain of philosophers?

Clarifying Thoughts:

Aren't mathematicians philosophers in some sense?

Well, yes, and if they study this stuff, they're set theorists and/or logicians, probably, so even more so than others.

So, what am I really asking?

I am wondering - despite my better judgement (due to experience, see the downvotes) - about how "legitimate" quasi-sets are as actual, reputable mathematics.

I have Wikipedia and some articles I don't understand yet, readily available on Google scholar. This is niche stuff, I suppose, so citations aren't the strongest indication.

Why the proxy question, then?

Because mathematics is what I am trained in.

Motivation:

I don't want to end up a crank by studying things that might be questionable on a superficial level without due caution.


I care about quality questions. If this gets shot down as a poor question, I'm sorry, but I hope I could understand this stuff better either way.

Thank you.

Shaun
  • 47,747
  • 1
    We study quasiparticles and other emergent phenomenon already so I don't really think Schrödinger's philosophical concerns are warranted. Personally I share his monistic disposition but it is impractical to consider everything the same thing if we're to do science so I reject it for pragmatic reasons. Philosophers and mathematicians do love semantics though so I can see the appeal of new linguistic concepts to better capture the nature of reality. – CyclotomicField Jun 02 '24 at 22:29
  • The answer is in your linked wiki article. It is part of set-theory, a branch of mathematics. Do a search for the word Krause in the article. You are correct that it is niche, but modern. Read about Godel's incompleteness theorem too for good measure. – vallev Jun 13 '24 at 02:08
  • Thank you. I'd like a more reliable source than Wikipedia, though, @vallev. – Shaun Jun 13 '24 at 11:19

0 Answers0