4 found
Order:
  1.  31
    Are the Barriers That Inhibit Mathematical Models of a Cyclic Universe, Which Admits Broken Symmetries, Dark Energy, and an Expanding Multiverse, Illusory?Bhupinder Singh Anand - manuscript
    We argue the thesis that if (1) a physical process is mathematically representable by a Cauchy sequence; and (2) we accept that there can be no infinite processes, i.e., nothing corresponding to infinite sequences, in natural phenomena; then (a) in the absence of an extraneous, evidence-based, proof of `closure' which determines the behaviour of the physical process in the limit as corresponding to a `Cauchy' limit; (b) the physical process must tend to a discontinuity (singularity) which has not been reflected (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  26
    Do Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems Set Absolute Limits on the Ability of the Brain to Express and Communicate Mental Concepts Verifiably?Bhupinder Singh Anand - 2004 - Neuroquantology 2:60-100.
    Classical interpretations of Goedels formal reasoning, and of his conclusions, implicitly imply that mathematical languages are essentially incomplete, in the sense that the truth of some arithmetical propositions of any formal mathematical language, under any interpretation, is, both, non-algorithmic, and essentially unverifiable. However, a language of general, scientific, discourse, which intends to mathematically express, and unambiguously communicate, intuitive concepts that correspond to scientific investigations, cannot allow its mathematical propositions to be interpreted ambiguously. Such a language must, therefore, define mathematical truth (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  31
    The Truth Assignments That Differentiate Human Reasoning From Mechanistic Reasoning: The Evidence-Based Argument for Lucas' Goedelian Thesis.Bhupinder Singh Anand - 2016 - Cognitive Systems Research 40:35-45.
    We consider the argument that Tarski's classic definitions permit an intelligence---whether human or mechanistic---to admit finitary evidence-based definitions of the satisfaction and truth of the atomic formulas of the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA over the domain N of the natural numbers in two, hitherto unsuspected and essentially different, ways: (1) in terms of classical algorithmic verifiabilty; and (2) in terms of finitary algorithmic computability. We then show that the two definitions correspond to two distinctly different assignments of satisfaction and truth (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Three Dogmas of First-Order Logic and Some Evidence-Based Consequences for Constructive Mathematics of Differentiating Between Hilbertian Theism, Brouwerian Atheism and Finitary Agnosticism.Bhupinder Singh Anand - manuscript
    We show how removing faith-based beliefs in current philosophies of classical and constructive mathematics admits formal, evidence-based, definitions of constructive mathematics; of a constructively well-defined logic of a formal mathematical language; and of a constructively well-defined model of such a language. -/- We argue that, from an evidence-based perspective, classical approaches which follow Hilbert's formal definitions of quantification can be labelled `theistic'; whilst constructive approaches based on Brouwer's philosophy of Intuitionism can be labelled `atheistic'. -/- We then adopt what may (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark