Bulgarian Academy of Science: Institute for

the Study of Societies and Knowledge:

Dept. of Logical Systems and Models
vasildinev@gmail.com

10:15 - 10:45, June 29th , University of

Istanbul, Room C
5th Congress in Universal Logic,
University of Istanbul, Turkey, 25-30 June 2015

The Gdel incompleteness can be modeled on

the alleged incompleteness of quantum
mechanics

Then the proved and even experimentally

confirmed completeness of quantum mechanics
can be reversely interpreted as a strategy of
completeness as to the foundation of
mathematics

The one supposes that the Gdel incompleteness

originates from the deficiency of the
mathematical structure, on which mathematics
should be grounded
However that deficiency can imply two alternative
and maybe equivalent ways for the cherished
completeness:
Qualitative deficiency: some other
mathematical structure rather than arithmetic
(e.g. geometry)
Quantitative deficiency: arithmetic but more
than one (e.g. two ones)

Which is the mathematical structure, on which

completeness can be proved?

In tradition originating from Hilbert and Gdel, that

should be arithmetic, but what are the reasons for
that choice?

Indeed arithmetic seems to be the simplest one, but

whether not too simple in order to be able to be
sufficient for grounding completeness?

In fact, the Gdel incompleteness theorems means

only that it is insufficient, but nothing about some
other one eventually ...

Set theory and arithmetic were what was put as

the base of mathematics

However set theory seemed to be controversial

allowing of paradoxes such as that of Russell (1902)
unlike arithmetic

So, the Hilbert idea (1928) for grounding set theory

on arithmetic appeared

That idea has not ever been more than one

hypothesis and still less its refusing can mean
anything about the foundation of mathematics at all

In fact, there is a well-known result, that of Gentzen

(1936)
It claims the self-foundation of arithmetic and thus
of mathematics at all merely substituting induction
with transfinite induction (and even only to is
what is necessary)
One can distinguish the Peano arithmetic from the
newly Gentzen one only by the axiom of induction
Then the Gentzen arithmetic would be sufficient
for the self-foundation of mathematics

However the transfinite induction seems to involve

implicitly and in advance infinity , that
controversial concept of set theory just which is
what should be to be grounded

Thus (along with his real or alleged complicity in

Nazism unlike Gdel who was a refugee from it)
Gentzens result has tended to be neglected in
favor of Gdels

In fact the real problem should be: What is

transfinite induction in comparison with the
standard, finite one?

Induction is the only interesting axiom among the

Peano ones in turn abstracted from Dedekinds
(1888), which grounded arithmetic on set theory, and
therefore breaking the vicious circle

Transfinite induction has used to be thought as a kind

of super-induction in infinity rather than to (or until)
infinity and thus containing the usual one as a true
subset

However it can be not less well defined as a second

induction therefore a second and independent Peano
arithmetic along with the first, standard one

Transfinite induction can be (e.g.) defined as a second

and independent induction thus:
Merely postulating it as such: After that the first
and second induction can be ordered
(not idempotent) or not (i.e. idempotent)
By distinguishing the successor function as
follows:

No one-to-one mapping of sets of and + 1

elements for the first induction (always + 1)

There is at least a one-to-one mapping of sets of

and + 1 elements for the second induction (not

Arithmetic and furthermore mathematics can be

self-founded consistently

This is able not to involve infinity either explicitly

or implicitly (which is an interpretation of
Gentzens finitism)

Infinity can be equally well defined as both

continuation of finiteness (continuity) and a leap
to a new dimension of finiteness (discreteness)

The concept of (quantum) information as the quantity

of choices underlies the foundation of mathematics
in fact:

Indeed the unit of information (a bit) is the choice

between two equally probable alternatives and thus
describes the mapping between a single arithmetic
(finiteness) and two ones (infinity)

The unit of quantum information (a qubit) is the

choice among an infinite set of alternatives and
describes the mapping between the finite
arithmetic and the infinite set theory

Quantum mechanics being a physical and

thus experimental science can be
nevertheless thoroughly reformulated in
terms of (quantum) information

Then quantum mechanics should be

interpreted as an empirical doctrine about
infinity after (quantum) information can
describe the relation between infinity and
finiteness quantitatively

Quantum mechanics is inherently dualistic theory for it

rests on the system of two fundamentally different
elements:

o The studied quantum entity, and

o The macroscopic apparatus measuring it
Of course both are finite, but two too different kinds of
finiteness: microscopic and macroscopic

If quantum mechanics studies eventually infinity in an

experimental way, this turns out to be possible just by
reducing infinity to a second and independent finiteness

If the first lesson repeated Gentzens, the

second one is unique and furthermore allows of
building a link between it and Gentzens

It consists in involving Hilbert space, a properly

geometric structure in its foundation and thus in
the foundation of mathematics

Indeed mathematics turns out to be able to

found itself as both two arithmetics and
geometry implicitly including arithmetic

Anyway why the arithmetic?

This turns out to be a random historical fact
appealing to intuition or to intellectual authorities
such as Cantor, Frege, Russell, Hilbert, Nicolas
Bourbaki, etc. rather than to any mathematical
proof

However arithmetic keeps its place in the

foundation of mathematics but forced to share it
whether with still one and independent arithmetic
or with geometry generalizing it in a sense

The so-called Gdel incompleteness theorems (1931)

demonstrated that set theory reducible to a single
arithmetic is irrelevant as the ground of mathematics

However they said nothing about some other

mathematical structures relevant for self-grounding
of mathematics

The quantum strategy allows of at least two direction

for researching those structures relevant to
completeness and still one corresponding to their
unification in terms of information as well

One can utilize an analogy to the so-called

fundamental theorem of algebra:

It needs a more general structure than the real

numbers, within which it can be proved

Analogically, the self-foundation of mathematics

needs some more general structure than the
positive integers in order to be provable

Still one key is Einsteins failure (however

nevertheless exceptionally fruitful) to show that
quantum mechanics is incomplete

The triple article (1935) designated merely EPR as

well Schrdingers study (also 1935) forecast the
phenomena of entanglement on the base of
Hilbert space

The incompleteness of set theory and arithmetic

and the alleged incompleteness of quantum
mechanics can be linked to each other inherently ...

The close friendship of the Princeton refugees Gdel

and Einstein (Yourgrau 2006) might address that fact

However, Gdel came to Princeton in 1940

The famous triple article of Einstein, Podolsky, and
Rosen Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? was
published in 1935

So, there should exist a common mathematical

structure underlying both completeness and
incompleteness

The mathematical formalism of quantum

mechanics is based on the complex Hilbert
space featuring by a few important properties
relevant to that structure capable to underlie
mathematics:

It is a generalization of positive integers

It is both discrete and continuous (even smooth)
It is invariant to the axiom of choice

Hilbert space is a generalization of positive integers:

Thus it involves countable infinity
Indeed it can be considered as a countable series of
empty qubits equivalent to 3D unit balls

If one shrinks these unit balls to 3D points (balls

with zero radius), Hilbert space will degenerate to
Peano arithmetic

Hilbert space is both discrete and continuous

(even smooth) in a sense:

It is that mathematical structure, in which the

main problem of quantum mechanics about
uniformly describing both discrete and smooth
(continuous) motion can be resolved

Furthermore, it is discrete between any two

qubits but smooth (continuous) within each of
them

Thus it can unify arithmetic and geometry

Hilbert space is invariant to the axiom of choice in a

sense:

Indeed any point in it (a wave function in quantum

mechanics) can be interpreted both as:

o The characteristic function of a certain probability

distribution of a single coherent state before
measurement, i.e. before choice (the Born
interpretation of quantum mechanics)

o The smooth space-time trajectory of a world

after measurement, i.e. after choice (the manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics)

This would mean the unification of:

The externality and internality of any infinite set
Model and reality in principle
The probabilistic and deterministic consideration
of the modeled reality

Along with that property of it to allow of uniformly

describing both discrete and smooth motion for
resolving the main problem of quantum mechanics

One can say that the crucial concept of all those

unifications is that of choice and thus (quantum)
information as the quantity of choices

Indeed it allows of reducing

o Two arithmetics to only one single (as bits of
information)

o Geometry to arithmetic (as qubits of quantum

information)

o And even much, much more: qubits of quantum

information to bits of information

The essence of set theory is the concept of

infinity and its link to arithmetic

Even more, that essence of set theory allows of

it to ground all mathematics though in a way yet
not consistent enough

Right the concept of information is what can

capture that core consistently

The Schrdinger equation is the most fundamental

equation in quantum mechanics
By the concept of (quantum) information, it can be
interpreted in terms of the foundation of mathematics
Then its sense would merely be that both ways for
infinity to be represented are equivalent two each
other. That is:
oA bit and a qubit can be equated energetically,
i.e. per a unit of time
oInfinity is quantitatively equivalent to a second
finiteness

One can describe that simple way for the Gdel

undecidable statements to be resolvable in two
arithmetics (besides Gentzens proof by transfinite
induction):

Any statement of that kind can be interpreted as if

its Gdel number coincide with that of its negation

The second dimension (for the second arithmetic)

allows the Gdel numbers of the statement and its
negation to be different always, i.e. for any
statement

Then once the Gdel incompleteness can be anyway

sidestepped, mathematics can found itself
consistently at a certain and rather surprising cost:

Mathematics turns out to be equivalent to the being

itself rather than to some true and thus limited part
of it: Of course, this might be called quantum
Pythagoreanism

Mathematics can self-ground only at the cost of

identifying with the world

Infinity is equivalent to a second and

independent finiteness

Two independent Peano arithmetics as well as

one single Hilbert space as an unification of
geometry and arithmetic are sufficient to the
self-foundation of mathematics

Quantum mechanics is inseparable from the

foundation of mathematics and thus from set
theory particularly

Dedekind, R. (1888) Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?

Einstein, A., B. Podolsky, N. Rosen (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

Gentzen, G. (1936) Die Widerspruchfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie

Gdel, K. (1931) ber formal unentscheidbare Stze der Principia
mathematica und verwandter Systeme I

Hilbert, D. (1928) Die Grundlagen Der Elementaren Zahlentheorie

Russell, B. (1902) Letter to Frege
Schrdinger, E. (1935) Die gegenwrtige Situation in der
Quantenmechanik

Yourgrau, P. (2006) A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of

Gdel and Einstein. New York: Perseus Books Group

Gerekten ilginiz
iin ok teekkr
ederim