[FOM] Challenge addressed by HoTT/UF that is not addressed by ZFC

[Stephen Gaito]

Dimitris,

On 12/04/16 03:21, Dimitris Tsementzis wrote:
> To be more precise, I can give you an account of the new foundations
>  using seven basic notions: *shape*, *point*, *symmetry*,
> *observation*, *juxtaposition*, *amalgamation*, *path* ['*'s added
> for emphasis]. These are the notions I used to convince myself that
> I could justify the rules of HoTT without resorting to to
> set-theoretic topology. (Resorting to set-theoretic topology seems to
> me clearly the wrong way to go for an *intuitive* justification of the
> rules of HoTT. Rather, it is the way to go for a *formal*
> justification, i.e. for relative consistency results.) Anyway I am
> prepared to do that — and in any case, as I have mentioned to you, I
> believe such an account is possible, even if I have not found the
> clearest way to do it.

Where would an interested reader go to find an account of HoTT using
these "seven basic notions: *shape*, *point*, *symmetry*, *observation*,
*juxtaposition*, *amalgamation*, *path*"?

(Even if they are not *yet* "the clearest way to do it".)

Regards,

Stephen Gaito