Is the universe conservative?

[Annatala Wolf]

I understand the motivation behind the "non-apparentness" principle you
attempt to describe in the paper, but I'm having difficulty identifying the
heuristics you're using to determine when it should or should not apply.
For example, in section 2 you argue that V = L is apparent:

"The history of set theory has shown that there is probably no apparent
non-constructible set. Thus, the question arises of whether the principle
of non-apparentness applies, and V = L is a reasonable conclusion."

V = L implies AC. Under ZF(C) (in which you appear to be working based on
section 3), AC necessarily implies the existence of sets which cannot be
constructed. Why then is AC in the context of ZF, and thus V = L as well,
not non-apparent instead?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:40 PM <martdowd at aol.com> wrote:

> FOM:
>
> I've just posted
>  "Is the Universe Conservative?"
>  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344346210
>
> Abstract:
> Arguments are presented that $V=L$, indiscernibles do not exist,
> and certain small large cardinals do exist.
>
> - Martin Dowd
>
>

-- 
/* Annatala Wolf, Lecturer
 * Department of Computer Science and Engineering
 * The Ohio State University
 */
enum E{A;System s;String t="/* Annatala Wolf, Lecturer%n * Department of
Computer Science and Engineering%n * The Ohio State University%n */%nenum
E{A;System s;String
t=%c%s%1$c;{s.out.printf(t,34,t);s.exit(0);}}";{s.out.printf(t,34,t);s.exit(0);}}
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20201002/42ba36a2/attachment.html>