I loosely identify with the schools of intuitinalism/construtivism/finitism. Primary idea is that the Law of the Excluded Middle is not meaningful.

So yes, generally not starting with ZFC.

I can't speak to "truth" in that sense. The skepticism here is skepticism of the utility of the ideas stemming from Cantor's Paradise. It ends up in a very naval-gazing place where you prove obviously false things (like Banach-Tarski) from the axioms but have no way to map these wildly non-constructive ideas back into the real world. Or where you construct a version of the reals where the reals that we can produce via any computation is a set of measure 0 in the reals.

▲

CyLith 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't understand why you believe Banach-Tarski to be obviously false. All that BT tells me is that matter is not modeled by a continuum since matter is composed of discrete atoms. This says nothing of the falsity of BT or the continuum.

	▲	blueplanet200 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		All that BT tells me is that when I break up a set (sphere) into multiple sets with no defined measure (how the construction works) I shouldn't expect reassemlbing those sets should have the same original measure as the starting set.

▲

dullcrisp 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Won’t the reals we can construct by any computation be enumerable? What measure can they have if not zero?

	▲	andrewla 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, they have measure zero. So the question becomes whether "measure" is a useful concept at all. In my opinion, no, it is not. It's just another artifact of non-constructive and meaningless abstractions. Many modern courses in analysis skip measure theory except as a historical artifact because the gauge integral is more powerful than the Lebesgue integral and doesn't require leaving the bounds of sanity to get there.