the Buddhist position

Well, it seems absurd, but as you try to adopt the position, it’s very easy to defend. Basically, as they say, all for one and one for all. Or everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Therefore nothing is important; nothing should be attached to; and one should let go of all. And there is nothing to begin with, so nothing to let go of at all! Then you enter this supreme calmness. There is nothing and everything and all these coming-and-go images. You are alone. You come alone and go alone. It’s like traveling. I don’t know if it’s … Continue reading I found the Buddhist position defendable!

The short answer that I know is positive. Let’s talk about PA. It has a model, namely the set of natural numbers, hence it’s consistent. Likewise ZFC is consistent in a larger model. Well, that’s a proof, which I don’t fully understand, but does that mean you can’t prove 1 = 0 in PA forever? There are counter-evidences as well. First a US mathematician tried to prove the inconsistency of arithmetic, I think it’s Ed Nelson. But Terence Tao later found a bug. But if the above proof works so well, why did he try at all? That’s one. Second, … Continue reading Is arithmetic consistent?