Thank you, Harv,
I will not belabor the point much, but a little.


that pragmatic considerations is our connection with the world (not logic and not math).

One "pragmatic" area is in management, which decides what becomes of "energy." If an idea's consequences would disturb the ability of dominant primates to maintain their popularity,
they will sometimes suppress consideration of its merits. They are, after all, frail mortals.

Information in politics can be seen at the level of waves, particles, vectors and momentum...


if every time we assumed bivalence (i.e., that something can either be true or false) and ended up making an error in judgement of the world (e.g., early hunters missed the opportunity to get a deer for supper), then no doubt classical logic would not include the principle of bivalence.

You probably would agree: we are transitioning from natural to artificial times with enhanced use of the "drawing board" for selecting the future.... and artificial bivalence is sometimes
more perceptive than our natural perception.

(Simple bivalence has many sharp edges but
highly digitized bivalience enables every color
to show and small details to fit especially well
after our work is done.)

So, to serve the lovely living mortals,
I want logic and math to be worked to their limits, but as you have illustrated, not beyond.

Same to you,
Mike