[Agamus]

Thank you for the reply - I very much appreciate the counterargument.

If I have it right, the claim would be to undermine (the ontological basis of) logic itself, as the flaw is found, not in math, but in the underlying assumption in material, individual things - hence the connection to field theory. It may be more accurate to say that the flaw is not in logic or math, but in ontology - our understanding of what kind of things exist. From there, logic optimistically assumes a 'flawed' ontology.

For what it is worth, Roger Boscovich speculated on similar metaphysical claims in his 19th C field theory work.

[hither_shores]

> From there, logic optimistically assumes a 'flawed' ontology.

Logic doesn't assume any ontology. You're free to treat it as a purely formal string-manipulation game if you really want to.

Approaching math or physics as if it were part of the humanities - close readings of primary sources, "genealogical" work, literary exegesis - is worse than useless. If you can't do math, you don't understand it. And if you don't understand math, productive engagement with the philosophy of mathematics is impossible.

[Agamus]

I disagree, but would rather converse on the topic than argue, so that's thats.