Part of the reason that you're going to run into trouble with sets being universal, or foundational, rightly found in a theorem that was birthed from set theory

Part of the reason that you're going to run into trouble with sets being universal, or foundational, rightly found in a theorem that was birthed from set theory, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem[0]. I will confess that when I took discrete in college I was seduced by set theory. I literally had the, naive, thought to myself "you could prove all of math with just sets!". As my education continued I found out, much to my chagrin, and Hiblert's[1], that I was very, very, mistaken. This hasn't stopped everyone from trying to continue Hilbert's program, though with a bit more limited scope[2][3]. By and large, all math is undergirded by a set of axioms that have to be taken as true with no proof. Even as far back as Euclid's Elements basically starts with a set of axioms and then proceeds from there. Strange that something that is so real must have a bunch of rules given as true with no proof of their validity beyond "well, everyone can see that it's true". In a final, ish, dig, I'll just say leave it up to Penrose to take Popper's sensible cosmology and turn it into a quasi-religious one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_t... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics