Also, the author seems more than a bit arrogant and deluded: http://settheory.net/life -- I would _not_ touch any of this stuff with a 40 foot pole.
one thing I learned is that knowing more doesn't make us happy. knowledge can be the key that opens a door to insanity.
whether he is a lunatic or genius is hard to say without evaluating the quality of his work.
This obsession with I am a genius is bordering on pathological narcissism, excluding oneself from the society because one's too smart to be understood by the world is a very dangerous slippery slope. On the other hand, while in a healthy way, I applaud when one sticks to their own ways. I just wish humility was mode widely practiced. We are not gods, we're just some creatures that have varying degrees of intelligence, but nothing special.
Good luck to you young thinker but remember we are to enjoy this life and the people around us. Don't be lonely and miserable trying to prove everybody wrong, it's pointless.
Here, I read some of what they had to say about "infoliberalism" -- the immediate issue that I have with their position is that they make some kind of claim that a few participants in it would naturally lead to a revolution. They then go on to claim that the system is completely decentralized, but also complain that not one other person is willing to join. If their system were truly decentralized, and also something that would provide significant benefits to participants over the existing social/economic/political order, why is the number of practitioners exactly one? All of this screams quackery.
Unfortunately his prose borders on unreadable. There may very well be excellent ideas here, but until he follows the commandment "omit needless words" nobody is going to wade through it.
But his capacity for logic doesn't seem to be affected. English isn't his first language, but he still writes in full, grammatically correct sentences that are very clear. Wordy and emotional - yes. But not mentally ill.
I think we should be careful not to dismiss/overlook people because we don't share their emotional perspective on the world. In other words, just because he's a unique character doesn't mean his take on set theory should be ignored.
From a very brief click through (and from my own fairly superficial memory of the topic), it doesn't seem to be extremely unconventional. At the very least, it's not standing shoulder to shoulder with Timecube.
And he's uspet that it didn't pan out, and he's quite clear on a fairly reasonable, if hyperbolic, explanation of why the ideas didn't work.
I read it as him coming to grips with the common blind spot of "my ideology would work just fine except for all the people who don't hold my ideology". You hear it from proponents of all major ideologies; liberalism "they're on the wrong side of history", conservatism "what happened to common sense?!" and libertarianism "but in a libertarian society..."
His stuff is ranty and tone-deaf, and he probably shouldn't include it on a page on set theory, but he's not delusional.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like anything like "Infoliberalism" has ever been tested (and the author even _says_ as much). Before jumping on the boat of a radical political ideology, I'm sure that any reasonable person would at least like to have an _idea_ of what it leads to.
And I think for any new idea that is non-trivial, whether it's a new ideology, business plan, or whatever, a reasonable person also has to admit the only practical way to figure out if a thing works is to do it.
This doesn't discount Knuths' major contributions to the field. No one is perfect. Even the most logical, intelligent person could have aspects of himself that are illogical.
If the OP's set theory stuff is good, I wouldn't let his emotional rants affect my judgement of this.