Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual things have individual localized existences, but existence (reality) itself is everywhere because it defines the logical space of reality by its existence.
The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Milk is created by female mammals in case you had some doubt? :-) Next question: Reality IS a computational MACHINE in the general sense of machine. Thus of course consistency applies to it. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Jason, > > > > A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most > > basic axioms and concepts of the theory. > > > > 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. > > So you assume: > > 0. non-existence cannot exist. > > That is too fuzzy for me. The non existence of milk in my fridge seems > to be a persistent fact. > > Also, we have almost invent logic to avoid expression like "existence > exist". What is existence? existence of what? > > I think you could replace 1. with "something exists". In which case I > can agree. > > > > > > > 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. > > Consistent applies to theories or machines, or person, not to reality. > > Reality should be the intended model (in the logician sense) of your > theory. You should not invoke the reality in your theory. This makes > you very near inconsistency. > > This is really a meta-axiom, you are jet betting on rationalism. If > that is the case, I can agree. > > Not sure what you mean by "logically complete". If it means that > "reality" satisfies all true propositions, then it is trivial. for > example the arithmetical truth is defined by the set of all true > arithmetical propositions. It can be seen as a theory, but not an > axiomatizable one. I avoid to use "theory" in that sense, as it leads > often to confusion. > > > > > > > > 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the > > actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, > > We can know that a reasoning is valid, but we cannot know that a > statement is true, in science. > > > > > > but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be > > consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the > > interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely > > wrong. > > 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually > > computes the current state of the universe. > > So reality is a program. That is digital physics, and it makes no > sense. Read the UDA to grasp this. > > > > > > 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a > > physical, material world. > > OK. That is a consequence of computationalism, and with evolving > defined in arithmetic. > How do you defined evolving? Without physical reality you cannot take > any physical term for granted. > > > > > > 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real > > effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and > > presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. > > That is a God-of-the-gap. You must avoid term like "real", especially > in axioms. > > > > > > > 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. > > In which sense. Does 17 exists? > > > > > The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies > > all other possible realities. > > That is either a form of solipsism, or an everything type of TOE. > > > > > > Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed > > because it is the only one that does exist. > > ? > > > > Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is > > possible because it is the only one that is actual. > > You seem to rely on abnormal psychic power. > > > > > 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. > > Hmm... at least this explain why you ignore my posts of yesterday, > which does not exist. > > > > > Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the > > present moment in which we all exist. > > > > etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which > > come from which you can judge... > > > > The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of > > the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to > > a formal presentation of the theory as I have. > > You are using a lot of words like if their meaning were obvious. You > lack confrontation with others, but you don't seem to have the > necessary minimal amount of doubting your own ideas to do that. You > only advertise an opinion, and adopt an insulting tone when people ask > questions. This will not help you, (unless you want to create a sect > or something, in which case unclarity is most welcome). > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
