Marchal, I'm trying to understand your paper. I hope you can help by
answering some questions.
1. Please define "computational extension". What is an extension? What is
it an extension of? What does it mean for an extension to be consistent
(consistent with what, in what way)?
2. In your posts you often use the word "comp". What does it stand for,
and can you please define it?
3. In section 4, you use several results from what you call "the Godelian
study of provability". What is this field formally known as? Is it
metamathematics? Are there any good textbooks on this subject?
> Moreover, if quantum mechanics is the correct description of reality, we
> must derived it from computationalism.
Why must we? I think it would be nice if we could, but we probably won't
be able to. In order to do it we would need to show that quantum mechanics
is the shortest algorithm for generating observers-moments. We may be able
to obtain some evidence on this (for example by running simulations of
alternative physical laws), but I don't think this is something you can
derive by deduction or thought experiments.