# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Jason,

Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr.
High School?```
```
By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his
Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logically complete because
the next step is always computable because it's always being computed.
Human math is not logically complete because humans can formulate well
formed statements in math without first computing them from axioms, and
ONLY THEN try to compute them from the axioms.

Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then try to reach
them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next state from the current
state which it can always do. Thus reality math is logically complete.
Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated, without changes to it's axioms to
bring it in line with reality math.

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic
> axioms and concepts of the theory.
>
>
> Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which
> are the ones derived from those axioms?
>
>
>
> 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
> 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
> 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the
> actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, 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.
> 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a
> physical, material world.
> 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.
> 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of
> reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible
> realities. 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.
> 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. 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...
>
>
> If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as
> then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For example, in the
> first one you say "existence must exist because non-existence cannot
> exist". It would seem then that "non-existence cannot exist" is an axiom,
> and from that it follows that existence must exist.  Regarding the second
> point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you
> mean by logically complete?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy.
> His were:
>
>
>    1. The world is rational.
>    2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through
>    certain techniques).
>    3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also
>    art, etc.).
>    4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and
>    higher kind.
>    5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall
>    live or have lived.
>    6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently
>    known.
>    7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is
>    thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
>    8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
>    9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
>    10. Materialism is false.
>    11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by
>    composition.
>    12. Concepts have an objective existence.
>    13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals
>    with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly
>    fruitful for science.
>    14. Religions are, for the most part, badâ€“ but religion is not.
>
> Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds
> like Godel's 10th.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
> Edgard,
>
> You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what
> you are assuming at the start.  So what are those minimal assumptions you
> took as true at the start which led to your other deductions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in considerable
> detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon' I've used is the
> single neologism 'ontological energy' which I've defined clearly.
>
> I can't help it if reality is a difficult subject. What frustrates me is
> not the disagreements which are to be expected but disagreements based on
> misunderstanding of what I've stated quite clearly and people thinking I've
> said the exact opposite. That is most certainly not a problem with the
> explanations but with the reading....
>
> Edgar
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:13:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> Sigh.... Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered
> a 'formal theory'.
>
>
> A first (and great) step would be just to explain in clear normal language
> (no jargon) what you assume, and what you derive from those assumptions.
> You don't have to give us a bunch of equations.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a
> formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their
> own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair?
>
> The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is
> Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing
> me because I don't have one?
>
> What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately
> describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether
> that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite
> accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization
> and that's why it was accepted.
>
> Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is
> no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite
> tightly formalized but I see none of the required actual consistency with
> reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all.
>
> Bruno's theory may itself be logi
>
> ...

--
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