On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a runningcomputer program.

Run by which computer? Arithmetic or some physical reality? "running computer program" is ambiguous.

It's always able to compute its next computation.

`It is the universal machine which run the programs which do that. Not`

`the program itself.`

Same with the 'program' that computes reality.

But which reality run that program?

It is always able to compute the next state of the universe.

`No program can compute its next state (I prove this in my long`

`(french) text).`

`Amazingly, a program can compute and output a program computing its`

`next state, but it cannot run it, without changing its next state as`

`computed by the program given as output.`

If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a universe but there is.

`I know you find this obvious. But I think it might be false. Even`

`contradictory. I have given reason for this in a preceding post to`

`you. But you need to study the UDA to get it well.`

Therefore Godel does NOT apply to the running program of realityjust as it does NOT apply to all the computer programs running allover the world right now.

Gödel's theorem applies to all programs and all effective theories.

Therefore the actual logico-mathematical system that continuallycomputes reality MUST BE logically self-consistent and logicallycomplete.

`"computes reality" has no meaning, unless you make this much more`

`precise. You talk like if the word "reality" has a simple`

`interpretation, but that is not true.`

It's a very simple insight...

`You might have an insight, but you did not succeed in communicating it`

`to me.`

I explained the difference in my previous post but you ignored that.Reality math

`I have already asked you to explain what you mean by that. Neither`

`"math" nor reality" can be used as a primitive terms, on which we can`

`find simple axioms to agree on.`

does not just write down some statement and then try to reach itcomputationally. That would be teleology and Godel might apply butreality doesn't do that, it just always computes the next state fromthe current state which it can ALWAYS do.

Sorry but this is not understandable. No meaning, or too much meaning.

Do you believe in teleology? If you think Godel applies to thecomputations of reality math you are arguing for teleology....

`Define "reality math", or explain. Otr just use your theory to see if`

`it agrees with UDA, or part of it. UDA is specially build so that you`

`don't need any knowledge to grasp it, except for a passive`

`understanding of how a computer works.`

Bruno

Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:48:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason,Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is anongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclidin Jr. High School?By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel doesin his Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logicallycomplete because the next step is always computable because it'salways being computed. Human math is not logically complete becausehumans can formulate well formed statements in math without firstcomputing them from axioms, and ONLY THEN try to compute them fromthe axioms.Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then tryto reach them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next statefrom the current state which it can always do. Thus reality math islogically complete. Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated,That is wrong. Gödel proves that for all effective theories, or allconsistent machines."reality" math is not defined. If it is just "math", Gödel's theoremdoes not apply, because "math" is not a formal theory, but humanmath is also not formal or effective.without changes to it's axioms to bring it in line with reality math.All consistent axiomatic theories obeys to Gödel's theorem. You canadd as many axioms you want, the theory obtained will obey toGödel's incompleteness. Arithmetic is called "essentially"undecidable. It means that arithmetical theories and *all* theireffective extensions obeys to the theorem.Bruno 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>wrote:Jason,A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the mostbasic axioms and concepts of the theory.Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) andwhich 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 theactual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, butNOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistentwith the actual science (the equations) but not with theinterpretations of the science, which in my view is often completelywrong.4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continuallycomputes the current state of the universe.5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than aphysical, material world.6. These computations produce a real universe state with realeffects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space andpresence of existence, what I call ontological energy.7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. Theexistence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies allother possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible pastthat could have existed because it is the only one that does exist.Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that ispossible because it is the only one that is actual.8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be presentto be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in whichwe all exist.etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Whichcome from which you can judge...If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from anyother, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. Forexample, in the first one you say "existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist". It would seem then that "non-existencecannot exist" is an axiom, and from that it follows that existencemust exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you meanby logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete?The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary ofthe basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close toa formal presentation of the theory as I have.This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined hisphilosophy. His were:The world is rational.Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (throughcertain techniques).There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (alsoart, etc.).There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higherkind.The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shalllive or have lived.There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughlyintelligible (durchaus einsichtige).Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. Formal rights comprise a real science. Materialism is false.The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not bycomposition.Concepts have an objective existence.There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which dealswith concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also mosthighly fruitful for science.Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth onesounds 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 notwhat you are assuming at the start. So what are those minimalassumptions you took as true at the start which led to your otherdeductions?Thanks, JasonOn 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 inconsiderable detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon'I've used is the single neologism 'ontolog... --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

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.