Re: Tegmark's New Book

```
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote:```
```
```
```Bruno,

Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful.
```
```
Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful.

```
```
The fundamental axiom MUST be circular,
```
```
Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all.

```
but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'.
```
```
"self-necessitating" contains two hot complex notions: "self" and "necessitate".
```
We want to explain the complex from the simple, not the other way round.

```
```
```
So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental axiom.
```
If that was true, you would not need to say so.

```
```
```
What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me....
```
```
You should also never put statements in the mouth of others, especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would have said that "arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists".
```
```
I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where the assumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanist assumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survive with an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is not excluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at some level, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, it is implied by your "computational stance".
```So my assumption, at that level, is a tiny part of your assumption.

```
By reasoning at that meta-level (UDA), we get as "meta-theorem" that the TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementary axioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + the axioms, where you can read s(x) by "the successor of the number x".
```
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

```
Then, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is in that theory that we define the observers and derive physics (and more). That's AUDA, or "the machine's interview" (in the sane2004 paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical and experimentally testable.
```
Bruno

```
```
Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of
> reality itself,

Then it is circular.

> 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.

That is not intelligible.

>
> The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of
> which somethingness (the universe) was created.

Assuming that there is a "universe". But then you do not explain why
there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is "something
exists".

>
> 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.

That is digital physics, which is refuted.

> Thus of course consistency applies to it.

That does not follow. Machines can be inconsistent.

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.
```
```
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