Bruno, If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms of your UDA then where do those come from?
Unless you can answer that question you have a gap in your theory that mine doesn't have..... Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
