On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

## Advertising

Bruno,If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms ofreality then you ARE effectively saying that "Arithmetic existsbecause arithmetic exists."

That is true. But the premise is incorrect.

`I do not assume that the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic`

`axioms of reality.`

`That is, on the contrary, what I *prove*, from the computationalist`

`assumption.`

`UDA proves it quickly, (in 8th step) and AUDA extracts constructively`

`the quanta (and the qualia).`

whether you verbalize it or not, and that is your implicit unstatedfundamental axiom.That is certainly not less circular than my fundamental axiom, andconsiderably less convincing....If that is not your fundamental axiom then what is?

`The intuitive theology (comp) is the bet that I would survive, or even`

`that I would not notice the difference, once a computer simulating my`

`body, at some level of description, is provided. ("yes doctor")`

`UDA shows, or is supposed to show, that if that is true, then physics`

`has to be recovered by a relative statistical calculus on all`

`computations (modalized by internal points of view, or indexicals) in`

`arithmetic.`

`UDA shows that the TOE is anything Turing complete "thing". I use`

`Arithmetic because it is taught in school.`

`AUDA does a part of that recovering, so we can already compare that`

`physics with the actual observation.`

Bruno

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 Isaid 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 wayround.So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningfulfundamental axiom.If that was true, you would not need to say so.What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists becausearithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiomto me....You should also never put statements in the mouth of others,especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would havesaid that "arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists".I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where theassumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanistassumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survivewith an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is notexcluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at somelevel, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, itis 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" thatthe TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementaryaxioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + theaxioms, 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)+xThen, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is inthat theory that we define the observers and derive physics (andmore). That's AUDA, or "the machine's interview" (in the sane2004paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical andexperimentally testable.BrunoEdgar 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 ofreality> 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 GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 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.