On 1 April 2015 at 22:18, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:05, LizR wrote: > > Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the physical > universe yet. > > > But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the axioms > Kxy = x + Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO describe all > feature of the physical universe. If not comp is false. > With comp, we cannot add anything to elementary arithmetic or to any > sigma-1 complete set. That is the point of the reasoning. That we don't > succeed, or have not yet extracted it is another point. The TOE is there. > All the physical (but non geographical, nor historical) feature of physics > must be explained by elementary arithmetic, or computationalism is false. > That follows from the UDA. > > OK, but as you say - if comp is true. And I'm not saying you need to prove it's true because I know that's impossible. But as far as I know, no one has yet derived a convincing amount of physics from comp, so we don't yet have convincing evidence that it may well be true, if you see what I mean. (I think Bruce says the same thing in a post i'm about to read!)
-- 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/d/optout.
