the relativity of existence Options

[Trip like I do]

the relativity of existence

[Dan]

I tried reading it, but I started dozing off about halfway through page 4 (theorem 2). While there is a lot of technically sophisticated language, the author appears to be playing sleight of hand with the concept "self aware". Since his entire theory rests on this sleight of hand, it is essentially incomplete and I daresay impossible to complete. I think he needs to meditate more on what "self awareness" or just "awareness" implies and how such an implication may be incorporated into a logical framework.

[Dan]

I just e-mailed the author to point out the awareness problem and on the way I coined a new term

"Logical Creationism" - Creation of the universe by logical necessity

This is a popular form of creationism for athiests

(actually, it looks like someone else beat me to the punch for the term, but not with the same meaning.)

[Jakare]

Wow! An impressive paper! I need to read it again before making any relevant comment (if I can do so).
But overall it seems to say 'everyone gets their share' (creationist vs atheist) which is suspiciously diplomatic although not necessarily false.

[Trip like I do]

Wow! An impressive paper! I need to read it again before making any relevant comment (if I can do so).
But overall it seems to say 'everyone gets their share' (creationist vs atheist) which is suspiciously diplomatic although not necessarily false.

sometimes, it is enough just to read it.... and to ponder it for yourself

[Trip like I do]

I just e-mailed the author to point out the awareness problem and on the way I coined a new term

"Logical Creationism" - Creation of the universe by logical necessity

This is a popular form of creationism for athiests

(actually, it looks like someone else beat me to the punch for the term, but not with the same meaning.)

.... any reply dan?

[Trip like I do]

New theory doesn’t limit consciousness to the brain

[Jakare]

the relativity of existence

Just to put things together and make it easier for people eager to get deep into it, I thought could be a good Idea to post the link to Max tegmark´s Multiverse theory which is mentioned on the paper you posted:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

[Dan]

.... any reply dan?

Yes. The author agreed that awareness is important but didn't believe it to be relevant to his theory. I think he is mostly interested in a consistency argument for self-bootstrapping logic as a basis for explaining ex-nihilo creation (what I call logical creationism). I might try to hook him on worrying about what a "subject" is, but I am too busy right now so it will have to wait.

[sheinrich]

Hello, I am the author of this paper. I welcome your constructive feedback and will elaborate on points as necessary.

Wow! An impressive paper! I need to read it again before making any relevant comment (if I can do so).
But overall it seems to say 'everyone gets their share' (creationist vs atheist) which is suspiciously diplomatic although not necessarily false.

It was never my intent to be diplomatic in this regard. As far as I am concerned there is no traditional evidence for God in this universe. I initially hoped that my theory would all but disprove God by showing that there was a purely logical explanation for the origin of the universe. However, after attempting to articulate that point, I realized that the ROE does seem to validate the concept of realities with gods, and I do not think there is any way to formally exclude the potential that our reality is one of them. Thus, despite being an atheist myself, I would feel dishonest if I did not mention this side-effect in my paper. Also, it is not necessarily a logical consequence: it is possible that self-awareness is mutually exclusive with our concept of God, although I have no logical support for such a claim. Until such evidence becomes available, I am compelled to believe that there are some realities with Gods (and I suspect ours is not one).

.... any reply dan?

Yes. The author agreed that awareness is important but didn't believe it to be relevant to his theory. I think he is mostly interested in a consistency argument for self-bootstrapping logic as a basis for explaining ex-nihilo creation (what I call logical creationism). I might try to hook him on worrying about what a "subject" is, but I am too busy right now so it will have to wait.

I would not say that self-awareness is irrelevant to the theory. My full response to you was:

Hi Dan,
Thanks for your interest and taking the time to read my paper. At
present it is not possible to precisely define awareness because, if
we could define it precisely, then we would be able to create it. I
have done my best to describe awareness in the limited terms available
to our language.

I think that everyone intuitively knows what we are talking about...it
has nothing to do with how smart we are, it is merely the quality of
having a perspective. Although some species may be more or less aware
of their self with respect to their environment, there is still a
binary quality of being aware vs. not being aware. A rock is not
aware. A person is.

Indeed it is a mystery how it can possibly be that we are self aware,
and it is quite clear to me that our current view of physics will need
to be drastically re-envisioned in order to account for
self-awareness, because at present our laws of physics deal only with
the configurational state of "energy" in its various forms, yet we do
not have any laws that pertain to "awareness" nor why some particular
configuration of energy should be aware, and another configuration not
be aware.

Regardless, the point of my paper is that even without knowing how
this is possible, we can make certain logical deductions. Namely, we
can deduce from consistency of our universe and the fact that we exist
in our universe that there is some logically consistent description of
awareness, even though we don't know what it is.

Anything that is logically consistent can be formulated in terms of
some logical symbolism, and hence, we obtain the MUH.

To further elaborate on that first paragraph of my response: a precise definition of self-awareness would be a logical definition written in some formal language. A formal language can be translated into an axiomatic system. Thus if we could define self-awareness in terms of axiomatic systems, we would necessarily be able to construct axiomatic systems containing self-awareness, and the ability to do this would be proof of the ROE by positive example (ie, showing that there was some axiomatic system that is perceived to be a reality by some self-aware being, which is different from the axiomatic system of our universe). Of course, nobody knows how to do this, so I had to use different methods.

[Jakare]

Hello, I am the author of this paper. I welcome your constructive feedback and will elaborate on points as necessary.

Wow! An impressive paper! I need to read it again before making any relevant comment (if I can do so).
But overall it seems to say 'everyone gets their share' (creationist vs atheist) which is suspiciously diplomatic although not necessarily false.

It was never my intent to be diplomatic in this regard. As far as I am concerned there is no traditional evidence for God in this universe. I initially hoped that my theory would all but disprove God by showing that there was a purely logical explanation for the origin of the universe. However, after attempting to articulate that point, I realized that the ROE does seem to validate the concept of realities with gods, and I do not think there is any way to formally exclude the potential that our reality is one of them. Thus, despite being an atheist myself, I would feel dishonest if I did not mention this side-effect in my paper. Also, it is not necessarily a logical consequence: it is possible that self-awareness is mutually exclusive with our concept of God, although I have no logical support for such a claim. Until such evidence becomes available, I am compelled to believe that there are some realities with Gods (and I suspect ours is not one).

Thanks for your answer sheinrich. If I had to believe of intuition as a valid source of knowledge that will be my answer too, as that is exactly what my intuition tells me. Lets hope the future would bring to us the so much needed evidence.

it is possible that self-awareness is mutually exclusive with our concept of God

How exactly do you think such thing is possible? I bet you there is an interesting thought beneath such statement. Curious.

Keep doing whatever you are doing sheinrich and keep us as well informed as possible please.

[Mahesh]

Theory of everything and Michio kaku. do you think he has the answer for everything. and string theory itself is the best so far