Ontic Pancomputational Theism

 ...an Anselmian MOA from ontological perfection...John Konnor... 1) it is possible that God exists in the understanding 2)if God does not exist in the understanding then it is necessarily possible God does not exist in the understanding 3) if God exists in the understanding then for all  Z, if Z is an ontological perfection then God has Z. 4) actual necessary existence is an ontological perfection 5) necessarily( if God exists in the understanding then necessarily God exists on the understanding) C) God has actual necessary existence Let: P(Z)= Z is an ontological perfection U!x= x exists in the understanding g= God E!x= x has existence □(p⊃q)⊃(◇p⊃◇q) Theorem of K. Proof: 1)◇U!g 2)~U!g⊃□◇~U!g 3)U!g⊃(∀Z)(P(Z)⊃Zg) 4)P(@□E!) 5)□(U!g⊃□U!g) 6)~□◇~U!g⊃U!g                             (2, Contra.)     7)~~◇~◇~U!g⊃U!g                      ...

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) it is not the case that it is either not possibly the case that it is not possible that God does not exist or that it is necessarily not the case God exists C) God exists Let: G!= God exists p⊃□◇p      ( axiom B) Proof: 1)~(~◇~◇~G!∨□~G!)                P. 2)~~◇~◇~G!∧~□~G!                (1 DeM.) 3)◇□G!∧◇G!                                (2 M.E.) 4)~G!⊃□◇~G!                              ( I.Ax.B) 5)~G!⊃~◇~◇~G!                         (4 M.E.) 6)◇~◇~G!⊃G!                              (5 Contr.) 7)◇□G!⊃G!             ...

 ...a meinongian ontological argument...john konnor... 1. for all x if x has conceivable existence and x has exclusive existence in the understanding then x has    conceivable existence in reality 2. for all x if x has exclusive existence in the understanding then x has conceivable existence 3. for all x if x has conceivable existence in reality then x admits of ontological perfectibility 4. for all x either x has exclusive existence in the understanding or x has actual existence c. God exists let: əUx=x has exclusive existence in the understanding @E!x=x has actual existence ©E!x=x has conceivable existence ©Rx=x has conceivable existence in reality Ix=x is ontologically imperfectible the definite description God g=(℩x)(Ix) proof: 1. (∀x) (©E!x ∧ əUx)⊃©Rx.                premise 2. (∀x) əUx⊃©E!x.                               premise 3. (∀x ) ©Rx.⊃~Ix....

 ...Cartesian argument for analytic reductive metaphysical idealism...John konnor... 1) we can deny the concrete existence of the physical ( emergent spacetime) 2) if we can deny the concrete existence of the physical ( emergent spacetime), then consciousness is fundamental 3) consciousness is fundamental (1,2 MP) 4) if consciousness is fundamental we are minds experiencing the effects of the self apprehension of the prior mind 5)  we are minds experiencing the effects of the self apprehension of the prior mind (3,4 MP) 6) if we are minds experiencing the effects of the self apprehension of the prior mind , then reductive metaphysical idealism is the case 7) reductive metaphysical idealism is the case(5,6 MP) Brief defense: 1) the immersive matrix from which entanglement produces physical phenomenal experience must be an exotic non semiotically neutral organizational and intentional substance, due to the computational aspect of spacetime( integrated information) 2) since we ca...

 ...argument contra the *logical* problem of hell...John konnor... 1) if God designs the world such that the maximum number of virts( virtue units) can be attained per nature then a populated eternal heaven exists 2) God designed the world such that the maximum number of virts( virtue units)can be attained per nature 3) a populated eternal heaven exists( 1,2 MP) 4) if a populated eternal heaven exists then a populated eternal hell exists 5) a populated eternal hell exists (3,4 MP) Brief defense of premises: 1) premise 1 is saying that a virt is an abstract measure of good making action. Good making actions increase the virtues a person acquires. There can be no good making actions if we cannot admit the opposite set of bad making actions( vices). For example, It is logically impossible to have patient endurance( perseverance) unless we have some sort of oppression. The more patient endurance( heroic perseverance) correlates to a greater oppressor. Ultimately a great accruer of vice...

 ...modal ontological argument from Anselm's dictum/ principle...John konnor... 1) if it is not necessarily the case that God exists then it is necessarily not necessarily the case God exists ( instance of Anselm's dictum) 2) if necessarily it is not the case that necessarily God exists then necessarily God does not exist ( premise) 3)it is possibly the case God exists( premise) C) God exists Let: G!= God exists □p⊃p (Axiom M) Proof: 1)~□G!⊃□~□G!          ( I. of A.D.) 2)□~□G!⊃□~G!          ( Premise) 3)◇G!                            ( Premise) 4)~□G!⊃□~G!             (1,2 HS) 5)□G!∨□~G!                (4 M. Impl., DN) 6)~□~G!                       (3 ME) 7)□G!                    ...

 Leonard Susskind explains the *Holographic Principle*.

 ...a thomistic argument for a prime cause...john konnor... 1)  if it is possible there exists an x and x is a prime cause then it is possible there exists an x x is unactualizable and x is a prime cause 2) it is possible there exists an x and x is a prime cause 3) for all x and for all € if it is possible x is unactualizable and is a prime cause then it is possibly necessary x is Pure act by nature 4) for all x and for all € if  necessarily x is Pure act by nature then x exists C) God exists Let: Ux= x is unactualizable ~~◇E!x= x's existence is not impossible €= is a nature ◇□p⊃□p   (TK) g=(ix)(∃!x)(∀€) [(€=A) ∧ Ax] 1)◇(∃x)Px⊃◇(∃x )Ux∧Px                   p 2)◇(∃x)Px                                       p 3)(∀x)(∀€) ◇(Ux∧Px) ⊃◇□[(€=A) ∧ Ax]    p 4)(∀x)(∀€)□[(€=A) ∧ Ax]⊃E!x     p 5) ◇(∃x )...

In this video interview, Stanford Physicist Leonard Susskind gives a Shannon account of information entropy and explains the counterintuitive implications of blackhole thermodynamics. https://youtu.be/kttj9C8SWY8

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) God's existence is possible ( anselmian premise) C) God exists Let: G!= God exists Proof: 1)◇G! 2)~G!          (AIP) 3)□~G!      ( N.I. Anselmian implication) 4)~□~G!   (1, M.E.) 5)□~G! ∧ ~□~G! (3,4 Conj.) 6)G!            (DAIP, 2-5)

 ...the MOA under OPT...under Ontic pancomputational theism the Modal Ontological Argument would need to have accessibility relations between ontological possible worlds such as string theory worlds or everret worlds as well as between purely conceptual non accessible worlds...under this model the MOA would only need Brouwer and the K distribution axiom to succeed... One good thing about this model concerns the MOA. Under this model God would be a hyperdimensional intellect. Something analogous to an integrated information network. So, God would be a maximal element and an ontological grounding element. It would be a case of God operating according to an ideal physics which is metaphysically necessary and which interfaces with all metaphysically contingent physics.hence, we would have Omnisubjectivity. God could still be defined as a non physical intellect. If you defined the accessibility relations across worldframes it would be euclidean for possible worlds with ens rational occu...

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor.... 1) it is not the case that it is necessarily possible God exists and it is necessarily not possible that God exists.  ( Premise) 2) it is necessarily possible God exists ( Premise) 3) if it is not the case that God exists then it is not possibly possible the case that God exists ( Premise) C) God exists Let: G!= God exists Proof: 1)~(□◇G!∧□~◇G!).          Premise 2)□◇G!                                Premise 3)~G!⊃~◇◇G!                    Premise/ G! 4)~□◇G!∨~□~◇G!           1 DeMorgans 5)□◇G!⊃ ~□~◇G!             4 M. Implication 6)□~◇G!⊃ ~□◇G!             5 Contra, DN 7)~◇~~◇G!⊃~~◇~◇G!    6 ME 8)~◇◇G!⊃◇~◇G!               7 DN 9)...

 ...the first way of aquinas from information processing...john konnor... 1) for all x if x is a processed quantum of being then it is not the case that x is its own cause as a processed quantum of being 2) exists an x x is a processed quantum of being 3) exists a y for all x, if it is not the case that x is its own cause as a processed quantum of being then y is a hypercausal preeminent mind C) a hypercausal preeminent mind exists Let: Px= x is a processed quanta of being CxPx= x is its own cause as a processed quanta of being Hx= x is a hypercausal preeminent mind 1) (∀x)Px⊃~CxPx                       p 2)(∃x)Px                                        p 3)(∃y)(∀x)~CxPx⊃Hy                  p 4)Pa                        ...

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) it is not the case that possibly God exists and it is not necessarily the case God exists 2) God possibly exists C) necessarily God exists Let: G!= God exists Proof: 1)~(◇G!∧~□G!).          P. 2)◇G!                             P. 3)~◇G!∨□G!                 (1 DeM,DN) 4)◇G!⊃□G!                    (2 M. Impl.) 5)□G!                             (2,5 MMP)

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) necessarily if God does not exist then it is necessarily the case God does not exist 2) God's existence is possible C) Necessarily God exists Let: G!= God exists □(p⊃q)⊃(◇p⊃◇q).  Theorem of K. ◇p⊃□◇p.                  Ax. 5 Proof: 1)□(~G!⊃□~G!).                             p 2)◇G!                                                p 3)□(~G!⊃□~G!)⊃(◇~G!⊃◇□~G!)    Theorem of K. 4)(◇~G!⊃◇□~G!)                           (1,3 MP) 5)~◇□~G!⊃~◇~G!                        4 Contra. 6)~◇~◇~~G!⊃~◇~G!                  5 M.E. 7...

 ...ontological argument from possible worlds...John konnor... 1) for any understandable being that does not admit of more greatness there exists a world w, where x exists 2) if for any understandable being that does not admit of more greatness there exists a world w, where x exists then there exists an understandable x that does not admit of more greatness 3) there exists an understandable x that does not admit of more greatness(1,2 MP) 4) if there exists an understandable x and x does not admit of more greatness then the understandable x that does not admit of more greatness exists in reality 5) the understandable x that does not admit of more greatness exists in reality(3,4 MP)

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) it is not the case that it is possibly not the case God exists and possibly the case God exists 2) God exists is possibly the case C) God necessarily exists Let: G!= God exists Proof: 1)~(◇~G!∧◇G!) 2)◇G! 3)~◇~G!∨~◇G!      1,DeM. 4)~◇G!∨~◇~G.       3,Comm. 5)◇G!⊃~◇~G.          4,M.Impl, DN. 6)◇G!⊃□G!                5,ME. 7)□G!                          2,6 MP

 ...argument for ontic pancomputational theism...John konnor... 1) the universe is composed of information ( it from bit) 2) if the universe is composed of information then a  prior omniscient mind instantiated the universe's ontological concreteness 3) a  prior omniscient mind instantiated the universe's ontological concreteness (1,2 MP) 4) if a  prior omniscient mind instantiated the universe's ontological concreteness then God exists 5) God exists (3,4 MP)

 ...Anselmian ontological argument ...John konnor... 1) exists an x, x exists in the understanding and x does not admit of more greatness, x=g. 2) for all x, if x exists in the understanding and x does not admit of more greatness then x exists actually C) God exists actually Let: g=God U!x=df=x exists in the understanding @E!x=df= x exists actually ~Gx=df=x does not admit of more greatness Proof: 1)(∃!x)U!x∧~Gx∧(x=g) 2)(∀x)(U!x∧~Gx)⊃@E!x 3)U!g∧~Gg.                          1 EI 4)(U!g∧~Gg)⊃@E!g.            2 UI 5)@E!g.                                  3,4 MP

 ...the thomistic ontological argument...john konnor... axiom 1 whatever is pure act is complete (∀x) Ax⊃Cx axiom 2 whatever is complete is existence by essence (∀x) Cx⊃(∃¥)[(¥=E) & (Ex)] 1. for all x if x is understood x is in potency to act or pure act 2. God is understood 3. God is not in potency to act c. God exists let: Ax=x is pure act Cx=x is complete Px=x is in potency to act Ux=x is understood ¥=is an essence E= is existence g=(℩x)(∃¥)[(¥=E) & (Ex)]  proof: 1.  (∀x)Ux⊃ (Px ∨ Ax)         premise 2.   Ug.                                      premise 3.  ~Pg                                     premise 4.   Ug⊃ (Pg ∨ Ag)                1 UI 5.   Pg ∨ Ag.      ...

 ...the digital physics argument for an omnipotent intellect( God)... john konnor... 1) if spacetime is emergent from the entropy of entanglement then spacetime is fundamentally informational 2) spacetime is emergent from the entropy of entanglement 3) spacetime is fundamentally informational (1,2 MP) 4) if spacetime is fundamentally informational then an omnipotent intellect must preserve the truth function and fix the semantic content among incompossible worlds 5) an omnipotent intellect must preserve the truth function and fix the semantic content among incompossible worlds ( 3,4 MP) 6) if an omnipotent intellect must preserve the truth function and fix the semantic content among incompossible worlds then God exists 7) God exists ( 5,6 MP)  QED

 ...argument for ontic pancomputational theism( priority cosmopsychism)... John konnor... Computational object: An object is computational or performs a computation if it's operands involve semantic representation, and preserve information through a linear orthogonal evolution of states. Eg: a) the entanglements of spacetime are directly responsible for the emergence of local spacetime. b) the base pairs of DNA code for a specific functional outcome.c) DNA code transcription : see links in comments. 1) all computational objects are artifacts of mind 2) every  physical universe is a computational object ( bremmerman's limit, Margolus levitin theorem, landauer's principle) 3) every physical universe is an artifact of mind( 1,2 modus Barbara) 4) if every physical universe is an artifact of mind then an ontologically prior mind exists 5) an ontologically prior mind exists (3,4 MP) 6) if an ontologically prior mind exists then God exists 7) God exists( 5,6 MP)

 ...a thomistic argument for a prime cause...john konnor... 1)  if it is possible there exists an x and x is a prime cause then it is possible there exists an x x is unactualizable and x is a prime cause 2) it is possible there exists an x and x is a prime cause 3) for all x and for all € if it is possible x is unactualizable and is a prime cause then it is possibly necessary x is Pure act by nature 4) for all x and for all € if  necessarily x is Pure act by nature then x exists C) God exists Let: Ux= x is unactualizable ~~◇E!x= x's existence is not impossible €= is a nature ◇□p⊃□p   (TK) g=(ix)(∃!x)(∀€) [(€=A) ∧ Ax] 1)◇(∃x)Px⊃◇(∃x )Ux∧Px                   p 2)◇(∃x)Px                                       p 3)(∀x)(∀€) ◇(Ux∧Px) ⊃◇□[(€=A) ∧ Ax]    p 4)(∀x)(∀€)□[(€=A) ∧ Ax]⊃E!x     p 5) ◇(∃x )...

 ...Anselmian ontological argument ...John konnor... 1) there exists in the understanding an understandable being of which no greater can be understood 2) if there exists in the understanding an understandable being of which no greater can be understood then there cannot exist in the understanding an understandable being greater than that being of which no greater can be understood 3) there cannot exist in the understanding an understandable being greater than that being of which no greater can be understood (1,2 MP) 4) if God does not exist in reality then there exists in the understanding  an understandable being greater than that being of which no greater can be understood  5) God exists in reality (3,4 MT)

 ...modal ontological argument from kolmogorov complexity...John konnor... 1)  due to emergent spacetime and kolmogorov complexity  the physical universe reduces to a string of bits which determines its ontological output 2) if  due to emergent spacetime and kolmogorov complexity  the physical universe reduces to a string of bits which determines its ontological output then the universe reduces to information 3)  the universe reduces to information (1,2 MP) 4) if the universe reduces to information then an ontologically prior nonphysical intellect must fix the meaning for any orthogonal evolution of information states 5) an ontologically prior nonphysical intellect must fix the meaning for any orthogonal evolution of information states (3,4 MP) 6) if an ontologically prior nonphysical intellect must fix the meaning for any orthogonal evolution of information states then God is possible 7) God is possible ( 5,6 MP) 8) God exists ( 7, theorem of K, ax. B.) Br...

 ...the intensional ontological argument...john konnor... 1) for all x if x exists exclusively definitionally then x admits of more ontological greatness 2) if God does not exist exclusively definitionally then God exists in reality c) God exists in reality let: r= ontological operator for status in reality ə=limiting ontological exclusivity operator E!x= x exists D!x= x exists definitionally Gx= x admits of more ontological greatness g=(℩x)~Gx proof: 1) (∀x)əD!x⊃Gx                                     p 2) ~əD!g⊃rE!g                                         p 3) əD!g                                                      AIP 4) əD!g⊃Gg      ...

 ..modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) necessarily if it is not necessarily the case God exists then it is not the case God exists 2) possibly God exists 3) if God exists then it is necessarily the case God exists C) necessarily it is necessarily the case God exists Let: G!= God exists □(p⊃q)⊃(◇p⊃◇q) Theorem of K. p⊃□◇p                    Axiom of B. Proof: 1)□(~□G!⊃~G!)                                   P.  2)◇G!                                                     P. 3)G!⊃□G!                                               P. 4)□(~□G!⊃~G!)⊃(◇~□G!⊃◇~G!)     T. of K....

 ...a  meinongian/goedelian modal ontological argument for God ...John konnor... 1) if exclusive conceivable existence is a Godlikeness property and exclusive existence in the understanding is a Godlikeness property then God's actual existence is not possible 2) if God has all Godlikeness properties then it is not the case that it is not the case that exclusive conceivable existence is a Godlikeness property and God's actual existence is possible 3) God has all Godlikeness properties 4) Necessarily if God has actual existence then necessarily God has actual existence. 5) if God does not have actual existence then it is necessarily possible God does not have actual existence C) God has actual existence Let: □(p⊃q)⊃(◇p⊃◇q). Theorem of K. p⊃□◇p                     Brouwer Axiom @G!= God has actual existence C!= Exclusive conceivable existence is a Godlikeness property U!= Exclusive existence in the understanding is a Godliken...

 ...argument for ontic pancomputational theism from integrated information and emergent spacetime...John konnor... 1) to resolve the AMPS blackhole paradox the external information has to be the same as the   information internal to the blackhole to maintain the  monogamy of entanglement 2) if to resolve the AMPS blackhole paradox the external information has to be the same as the   information internal to the blackhole to maintain the  monogamy of entanglement then the information external to a blackhole is connected by  planck scale wormholes to the interior ( ER Bridge). 3) the information external to a blackhole is connected by  planck scale wormholes to the interior( ER Bridge).(1,2 MP) 4) if the information external to a blackhole is connected by  planck scale wormholes to the interior (ER Bridge) then ER=EPR  5) ER=EPR.( Susskind, Maldacena)  (3,4 MP) 6) if ER=EPR then spacetime is emergent from entanglement 7) spacetime...