An Argument from blackholes to mathematical platonism to OPT

 ...argument for ontic pancomputational theism from mathematical platonism and emergent spacetime...


1) if quantum blackholes are possible then spacetime is fundamentally empirically indeterminate


2) quantum blackholes are possible


3) spacetime is ultimately empirically indeterminate( 1,2 MP)


4) if spacetime is ultimately empirically indeterminate then spacetime is fundamentally nonphysical


5) spacetime is fundamentally nonphysical(3,4 MP)


6) if spacetime is fundamentally nonphysical we should hold to strong ontological skepticism over the commitment to the classification of any physical phenomenon as a concrete experience


7) we should hold to strong ontological skepticism over the commitment to the classification of any physical phenomenon as a concrete experience(5,6 MP)


8) if we should hold to strong ontological skepticism over the commitment to the classification of any physical phenomenon as a concrete experience then we should admit the existence of semantically determinate math objects as a fundamentally nomologically necessary condition for the experience of the physical


9) we should admit the existence of semantically determinate math objects as a fundamentally nomologically necessary condition for the experience of the physical (7,8 MP)


10) if we should admit the existence of semantically determinate math objects as a fundamentally nomologically necessary condition for the experience of the physical then reductive metaphysical idealism( OPT)  priority cosmopsychism is the case ( abductive premise)


11) reductive metaphysical idealism( OPT) priority cosmopsychism is the case ( abductive conclusion)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Argument for OPT from Information

 ...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)
Read more

Round square copula and the OA

 .... ontological argument from pancomputational universe/ roundsquare copula... john konnor... 1) for all x if x exists only in the mind then x's nature does not encode existence 2) if God does not exist only in the mind then God exists in reality C) God exists M!x: x exists only in the mind. exE!: x's nature encodes existence R!x: x exists in reality g=(ix)exE! 1. (∀x) M!x⊃~exE! 2. ~M!g⊃R!g 3. M!g.   (AiP) 4. Mg⊃~egE! (1UI) 5. ~egE!       (3,4 MP) 6.(∃x)[(exE!∧(∀y)eyE!.⊃    (x=y))∧~exE!]    theory of descriptions 7. (EaE!∧(∀y)eyE!⊃    (x=y))∧~eaE!  6 EI 8. ((∀y)eyE!⊃(a=y)∧eaE)∧~eaE! 7 commutation 9.((∀y)eyE!.⊃(a=y))∧(eaE!∧~eaE!) 8 association 10.(eaE!∧~eaE!) 9 simplification 11.~M!g (3-10 indirect proof) 12. R!g   (2,11 MP) Brief defense: Since the computational universe is a thick abstract tegmarkian math object which can be modeled in phase space, it follows something must be pure concrete existence by n...
Read more

A Modal Ontological Argument

 ...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!             ...
Read more