My intuition is that computation is the minimal, unambiguous ground because it doesn't depend on any particular axiomatic system to define what counts as an execution trace. Once you assume arithmetic, even in a very weak form, you get the set of all computations in the sense of partial recursive functions or universal dovetailing.
If you say everything, including non-computational or contradictory structures, you open the door to any conceivable ontology, but then it becomes unclear what selects or measures anything at all. That's the part that feels too unconstrained to me, you lose any stable link between what is describable, executable, and experienceable. In other words, computation is not just what the equations allow, since as you point out those depend on axiomatic choice, but rather what is invariant across any formal system capable of encoding the natural numbers. It's the minimal shared canvas. Beyond that, maybe everything exists in some sense, but it's hard to see how such a framework could connect to any coherent notion of experience or probability. If you're curious, I've tried to lay this out in more detail in some recent essays on Medium. https://allcolor.medium.com/the-sapiens-attractor-manifesto-2d934d4813d0 https://allcolor.medium.com/computational-consciousness-temporal-compression-and-the-unique-attractor-e2057cb69bc4 https://allcolor.medium.com/linking-finite-perceptual-spaces-fractality-and-the-god-loop-b85e39172726 Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 23:37, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit : > But then why limit it to computations? Why not assume everything, > computation or not? Then all possible computations will still be there, > emergent, but also other sequences we haven't even imagined. After all, > what is "allowed by the equations" depends on rules of inference that we > make up and there are alternative rules: ZF and ZFC for example or more > radically look at Graham Priest's dialetheism. > > Brent > > On 7/6/2025 2:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Yes, I am fully in the Bruno Marchal perspective, not the standard MWI, > and I’ve been clear about that for years. My recent essays only restate > what I’ve consistently said: reality as the totality of computations, with > physics as an emergent phenomenon. It is indeed a form of neo-Platonism, > but for me it’s the only framework that coherently links physics and > subjective experience. > > Quentin > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > > Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 23:19, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> Why limit it to the equations we've found to describe our world? Why not >> go full Bruno Marchal? I'm just amazed that people invest this kind of >> belief in metaphysics. It's just neo-Platonism. >> >> Brent >> > -- > 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 view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4785647b-387f-4a8a-993e-6cf42761e830%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4785647b-387f-4a8a-993e-6cf42761e830%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo%3D2ajAWKNFJuQ%2BeYbp8w9_WUrzZnQPVfkhsdHtgdhK5A%40mail.gmail.com.
