Update Argument_for_EMR.md
This commit is contained in:
parent
f59b49314c
commit
7375c0733d
1 changed files with 4 additions and 5 deletions
|
@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
|
|||
|
||||
# Full Argument for EMR as the Only Coherent Theory of Everything
|
||||
# Proof of Extended Modal Realism
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 1: From Formal Describability to Ontological Identity
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -19,10 +18,10 @@
|
|||
|
||||
## Step 3: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem Applies
|
||||
|
||||
1. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem: any consistent formal system expressive enough to contain arithmetic is **incomplete** — there are true statements it cannot prove.
|
||||
1. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem: any consistent formal system expressive enough to contain arithmetic is **incomplete** — there are true statements contained within it that it cannot prove.
|
||||
2. Physical reality includes arithmetic (e.g., counting, causality, measurement), so any formal system modeling it must include arithmetic.
|
||||
3. Therefore, if reality is a formal system (as empiricism claims), it must be either **incomplete** or **inconsistent**.
|
||||
4. But a **Theory of Everything (ToE)** must be **both complete and consistent** by definition.
|
||||
4. But a **Theory of Everything (ToE)** must be **both complete and consistent** by definition, otherwise it cannot be a ToE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Conclusion 3**: Empiricism is **incompatible** with the existence of a complete and consistent ToE, and therefore **cannot be correct** as a fundamental metaphysical framework.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -30,7 +29,7 @@
|
|||
|
||||
1. Rejection of empiricism eliminates the epistemic framework that allows for brute facts without justification.
|
||||
2. Two options remain:
|
||||
- (A) **Affirm PSR**: every fact has a reason, demanding total intelligibility.
|
||||
- (A) **Affirm the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)**: every fact has a reason, demanding total intelligibility.
|
||||
- (B) **Deny both empiricism and PSR**: accept brute facts arbitrarily, abandoning explanation.
|
||||
3. Option B collapses into **metaphysical incoherence**, as it cannot provide any foundation for explanation or knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue