[zbyte64]

I agree with your points on Kalam but have to nitpick on everything else.

On the "describing reality" to "creating reality". Very few people argue for ex-nihilo creation but far more people tend to project that on the opposing side (ie where did god come from? what was before the big bang?). I don't think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles reality behaves mathematically and thus can transform into new situations with new mechanics (or realities).

Second nitpick: different mathematics. You don't loose the foundations of reason, rather you are stating that with different assumptions a system behaves differently. You are still computing the logical outcome with the premises given. If you have a universe where true and false mean the same then you have a very small universe that doesn't support any differentiation. Take comfort in knowing this helps solve Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. We can construct an infinite number of consistent mathematical realities but only by comparing their predictions to our reality can we resolve which reality is our own.

[DCKing]

> I don't think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles reality behaves mathematically and thus can transform into new situations with new mechanics (or realities).

I'm not sure I follow. What does "transform into new situations" really mean?

> We can construct an infinite number of consistent mathematical realities but only by comparing their predictions to our reality can we resolve which reality is our own.

If this is really what he meant, I appreciate the correction. If it would have been clear from the text, I would have proceeded with pointing out with pointing out the dodgy assumptions that underly the finetuning problem, but that would be even more like arguing against a deist/theist.

[zbyte64]

>I'm not sure I follow. What does "transform into new situations" really mean?

Emergence as a side-effect.

>If this is really what he meant, I appreciate the correction. If it would have been clear from the text, I would have proceeded with pointing out with pointing out the dodgy assumptions that underly the finetuning problem, but that would be even more like arguing against a deist/theist.

Yes, I am probably putting words in the author's mouth. He goes on a bit about computer simulations and how the Mandelbrot always "existed" because it is a mathematical consequence. In his view it seems different simulations are different universes and our universe is particularly amazing because it has evolved minds (computational constructs) that can distinguish different realities. Pair that with the idea that mathematics is a choice based on preconditions and you arrive at my statement.

[DCKing]

Talking about "side effects", "transformation" or "emergence" seems to assign properties to mathematics that I can't really wrap my head around. I thought that all we could be certain of when it comes to math is that it is a self-consistent set of axioms and rules. A set, of infinite size or not, that would be static and fixed.

[zbyte64]

A set is fixed but you have an infinite number of sets. We could imagine a (infinitely large) set that contains all primes. But how was that set constructed? To construct such a set an iterative process has to be continuously applied to the prior set. I consider this akin to emergence because physical processes act much the same way and result in novel configurations (sets).