[Nevermark]

[DELETED]

Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied.

Zero information constraints: Specifics only as fully determined, full coverage of undetermined specifics, conservation of information. These axioms, unlike most, impose a lack of external information not just as a desirable property, but harness them as a tautological universal constraint. Unlike most axioms, which are imposed information themselves.

[staticassertion]

> Infinite regress is avoided by co-constraints, such as consistency and conservation.

You have to explain these constraints if you don't want them to be brute.

edit: > Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied.

It's cool. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here about "zero information constraints".

edit: > but harness them as a tautological universal constraint.

This just sounds like a brute contingent fact. It's almost the definition of a brute contingency, as far as I can tell.

[Nevermark]

The "constraint" that a complete description of reality doesn't require external information, isn't a brute contingent, it is a tautology. One that can be leveraged as an axiom we get for free.

It has many forms. One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way. Transforms must be reversible. We now have the necessity for a law of conservation as a "for-free" requirement, as a result of no external information/interaction.

Local zero information constraints:

No specific exists, except those that are completely determined. Anything else would require external information. This is a law of fully determined intersection.

Anything not completely specified, must exist in all its disjoint alternatives. This is a law of fully exhausted union.

Think of the exhaustive superpositions (unions) over all possible conserving interactions (intersections) in quantum mechanics. A real "local physics" example of this principle.

Cancellation is caused by conservation. Duals that can be generated must be reducible. And it is cancellation of duals that create the non-trivial distributions that superposition and entanglement produce, out of otherwise a neutral exhaustion of possibilities. Instead of noise or uniformity, we get structure.

This all comes from "no external information or interaction".

It turns out, that tautology is far from a trivial constraint. I believe there will only be one structure that will meet that requirement. And its uniqueness will be another manifestation of no external information, no external choice. Uniqueness doesn't require choice.

In fact it is a very active constraint. Try to come up with a form in which everything is either determined, or exhaustively covered, and always locally conserved (i.e. all transforms are fully and exactly reversible). It will be a challenge! Exactly what we want. But you can fit a lot of our current physics in as consistent pieces. Like quantum mechanics. And historically, we have understood the universe better every time we have generalized or unified laws of conservation.

Superposition is simply conservation of information across disjoint conserving intersections. It doesn't collapse, because that would require external or created or "just is" information. Which besides being incoherent (in my opinion), would throw away the only "free axioms" we have as an explanation for why any structure exists at all. Conservation, closure, uniqueness.

[staticassertion]

I'm confused because you seem to be using the term tautology totally incorrectly. Your post is very confusing for this reason, because you're very clearly just appealing to a brute contingent fact, if not now multiple brute contingent facts.

edit: Okay, I think I am sort of getting what you're saying about tautologies but it's wrong. Either way, I don't think it matters much. You can just deny brute facts, I have no problem with that. I'm just saying you shouldn't assert that brute facts don't exist as if that's the standard position.

[Nevermark]

Any theory or model of reality, must take into account all of reality. It cannot depend on, or interact with, or export anything to, anything external. As that would not be a model of reality.

That is a tautology, no?

[staticassertion]

Yes, but nothing else that you've said follows from that. For example,

> One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way.

This is not a tautology, it is a metaphysical claim.

[Nevermark]

No, a model of reality cannot import something from anywhere else. Whatever is within reality, can only be determined by reality.

Nor can anything in reality, be exported outside of reality.

Reality is the one thing, the only thing, that cannot depend on anything undetermined or unchosen by itself.

The fact that reality must account for both itself, and any of its specifics, with no other domain to draw from, is a higher level of demand than for any other theory. That demand is a hard and unique constraint. A tautological constraint that is therefore usable as an axiom.