# Is Logical Consistency a greater governing force than The Laws of Physics? A common view is that [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md) provide the greatest governing force in our universe[^1]. They provide an [Intrinsic](Intrinsic.md) set of [Rules](Rules.md) that define what is possible. But is there any principle *outside* of them that provides an even greater constraint on what is possible? There is an argument to be made that [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) provides an even deeper governing force than [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md). For instance, we can use [Virtual Reality](Virtual%20Reality.md) to [Render](Render.md) environments that have their own [laws of physics](laws%20of%20physics.md)! However, we cannot escape the requirement that a rendering is logically consistent. Now of course at its core any rendering is a [Computation](Computation.md), and [Computation is a Physical Process](Computation%20is%20a%20Physical%20Process.md) that must always abide by [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md). But it can render experiences that can be [interpreted](Interpretation.md) as having their own unique [laws of physics](laws%20of%20physics.md). What can we say about these unique [laws of physics](laws%20of%20physics.md) that define the [Intrinsic](Intrinsic.md) [Rules](Rules.md) by which the [rendering](Render.md) must abide by? Remember that while [Computation is a Physical Process](Computation%20is%20a%20Physical%20Process.md), it is also a [Logical Process](Computation%20is%20a%20Logical%20Process.md) that [follows rules](Computation%20is%20Following%20Rules.md). I will claim that a logical process *that is instantiated as a computation* must follow a set of [Consistent](Consistent.md) [Rules](Rules.md). In other words, the [laws of physics](laws%20of%20physics.md) that it defines must be [Consistent](Consistent.md). Thus it appears that [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) provides an even greater constraint on what can be [Simulated](Simulation.md) that the [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md)! But is that so? [In Principle](In%20Principle.md), meaning given the constraints provided by [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md), a computational system *could* escape logical consistency, but due to the [Principle of Explosion](Principle%20of%20Explosion.md) it would no longer produce valid and meaningful results. With that said, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have a *functioning* computational system that directly represents logical inconsistencies due to the physical nature of computation. For example, consider a proposition $A$. In an inconsistent logical system we could have $A$ and $\neg A$. But now consider how we would implement that physically instantiate that via computation. Being a physical process, we must represent the state of $A$ via some physical process, such as the state of a transistor. A single transistor cannot be in two states at once, so it couldn't effectively represent a logically inconsistent system. But, one may argue that you could simply have two copies of $A$, where each copy held the state of $A$. If you ever find that copy 1 holds `True` and copy 2 holds `False`, then you would have effectively represented an inconsistency? Well how exactly would the [Program](Program.md) decide which copy of $A$ to update and different points in time? If it is not updating each copy according to *identical* update rules, then they really aren't *copies* of $A$. Rather, they are different propositions altogether and better referred to as $A_1$ and $A_2$. We can take this one step further. Consider trying to [Render](Render.md) the experience of unconsciousness. By definition unconsciousness is *lack of any experience*. What would it mean to *experience* a *lack of experience*? This is a logical inconsistency and again it is not clear how exactly we would physically implement a logically inconsistent system. This thought experiment showed that the reason [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) is so important, is *because* [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md) are deeply connected to it. [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md) constrain [Computation](Computation.md). And while it may seem that [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) places an even greater constraint on [Computation](Computation.md), that is due to the fact that [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md) effectively prevent the rendering of an [Inconsistent](Inconsistent.md) set of [Rules](Rules.md). If we had a different [laws of physics](laws%20of%20physics.md), perhaps [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) could be instantiated without issue. Thus [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md) do indeed provide greater governing force than [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) in our universe. --- Open questions left to address: * The real question I'm trying to answer here: Is it the laws of physics that make logical consistency so important? Or is the importance of logical consistency something that exist outside the laws of physics? * Trying to understand if logical consistency is a *requirement* of computation, or a design choice we make because it yields reliable and interpretable results. In other words, can computation exist that is not logically consistent --- Date: 20241217 Links to: [Luminous](Luminous.md) Tags: References: * []() [^1]: For a great science fiction story that digs into this in detail, checkout [Luminous](Luminous.md)