Which is not a consistent set of axioms, but let’s just pretend you said “classical propositional logic”. Then why this and not something else, say intuitionistic, relevant, modal, etc.?
I don’t understand how Axiom 2 implies uncomputability; please explain.
Well, as per the First Incompleteness Theorem, there’s no recursive set of axioms complete for arithmetics. So if the universe realizes all arithmetic truth at least its set of laws is non-recursive, that is has no finite Kolmogorov complexity. ... unless you meant that the Multiverse realizes all possibilities.
On the other hand, the maximum complexity realizable by a simulation is a function not only of its laws but also of its available space. As entirelyuseless already pointed out, Uc can simulate any computable universe, given enough space.
Which is not a consistent set of axioms, but let’s just pretend you said “classical propositional logic”. Then why this and not something else, say intuitionistic, relevant, modal, etc.?
Well, as per the First Incompleteness Theorem, there’s no recursive set of axioms complete for arithmetics. So if the universe realizes all arithmetic truth at least its set of laws is non-recursive, that is has no finite Kolmogorov complexity.
...
unless you meant that the Multiverse realizes all possibilities.
On the other hand, the maximum complexity realizable by a simulation is a function not only of its laws but also of its available space. As entirelyuseless already pointed out, Uc can simulate any computable universe, given enough space.