Summary with Reliable T

I take a theory T in the sense of 1^st-order logic to be such that T ® the existence of T is logically inevitable. This might take the form T ® ƒ$T. But this isn’t quite what we want, since it leaves the question of T’s existence undetermined.

Supposing existence is really just relational existence, what can be said about the relationship between T and ƒ$T?

Interpret necessarily true not in the sense that it is true in every possible world, but more in the sense that “I am here now” where “I” refers to the speaker.

The relationship in question is the one that happens between the theory T and what it proves, ƒ$T, or necessarily there exists T.

ƒ$T is to T like “I am here now” is to its speaker. In some sense, it is already true.

We know there is necessarily the possibility of such a T.

Hence, T exists, logically inevitability.

T is, and does not merely represent the physical universe.

If we found evidence T is our universe, then

we would have a rational explanation for existence.

The main problem I see, which not everybody will see as a problem, is that even if we grant all these suppositions, there is no way to account for qualia. By the hypothesis, physical reality is ultimately mathematical structure. But I do not see how one could account for the experience of greenness, for example, with just mathematical structure.