We can make speculative hypothesis but we cannot assert them , we must be intellectually honest and acknoledge the uncertainty. It is important. What you assert Lorraine so have interesting points but the core assertions are too strong .Consciousness yes is logically necessary for any mathematical systems, like if the systems must be aware of their states and so the physical equations are not sufficient to produce motions,...yes I understand and that tells us that consciousness is necessary, yes and so the consciousness is not emergent but fundamental. So we are in a kind of panpstchism like in my model of 0D but we cannot assert, we cannot confuse the description of the system with what makes the system existing and it is the main problem in your analysis Lorraine.
In telling that Equations don’t move the system, so something else (agency/consciousness) must. It is incorrect generally and actually ontologically because description and cause are not the same.Physics does not claim equations are causal agents, so in a sense it is a category error about topology because description is not the mechanism.The mathematical system needs awareness , it is an assertion ,can we argue actually that a system needs something that “knows the state” for it to work. I beleive that yes personally , we don t know how , but many are going to tell that a rock has a state without awareness, or a particle evolves according to laws without knowing. So epistemology and ontology must be taken with prudence. How to harmonise so the logical statement, the awareness, the experience, the observations, the measurements,the symbols, the communication, the evolution, the categories, the maths, the physics, logic,consciousness.......it is this after all the key. Can we reject the emergence of the consciousness, no , actually no and in fact we can have a universal infinite eternal consciousness omnipotent and finite consciousness with physical finite structures and the finite consciousness can be emergent even with this 0D infinite consciousness.It is there your error Lorraine about the knowing of the reality . It is paradoxal but both can be true. Where are the primary informations and how they act , are they in the GR, or DE or others, are they from this 0D and if yes how they permit the finite consciousness of living systems and even is this consciousness everywhere for all physical systems. So in telling and asserting that emergence is meaninless ,it is false actually. There are always process in fact for all properties .
We must be methodologically clear and distinguish the models from the reality without asserting our assumptions, if not it is simply a vanitious comportment. We must keel multiple possibilities open at my humble opinion.And it is there you claim too much Lorraine without proof. You define consciousness without real explaination, you mixe description with causation, you dismiss alternatives without real proven justification. Reality yes probably requires consciousness to exist, but we don t know how. So in a sense we must avoid category errors and respect our epistemic limitations
