----- Forwarded message from Jenny Higgo -----
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:09:44 -0700
From: Jenny Higgo
To: Hal Ruhl, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Consistency? Programs for G, G*, ...
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
James Higgo was killed in an air accident on 22nd July. He would be very sorry not to
receive this e-mail. Still, if his many worlds theory is correct, perhaps he has
received it another.
Jenny Higgo (James' mother)
> Dear George:
> Just a quick comment since I happened to read the end first.
> At 6/3/01, you wrote:
> >hmmmm... I thought that was a trick question. An axiomatic system cannot
> >be both
> >complete and consistent. Therefore there can't be a program for it. We go
> >back on how
> >you implement both G and G*.....
> As far as I know that is not true. I understand it to be that some
> axiomatic systems are both complete and consistent.
> Godel deals with systems at the complexity of arithmetic and above.
> Chaitin puts an upper limit on the complexity of a proof in any axiomatic
> IMO the everything is sufficiently low in complexity - no information at
> all - that it is both
> complete and consistent, thus it can not answer any question including that
> of its own stability. So also with its [in my model] oscillatory alter ego
> - The Nothing.
> Since at its heart I feel that Bruno's approach and mine are linked -
> though at the moment I can not follow the majority of his explanation -
> There is only one axiom => Nothing.
> While this must lead to an all universes concurrently system - again no
> information - there can be no answer as to why we find ourselves in this
> one based on a distribution of types because there can be no such distribution.
> The one we are in works to support SAS because large events are almost but
> not quite deterministic. On the small event end of the spectrum I expect
> that the curve hangs a bit - our universe's true noise content - before
> rolling off to almost no one bit events.
----- End forwarded message -----