Hal, you wrote: > I believe that attempting an extensive detailed formal description of > the Everything is the wrong approach. IMO - at least in this case - the > more information used to describe, the smaller the thing described.
I was not able to follow this, but informal and vague descriptions of everything have been around for millennia. Now it is time to go beyond this. One cannot scientifically discuss nonformal statements or theories. You did refer to formal describability when you repeatedly wrote that if a universe is a theorem cascade in an N-bit formal axiomatic system "then Chaitin's incompleteness dictates that the cascade must stop," and there are no more than 2^[N + c] theorems. For some reason this statement even made it into your "FAQ" list. Counter example: number theory is describable by finitely many bits of axioms yielding an infinite cascade of provable theorems. JS
