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*..... > > >George(s) 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 system. 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. Hal
