At 09:34 AM 6/30/2004, you wrote:
If your system is inconsistent then it is obviously Turing computable (just write a generator
of ALL arithmetical formula).
But I am not sure your system is inconsistent. Well, I am not sure it is a "system", or
perhaps you just fail to present it as such, probably.
As for my model and its system I was referring to my post of June 8 which because I can not get on the escribe site to get the URL right now I have copied below.
Ok so if I accept that the Everything half of the system is Truing computable what about the Nothing half which is the incomplete part. In this case there is no output.
So if indeed evolving metaverses are the result of an "interaction" between the two then they can only be incomplete and evolve inconsistently.
1) Given that the following definitions are sound:
The Everything: That which contains all.
The Nothing: That which is empty of all.
A Something: A division of the Everything into two subparts.
2) These are unavoidable because at least one must exist
3) They are interdependent so that you can not have one without the whole set.
4) Notice that "Definition" is the same as establishing a boundary between what a thing is and another thing that is all that the first thing is not.
5) The Nothing has a logical problem: It can not answer any meaningful question about itself including the unavoidable one of its own stability.
6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point "penetrate" the boundary between itself and the Everything in an attempt to complete itself.
7) However, the boundary is permanent as required by the definitions and a Nothing remains.
8) Thus the "penetration" process repeats in an always was and always will be manner.
8) The boundary "penetration" produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves into the Everything as the old example of Nothing tries to complete itself. This divides the Everything into two evolving somethings - evolving multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are contracting.
9) Notice that the "Everything" also has a logical problem. Looking at the same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible answers because just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal information which is not an aspect of the "all" content of the "Everything". Thus the "Everything" is inconsistent.
10) Thus the motion of a shock wave boundary in the Everything must be consistent with this inconsistency - That is the motion is at least partly random.
11) Some of these evolving Somethings will admit being modeled as UD's with true noise.