On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 10:13, Hal Ruhl wrote: > To respond to comments on consistency. > > I see no reason why components of the system need to be internally > consistent. And I have indicated that the All is not internally > consistent. Generally speaking evolving Somethings are also not > consistent. Actually evolving Somethings are a sequence of Somethings in > that each new "quantum" of information incorporated into a Something makes > it a new system. > > Arithmetic and any system that incorporates it can not prove its [their] > own consistency.
Not to be able to prove its consistency doesn't mean it's inconsistent, does it? I'm thinking about an inconsistent system as one that can prove both a statement and its negation. What exactly do you mean by your All? All systems of representations, or All that 'exists'? If the latter, what does it mean 'to exist'? If the former, do these systems necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence to something that 'exists', and in what sense? I just can't grasp what you could possibly mean by an inconsistent All. And therefore I can't see what use this model could possibly have, and how can it possibly represent Anything. :) Eric.
