Hal Ruhl wrote:

You wrote:

Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of "evolving Somethings", not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems.

Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected "meaning". That is why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently.

OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said something more general, like "you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems". So, again, you don't have any way of showing to a person who doesn't share your theoretical framework in the first place that "everything", i.e. the All, need be inconsistent.

OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said something more general, like "you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems". So, again, you don't have any way of showing to a person who doesn't share your theoretical framework in the first place that "everything", i.e. the All, need be inconsistent.

I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did that info come from?

I don't consider that to be "information" because it seems logically impossible that a statement such as "one plus one equals two" could be false. You might as well ask, "where do the laws of logic come from"? Do you consider the laws of logic to be "information"? If you don't think the laws of logic can be taken for granted, you could just solve the information problem by saying it is simultaneously true that there is "something rather than nothing" and also "nothing rather than something", even though these facts are contradictory.

I don't consider that to be "information" because it seems logically impossible that a statement such as "one plus one equals two" could be false. You might as well ask, "where do the laws of logic come from"? Do you consider the laws of logic to be "information"? If you don't think the laws of logic can be taken for granted, you could just solve the information problem by saying it is simultaneously true that there is "something rather than nothing" and also "nothing rather than something", even though these facts are contradictory.

`If you grant that the "laws" of logic and mathematics contain no information because there is no possible world in which they could be otherwise, then you could always adopt a theory like Tegmark's which just says that the "everything" consists of all possible mathematical structures, although you might still have a problem with picking a measure on these structures if you want a notion of probability (to solve things like the 'white rabbit problem'), and if there is any element of choice in picking the measure that would be form of arbitrariness or "information" (see my post at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2606.html ).`

Jesse