Hal Ruhl wrote:
"Meaning" can not be assigned as an inherent component of the All. That would be a selection. "Meaning" can only be assigned if at all within the wave of "physical reality" associated with an evolving Something. Evolving Somethings will eventually encompass pairs of counterfactual and self counterfactual kernels of information thus making their future evolution which is an individual journey to completeness inconsistent with their past evolution. Thus the All is filled with inconsistent and non selected [random] activity. Its internal dynamic is random and inconsistent. Are these both not required for a global non selected activity? Random could still be consistent which would be a selection.
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. But in this case, someone who doesn't believe (or understand) your own theory in the first place need not agree that there's any reason to think a theory of everything would involve "everything" being inconsistent.