Hal wrote: (Subject: Consistency?)
> If one takes the position that "logical proof" is not universally relevant > to the evolution of universes within the Everything and the determination > of the sequence of successive states of a universe is replaced with > concepts such as "computable" or my "acceptable" what role does "logical > consistency" play? Since we are part of the Everything and our logic is part of us, "logical proof" would be a pars pro toto category mistake to control relevant or acceptable anything (changes, etc.). Computable as well. It is in our mind, not restrictive to Everything - which is not restricted to what we think or observe. > > Logical consistency would seem to play no role. The transition is merely > "acceptable". More than one "acceptable" successor state enables splitting. > How about rather: "to be accepted"? > Hal > John MIkes