>It can be, and it's called the theory of computation. It's the most likely outcome given what we know of the physical world. > Godel showed that consistent t

>It can be, and it's called the theory of computation. It's the most likely outcome given what we know of the physical world. > Godel showed that consistent theories can't even prove their own consistency, and so on. Godel showed a flaw within logic itself. But it's all we got. If you're operating outside of logic then we don't have a consistent logical framework to use for generating conclusions. Without this, like I said, the conversation is pretty much over. There is nothing left to say.