| The paradox you present in your theory reminds me of how I discovered the Law of Laws and how I delt with it's paradox. The Law of Laws says that no law can be specifically formulated to tell you something is impossible. The only problem is that the Law of Law is in violation of itself. So I rectified the problem by saying that no Law except this one may be specifically formulated to say something is impossible. Now the law is still inconsistent but it states itself to be so and thus it is consistent in it's inconsistency which is considered to be complete according to my interpretation of the incompleteness theorem by Kurt Godel.
This means I would rectify your theory by saying that everything that exists according to this theory exists according to this theory except for a disproof of this theory which states that, and then state the theory. It's a dubious trick but it works and it makes the theory correct unto itself. Hope that helps,
SubVersion |