Dear Marc,
I appreciate your honesty in admitting: "Somewhat paradoxically, it makes me believe even more that the Maxiverse hypothesis is well defined".
Yes, you seamlessly went from
"In my opinion, if incompleteness could "infect" the Maxiverse and make it inconsistent, then nothing would exist"
to
"if human mathematicians can find ways to deal with paraconsistent logic, surely the Maxiverse can thrive even with some paraconsistency or Gödel indeterminacy within itself!".
Moreover, you made this move even though the Maxiverse requires precisely the kind of conception of mathematics that those human mathematicians, who are otherwise comfortable with inconsistencies, pointed out as being problematic. To quote the last sentence of the inconsistent mathematics article (also referenced in my previous post):
"It is only if one takes as a starting point the primacy of the mathematical object as the truth-maker of theories, that one has to worry about how their objects manage to co-exist."
This is a good example of a psychological phenomenon known as the "backfire effect". If you would like to know more about it, an excellent article that discusses various facets of it can be found ">here.](https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
)
My own experience in this contest has so far borne it out completely. I have challenged the beliefs of more than half a dozen participants in their ideas in this contest by presenting contradictory evidence, and not in a single case did it result in the modification of their beliefs.
Actually, in some cases it became apparent that they did change a belief; it was not a belief about their cherished ideas, but a belief about me. In one case, my efforts to explain to a relativity denier some fallacies in his reasoning and some misunderstandings about relativity resulted in him considering me as "possibly brainwashed" by the physics establishment, while in another my efforts to point out to a physicist with expertise in relativity that there is a straightforward interpretational difficulty at the foundations of special relativity about which the physics community is currently in denial resulted in him considering me to pursue a "crazy idea". If I were more distant from these experiences, I would find them amusing.
Your frank admission that your belief in your ideas got stronger when you were presented with contradictory evidence is the most honest response I have got so far, and probably the best I can hope for. Given that the subject of discussion is science and not, say, religion or politics, I wished I could hope for more.
Good luck with your theory and best wishes,
Armin