.. ..the professor of physics, well, he can't quite follow Gödel - and he's not absolutely sure he believes Gödel, but he can at least distinguish that Gödel makes some sense and the other fellow none...
I'm pretty sure, Gödel himself didn't understand his incompleteness theorem completely, or he would propose a a much more simpler and universal formulation of it. AWT uses so called implicate geometry proposed by Bohm in doing this.
By implicate topology every tautology (i.e. self-referencing claim) is a scalar, i.e. zero rank tensor. It can point to whatever direction, thus effectivelly predicting or extrapolating nothing. Therefore theory is always based on deduction, i.e. logical implication, being an interpolation or even extrapolation of reality between two or more tautological postulates, so called the axioms, thus defining causal arrow of its local time.
From the above follows, every theory must be based on inconsistent postulate set. If it wouldn't, we could replace two or more postulates by single one, thus effectively leading into tautology. But if these postulates are inconsistent, every theory based on them would lead to vague or even mutually contradictive claims in less or more distant perspective, thus illustrating insintric limits of every logical theory. AWT just proposes a way, how to overcome a limits of every causual theory based on sequential logics: it's logic must become implicit in fractally nested way.
Gödel has derived this conclusion (a theorem) for natural number theory based on eleven postulates of Peano algebra. Now we can ask, if AWT is so useless, why we didn't met with such trivial explanation of Gödel theorem a many years before?
...you are not simply proposing ...a tentative hypothesis...
Of course, AWT is not a hypothesis, but a fully fledged, testable theory.
