The program or instructions embedded in the PS only construct statements consistent with the axioms of the symbolic system, barring external factors like cosmic rays.
I think you are asking why a computer behaves consistently. I assume it does for the sake of argument. If it does not, my original theorem holds.
1. Yes. Show me a complete set of physical laws and I will derive you a contradiction.
2. Sort of. You bring up an interesting question here. Let me get back to you in a bit.
3. Well, yes, at least for every repeatably observed event. And physics does this, for repeatably observed inconsistent events.
4. No, it just means that any mathematical laws of the Universe are inconsistent, or incomplete. It doesn't make sense (for me) to make statements about the (in)consistency of reality, because empirically (my) reality is consistent.
1. Yes and no. Some phenomena are observable but they can't be considered "events" if they have no time component. But yes, I mean all observable "stuff" (minus emphasis on time) which I call "phenomena".
2. Yes, that is the common understanding of law. Otherwise it wouldn't be applicable and it wouldn't have predictive power.
3. Yes and no. Let's leave it at X is consistent with L. To "predict" has wuzzy connotations when it comes to probabilistic laws like QM, and "consistency" is hand-wavy enough.