Ontophysics

• ontophysics: the exact correct physics

• scientophysics: what we know of [onto]physics

## ontophysics is allomathematics; infinite are possible

You speak (PBS Space Time) about mathematics but you don't speak about axiomatics; their foundations.

The universe can be described mathematically, but that doesn't mean it has the exact same axiomatic foundations.

Common mathematics was created as a calculational system, but it doesn't only describe things that meet the criteria of the full justication of their existence.

Infinite allomathematics = mathematics of different axiomatics (axiomatic list, axiomatic algorithm or hybrid axiomatics) are possible. Nobody stops us from creating alternative mathematics = allomathematics; either slightly different, or insanely weird, with different basic operations but necessarily causally rigorous. One can even enter a pseudorandom generator of axioms; pseudorandom because it needs to have a rigorous definition; which can cause axioms to vary in different sub-mathematics or within the same weird allomathematics (of course that wouldn't lead to a physical foundations, because no planet and no life could form if for each solution we use pseudorandomly selected rules). Not all the allomathematics are insanely weird; I simply gave an extreme example; don't focus too much on it.

Axiomatics means logical foundations of a procedural system.

Physics (ontophysics = the true physics; not scientophysics: what we know of it) isn't tautological to mathematics. Mathematics is hypernymic/hypernymous/superordinate (a wider term) to physics.

The true ontophysics is an allomathematics = a system based on axioms able to describe spacetime, to include in the systemic axiomatics/axiomaticity the self-playing/evolution/entropic evolution of the described spacetime, and an axiomatic physics has to meet the criteria of substantiality = to workaround the problems of axiomaticity (incompleteness, inconsistency and incalculability). Workaround doesn't mean that the problems of axiomaticity (= of the axiomatic systems) cease to exist; but it means that a physical axiomatics necessarily has to have a procedure (like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) to deal with them in a procedural manner, either by procedurally creating new axiomatics (the universe expands; new spacetime is created; the universe is an ontological turing machine; a universe-making subcategory of the Turing machine; thus we cannot separate the universe from its axiomatics; because the ontological Turing machine is its own axiomatics, software and hardware).

The correct physics of our universe is a complete axiomatic system = an ontological Turing machine. Any universe has to be a "substantiality-making axiomatics" = ontoaxiomatics.

Our universe isn't a mere solution within the common mathematics, because the common mathematics doesn't in itself meet the criteria of being a single physical axiomatic system.

We use our mathematics to rigorously describe and calculate things.

Any ontophysics (exact and true physics and not only what science describes = scientophysics) is necessarily an allomathematics = a mathematical system based on its own axiomatics.

Our universe is pretty logical, thus it is describable by the common mathematics.

Probabilistically the universes = the physical allomathematics = the different mathematical systems able to be in themselves (= self-causally due to rigorous axiomatical logic) universes, are usually very logical and practical.

Universes with very weird allomathematical = mathematical foundations, still could be describable by the common mathematics, but humongous equations, if we have to transcribe these weird allomathematical foundations to common mathematics. Very weird universes are probabilistically rare, and have lower chances to produce life.

Our universe = the ontophysics (the are identical; ontophysics is the universe; it doesn't merely describe it; that's a criterion of the ontological Turing machine) is an allomathematics (it isn't mathematics) because it has a different axiomatics (ontological Turing machines have different prerequisites from calculational systems like the common mathematics). The ontophysics of our universe is transcribable into mathematics, but if we knew the exact allomathematics of our universe (the exact axiomatic system of our universe) our equations would be slightly easier.

Some axiomatic systems are overall transcribable which means that they have totally compatible axiomatics of a common axiomatic family. Other axiomatic systems aren't overall transcribable at the axiomatic level, but each separate equation within each system is transcribable in a case-by-case manner.

There is no omniaxiomatics. The axiomatic system of all the axiomatic system doesn't exist. There is no single everything. There is no Brahman.

## videography

* What If The Universe Is Math? - PBS Space Time - YouTube