Είναι η πραγματικότητα απόλυτη, απομονωμένη ή εβερεττιανή; Is reality absolute, isolated or Everettian?

## particles cannot exist as standalones without spacetime (Is reality absolute, isolated or Everettian? see: Hugh Everett III)

Particles are excitatirèons of the quantum fields (see: Sean M. Carroll). They cannot exist as standalones in the nonspatiotemporal unsubstantial nothing. Substantiality is necessarily a causal connectome.

And what about the omnipointwise superluminal expansions (big bangs)?

Substantiality is necessarily a causal connectome.
If you try to rip it apart it uses/consumes some of the spatiotemporally ripping energy to produce more particles and spacetime (fluctuations).

Particles (= durable field events) and other fields and objects inside spacetime, exist in relation (ontological relativism/ontological perspectivism1) to their Hubble volume (subluminally expanding sphere of permissible causal interactions). Things outside Hubble spheres cannot ever interact (except if: a. they were entangled beforehand, b. we can prove that probabilistically partial entanglements can weakly interact; any entanglement intervention isn't useful for telecommunication/data transfer;but it's useful to hold universe-strains as wholes). But things outside Hubble spheres are not disentangle from their universe-strains because infinite overlapping Hubble volumes exist. The further a region is from a particular Hubble volume, the weakly entangled it is. Each Hubble volume has halo of gradually fading-out weakly entangled infinite overlapping Hubble volumes which comprise the universe. Afar Hubble volumes have a wide range of multifurcating/Everettian/many-worded alternatives (no sole reality exists extremely afar from one's Hubble volume).

The homekill paradox (a superluminal/impossible thought experiment)

The possibility of finding home approaches zero, the more Hubble volumes one deviates from home before she/he returns.

Ontoaxiomatics must necessarily have causal coherence between its axioms. Ontomathematics works better as a programme/algorithm/processes than a static/stable list, because it has to be the foundations of some substantiality (these is no omniaxiomatics and omnisubstantiality). Thus ontoaxiomatics has to deal with the axiomatic incompleteness and/or the axiomatic inconsistency. Entropy (ontoaxiomatic increments) and uncertainty (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; it's not an unprocedural vagueness but a deeply procedural ontology/mechanistic nature) are ways ontoaxiomatics uses to compensate for incompleteness and inconsistency. Ontoaxiomatics is no different from substantiality; thus in our universe when its wavefunctional decoherence produces new spacetime (the dark energy phenomenon) we observe its ontological entropy.

But that doesn't mean that supernaturalism/ascribed ontological vagueness and uncausal, unprocedural nondefinitions are possible.

## comment 1:

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789811218163\_0002 Probabilistic Entanglement - James D. Stein

probabilistic entanglement: particles are partially or fully entangled not only when a common event/causality causes the entanglement, but because they share the same state space (Bloch sphere roulette)