Sabine Hossenfelder on ontoaxiomatics

## Why Jim Al-Khalili is wrong about/on ontoaxiomatics/the foundations of substantiality

(Hello Mrs Sabine Hossenfelder. I am Ken Astute. You are deeply important because you have a precious mathematical brain. I don't care at all if you agree with me. You don't have to. I deeply like you because you work hard and you provide causal connectomes to theories. Good opinions without good foundations don't lead to possible substantialities. Please work on the causal foam of the foundations of substantiality [the universe must create its own self-causality ontological renormalization of substantiality [a connectome of interactions that ARE the universe without an exosystemic magical God [and then how God works from the inside; same problem]. You don't have to say the exact things with me. Be Sabine. It doesn't matter if you are correct or wrong at least at the beginning when you test an idea. It is VERY important to create a very good causal connectome surrounding your idea in order it is connected to substantiality and sometimes foundationally create it. Please work on the field of study: "foundations of substantiality" which is hypernymic/hypernymous/superordinate to quantum foundations... because we have to understand the general principles of how universes are made. Absolute empiricism is wrong, because it kills the foundations of substantiality as a field of study without to provide alternatives; thus mathematical and allomathematical approaches of physics are necessary in order we understand how physical reality is made. Allomathematics means allo-/different mathematics = mathematics with different axiomatics. Physical worlds/universes are necessarily mathematical (because without mathematical logic, there cannot be any existence = ontological foundations; arbitrary insanity at the ontological level doesn't even start any causality because it cannot be ascribed as something of specific existence/nature/ontology, etc.) Most universes are based on ontoallomathematics = mathematics with different axioms than the standard mathematics which are made to provide existence to universes but aren't necessarily good for someone who wants to make general calculations. Are the many different ontoallomathematics of the different universes transcribable to standard mathematics? No, because there is no omniaxiomatics = the axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems doesn't exist. But we can mathematically transcribe into standard mathematics specific problems, but by no means the whole theory of everything. The "Whole"/Everything/All is not a single set, system or any other coherent whole to be describable as a whole. We cannot merely create an infinite list (lists are forms of ordered sets, and the set of all sets doesn't exist)... we are supposed to create an "ontological Turing machine" which is both its computer and its programme and that as a whole be a universe (the omnimultiverse/a universe containing any possible universe, doesn't exist as a substantial reality [I don't judge it here as a human idea but as a possible substantiality]).

(I had a dialogue with Jim Al-Khalili. See below:)

Hello Mr Jim Al-Khalili. You claim you want to kill the foundations of quantum mechanics because you don't agree on the probabilistic nature of actuality itself. You want to promote a mistake against the data. From CERN and Fermilab we know that the exact nature of particles doesn't exist as a strict standalone. If you hit a particle stronger, you actually change its RELATIONAL guts. Every particle is MAKING the universe. A standalone electron couldn't exist without universe. Don't harm physics with your fallacy that the nature of the cosmos is a dead specific thing without foundations of quantum mechanics which are the foundations of our substantiality (our universe is by no means the only possible universe; with artificial neural networks we can simulate different universes; the criterion of existence is that they must have ontoaxiomatics = be ontological axiomatic systems = universes have to be algorithms based on axioms not eclectically selected to perform good science, but instead ontoaxiomatics must be an algorithm/a mechanism itself (not a static/stable axiomatic list, but an axiomatic mechanism; that's necessary because any axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent (or both, but humans don't usually create these axiomatic systems except for mathematical experimentation). For our universe is the quantum foundations, but other universes do have different axiomatic foundations; the omniaxiomatics [= the axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems] doesn't exist due to mutual exclusions, etc. The ontoaxiomatics must have axioms that are causally coherent. The scientoaxiomatics are eclectically selected to create useful science, but ontoaxiomatics (in plural, because infinite ontoaxiomatics/universes are possible) don't necessarily create useful science, the just provide the causal connectomes of existence.

Any ontoaxiomatics/universe-like entropic/evolving causal connectome is an "ontological Turing machine" (not usually a general Turing machine useful for scientific calculations; the "ontological Turing machine" is not a useful calculator for scientists to own; its usually not good for general purpose calculations; the "ontological Turing machine" is a machine that it is itself the computer AND the programme; and all that ontoaxiomatic algorithm is a universe-like substantiality [universe-like to meet the constructor theory criteria for perspectival existence with a sufficient phase space of operational behaviour and self-causal foam [causal links that justify substantiality, but in a probabilistic manner, because no magic God exists to save the system. The ontoaxiomatic system must provide the causal foam for itself. David Deutsch is deeper (I am a different thinker and I don't represent David Deutsch; I agree with many of his ideas). Max Tegmark is wrong for claiming that mathematics is tautological to physics / ontoaxiomatics, because not all mathematical formulas include their self-causal interlinked ontoaxiomatic foam.).

Quantum foundations is an ontological axiomatics. Ontological axiomatics must deal with axiomatic incompleteness and/or inconsistency with entropy (peroetual expansion of spacetime) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and other tricks, because not only our universe is the sole possible ontoaxiomatics). The axioms of substantiality = ontoaxiomatics, have to be causally coherent (bad for science).