Ο κόσμος αποτελεί προσομοίωση; Προερχόμαστε από εξωγήινους; (οντοαξιωματικότητα, στα αγγλικά)

### Why the infinite series simulation hypothesis is either trivial or wrong?

• It's very hard for a system to perfectly mimic quantum mechanics in the whole universe. No future civilization will violate the laws of nature. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is not an accurate description neither provides a causal justification for gravity (neither Albert Einstein's general relativity provides the full and specific field-interaction mechanism of gravity) but it isn't wrong. General relativity limited the range of application of the Newtonian theory, but Newtonian gravity remains still a good approximation for average (not extreme) phenomena. No future civilization will ever violate the foundations of information theory (see: information theory, information physics, etc.)

• The infinite series simulation hypothesis is by definition impossible, because it doesn't include an initial true world. It can be replaced with the infinite series of causality (it is not the same; it is an ontoaxiomatic connectome which doesn't have an end.

• Each simulated world (which is impossible to be perfectly created according to information theory; no future civilization will physically have so big computers; except if the computers are as quantum-able and puny as real particles; but that's actuality and not a simulation) should have solve most of its ontoaxiomatics (ontological axiomatics not created for scientific functionality but being the foundations of substantiality and entropically expanding in a blockchain-like operational manner). If the ontoaxiomatics of a simulated world has too many gaps (discovered by the physicists of that simulated world) they might not understand that their world is a simulation, but that for sure there are deeper layers of reality which provide the ontological foundations. Mathematical logic (and alternative mathematical logics [we should hypernymise the matter] with different axioms; still though procedural and nonsupernatural) cannot be violated by a future civilization; neither will they invent a supernatural unprocedural nonaxiomatics based on nondefinitions. The physics and the ontophysics (how substantiality functions and not how it can be scientifically described) of any world is necessarily compatibe to mathematical logic (including variations of mathematical logic with different axioms/the ontoaxiomatics is not selected by scientists but it's logically self-caused by an ever-expanding/entropic blockchain-like operational connectome). Mediocrely created simulated worlds will obviously transfer their axiomatic incompleteness to deeper layers of substantiality, and the fact that a deeper reality exists will be easily detected by the physicists and mathematicians of these worlds. Very good simulated worlds will be able to achieve minimum axiomatic entropy; tautological to the entropy of real worlds (nonsimulated is the correct word; because rigorously designed fake states are ontologically true states if they meet all the ontological criteria; and vice versa: any true world can be interpreted as fake due to the generic problem of axiomatic incompleteness [any axiomatic system is necessarily incomplete; otherwise it is not an axiomatic system]). Because the axiomatic incompleteness is a generic problem, still the physicists and the mathematicians of this and any other world, will have to face that fundamental conundrum (fakeness becomes a trivial issue; the most important thing is to understand the ontoaxiomatics of your particular cosmos, and some other cosmoi if possible. The omnimulticosmos doesn't exist. Not all worlds are mathematically compatible to belong in the same set or system.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The infinite series of alien origin conspiracy theory: All civilizations were created by previous aliens in an infinite series of cultural transfer; and some very intelligent civilizations periodically cause either physical or simulated big bangs (not all alien civilizations have necessarily to be able to cause or simulate big bangs; it might be an evolutionary rare phenomenon). That conspiracy theory has the same concept with the one mentioned above (the differences are trivial).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

And what related philosophical query is nontrivial? The field of study called "foundations of substantiality".