Anti- Cartesianism / αντικαρτεσισμός

René Descartes claimed that the biological brain is not the thinking and emotional organ, but the interface of the unprocedural soul which according to René Descartes it (the soul was) the thinking and emotional centre. But René Descartes wasn't intelligent enough to ask deep questions. He rejected the biological brain as the thinking and emotional centre of individual selfhoods and personhoods, but he never bothered to study information theory (it didn't exist in his time) and describe at least theoretically the idealised informational (information theory) mechanisms of the fallaciously purported unprocedural soul.

Why unprocedurality is impossible to be (or cause) a substantial state? Why supernaturalism is ontologically/substantially impossible?

Everything that exists has some procedural foundations. Without procedures one might claim we might have statues; static actualities, but any actuality is based on ontoaxiomatics (axioms not selected by scientists, but self-caused axioms originated from blockchain-like entropic ever-expanding algorithms which exist merely because any ontoaxiomatics compatible with mathematical logic (and alternative mathematical logics based on different but rigorous axioms/axiomatics) necessarily exists (but it's not physically reachable to other spacetimes).

Some people who reject the "foundations of substantiality" erroneously claim: we have to merely study physics, information theory, and neuroscience in order we replace the fallacies of René Descartes. Of course we should study physics, information theory, and neuroscience, but they are not fundamentally based on complete axiomatics because any axiomaticity (list of axioms) is incomplete (otherwise it's not a list of axioms). Thus we have to study/examine the "foundations of substantiality", in order to understand how ontoaxiomatics (axiomatics of physical things and not axioms created by the scientific description of things) are self-caused. What is a main difference between ontoaxiomatics (axioms of physical ontology) and scientoaxiomatics (axioms created by scientists)? Scientists select axioms that created useful fields of study, but their axioms are usually eclectic; they aren't generated by a coherent algorithm. Self-causality is a prerequisite for substantial system both in the system 1. God and nature (as one system; it doesn't matter that God is dominant; the system is still self-causal/self-caused) and in the system 2. standalone nature. Thus substantial systems are necessarily self-caused (God is part of the cosmic system [in the case he exists]).

Why ontoaxiomatics (axioms of substantial systems; infinite worlds exist with different axiomatics; string theorists erroneously claim that only worlds based on string theory axiomatics exist; but they are wrong because coherent axiomatics can be produced by infinite other algorithms and ontotheories) has to be logically coherent and not eclectic? Because self-causality has to be a causal procedure, thus the ever-expanding axioms, should be calculated in a blockchain-like manner and not be eclectically selected; because eclecticism isn't causally coherent at the mathematical level. The foundations of ontoaxiomatics is mathematical logic, and alternative mathematical logics based on different axioms (still procedural/antisupernatural because ontological vagueness of self-definition doesn't produce substantial states; infinite different mathematical logics exist though).

Why existence exists? Why substantial things exist?
Because they are mathematically logical thus they are forced to exist.

Are all mathematical formulas existent states or do they describe existent states?
Mathematics isn't physics. In order mathematical formulas and algorithms meet the criteria of substantiality, they have to be able to reproduce an entropic (evolving/nonstatic/nonstationary) spacetime of action (not necessarily a spacetime related to the one of our universe; it might be a topological or other algebraic space; any phase space able to exhibit action. Because existence is necessarily expressed via change in order it becomes exhibited.

A mathematical structure which is static/doesn't change, is not a substantial state, but it may be used as a framework for other substantial states able to express change/evolution.

Nonentropic substantialities are usually trivial and lead to looping worlds (sick substantiality).

Our universe (the universe in which humans live which is one out of infinite other universes and genres/categories/families of mathematically [mutually] incompatible universes) is of nontrivial/significant substantiality (there are degrees of substantial significance; boring looping universes are trivial, universes which don't loop but readily decay are of mediocre substantial significance, or universe is of high substantial significance) is substantially more significant than a looping universe with short periodicity and it is also more significant than universes which readily decay before interesting evolution emerges.

Our universe is like π (3.14159...). It is non-Penrosean cyclic (dark energy periodically causes it to explode as new subverses/subuniverses; and Roger Penrose is wrong, because entropy always increases, and size is less important than causality in physics [study well the Hubble volume and keep in mind the overlapping Hubble volumes; according to the impossible thought experiment called the Homekill paradox, the more Hubble volumes one distances from home, the less probable it becomes s/he will find his/her home when s/he returns. Outside a Hubble volume there's no immediate possibility of causal interaction with the observer at the centre of the Hubble volume, but afar Hubble volumes are locked in the same universe due to overlapping intermediary Hubble volumes. But afar Hubble volumes accumulate high amounts of quantum decoherence in relation to distant denizens of the same universe who live many Hubble volumes away [the Everettian many-worlds interpretation is crucial here, because very afar words have a huge range of alternative actualities in relation to each other [things which are close allow smaller ranges of alternative actualities, but certainly not one. When I see you face-to-face I don't cause the simultaneous collapse of all wave functions [for example on the skin] thus particles are not uncausally hit/collapsed in one place, but they exist in a range of possible locations. Face-to-face interactions lock the two people in a smaller bouquet/bunch of alternative actualities/substantialities/microstates within the macrostate of the universe]).