Γιατί η μαθηματική λογική προσεγγίζει περισσότερο την φύση της οντολογικής θεμελίωσης της υποστατότητας από την φιλοσοφική λογική;

αγγλικό κείμενο:

## Why mathematical logic is closer to the nature of the ontological foundations of substantiality than philosophical logic?

Because it can better describe ontoaxiomatics (ontological axioms; here not scientific axioms).

How can we approach ontoaxiomatics? → With better science and scientific axiomatics. With better foundational theories (foundations of mathematics, quantum mechanics, etc.).

Is the perfect compatibility of ontoaxiomatics (axioms of nature) and scientoaxiomatics (axioms of science) fundamentally possible (not regarding human inability) to be achieved? → No.

Can we do better/improve our theories and understanding? → Yes.

Does improving our theories regarding the foundations of substantiality matter significantly? → No regarding the foundations of substantiality. If we say yes it's a mere matter of taste (not a foundational truth), or an enrichment of science. Infinite incompatibilities will arise as we try to bridge the gap between ontoaxiomatics and scientoaxiomatics due to fundamental reasons (not regarding human inability) (for example due to the axiomatic incompleteness). Basic theories can evolve (some are related to everyday knowledge and also knowledge enrichment), but their foundational counterparts have to reach an ever-expanding gap. There are no rigorous tools (due to fundamental limitations and not due to human inability) to judge our progress in understanding the ontological foundations of substantiality (which is many orders more hypernymic/hypernymous/superordinate than the foundations of quantum mechanics).

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

Could we possibly create a philosophy closer to mathematical logic? And that question evolves into: Can language express properly mathematics? → Yes (if it acts like mathematics; but that notation would be needlessly cumbersome and it would not act like everyday language [there is no benefit in doing it; artificial neural networks will help us achieve that as they transcribe different languages in general]). Mathematicians used to write with sentences; that was their first notation. It is a cumbersome tautology. Mathematics with different notation (we stopped using language as mathematical notation for practical reasons, but semantically its tautological). But that is not a philosophy. It's the same mathematics merely with different notation. Thus the question "Why mathematical logic is closer to the nature of the ontological foundations of substantiality than philosophical logic?" isn't invalidly stated.

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

Does skiing have ontological foundations? Skiing is a sport; an activity in the physical world. Skiing is not a formal science, but it is analyseble by formal sciences. We can analyse one by one the things which constitute skiing. We can analyse the human brain, it's idealised informational (see: information theory) corresponding mind. All its different memories (episodic, muscle, etc.) and systems (brain regions, see: Brodmann areas). Memories and thinking patterns necessary for skiing. Because skiing happens in the natural word we have to study physics, and study also the foundations of quantum mechanics (and try to evolve it) because we seek the most fundamental formal description. It's not only generic physics that is involved in skiing, but also thinking techniques particular to skiing, thus we have to analyse mathematical models of thinking processes and movements particular to skiing (all of these are physical = procedural/nonsupernatural). Skiing is a phenomenon (intentional human action within an ideocontext) many layers afar from fundamental interactions, but still is the result of: 1. fundamental interactions (without them matter wouldn't exist, the brain wouldn't work, bodies wouldn't move in space, etc.) 2. patterns of activity (thinking [brain activity], selected physical motions, etc.) which can be described mathematically (these patterns of activity aren't fundamental for nature to exist but are fundamental for proper skiing to exist) Thus yes. Skiing has ontological foundations. Being an everyday activity, its full foundations are way more complex than the foundations of the natural world. Can we omit the foundations of physics when thoroughly describing skiing to the fundamental level? → No, because brain biochemistry and ski related physics are based on the foundations of physics. If we omit the foundations of physics, skiing would be presented with gaps of causality, by falsely deeming self-evident, things that should and could be analysed.