Physioaxiomatics - physioaxiomaticity

You ask an easy question of which we know the answer: Why we exist asked in English is a stupid question. We have to include the universe of which we are part. Why the universe exists = not a question about important events like the entropic cyclic big bangs (entropic means that each cycle results in a bigger universe-substrain). Our universe exists due to the quantum foundations which isn't a final finite theory but an open axiomatic system otherwise it becomes logically inconsistent. Quantum field theory is the theory of our universe; by no means the only logically possible physical foundations. String theorists retardedly calculated a humongous finite number of string-theory-based universes, but not only string-theory-based universes are possible (I don't claim that string theory is correct for our universe; I don't open that subject).

If one believes in God they believe these fallacies:

1a. the fallacy of personhood as more fundamental than logical procedures while being the result of impersonal logical procedures in personhood-yielding computers (biological, programs, etc.)

1b. the fallacy of personhood as the physical foundations: personhood which is the result of personhood-yielding computers which have impersonal logical procedures, is a physical foundations which is also the result of logical proceduralities/procedures unrelated to personhood at the foundational level

1c. the fallacy of personhood as a mereological simple (without proper parts) while the personhood-yielding computer has many data-processing modalities (see: Brodmann areas, and we should mimic all Brodmann areas in order we create a digital person of true personhood = unzombieness | data-processing mimicking not cytological)

\_\_\_\_

Landauer's principle doesn't allow immaterial data-processors.

Reversible computing cannot unceasingly process information without producing thermodynamic and informational entropy.

2. the fallacy of the united wholeness: Infinite axiomatic systems are possible (axiomatic systems with axiomatic foundations = axiomaticity being a list, an algorithm, a program or hybrid; necessarily logical; randomness is allowed when logically defined; the supernatural = exologic has no rigorously logical definition and it's impossible [the supernatural is based on storytelling but language and common sense aren't axiomatic systems neither can mere storytelling meet the prerequisites for physical foundations])

Infinite axiomatic systems are possible. Even weird no-useful axiomatics are possible. All axioms are mathematical expressable, but that doesn't mean they have to be compatible with the axiomatics of mainstream mathematics. The axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems doesn't exist (omniaxiomatics/panaxiomatics/pantoaxiomatics/[omni]universal axiomatics).

The omniaxiomatics cannot function as an axiomatic system; and the set of all sets doesn't exist.
The unified whole/the omnitotality doesn't exist.

Mathematical tricks to describe it don't describe it because it fundamentally has no finite overall description.

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

Why universes exist? Because physical foundations are self-caused due to logic.

Not every axiomatic system is a physical foundations.

Physical foundations are logically (endo-caused) self-caused.

Not all possible universes are quantum-physics-like.

A physical foundations = physical axiomatics is like a Rubik's Cube. Some movements are possible and others aren't (some questions don't make sense foundationally = physioaxiomatically and not due to human inability, or you have to interact with a system for them to make sense).

Why do I exist? I am a bias making and collecting machine from the environment creating new fallacies. Not important to ask "Why I exist!" "Why I bias! = I produce biases."

Ask that: Why our universe exists? Why universes exist?

Answer: Due to their logically self-caused/self-causal axiomatic foundations. Infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible. Common mathematics is a proof system. The infinite possible physics are substantiality systems = able to be evolving coexisting phenomena.

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

Is the fallacy of religion/the supernatural superior to logic/science?

No. Supernaturalists still try to do exactly the same with their God-universe or "divine-fields + cosmoi/worlds" systems.

They try to explain self-causal systems, but without logic = with supernaturality = exologic, the foundations of existence are vaguely described in a storytelling base; too vague (language and common sense aren't axiomatic systems) and too biased.

Thus science isn't a supernaturalism.

We make mistakes but we have: 1. axiomatic logic and 2. methodological data + corrections to correct science.

see: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations

In US English: the axiomatic prerequisites of the physical foundations = physical axiomatics = physioaxiomaticity

The physioaxiomaticity of our universe is the quantum foundations, but physioaxiomaticity is a hypernym.

(There's no final finite theory of the quantum foundations which isn't The Everything, because that would create a logically inconsistent universe. But still we can improve our understanding of the quantoaxiomatics = our universe's Rubik's Cube = the quantum foundations.)