Κοσμοθεμέλιος προοπτικισμός

## Cosmofoundational perspectivism

### Perspective ontoaxiomatics (perspectivism) is the basis of existence, not only of personal experience, but absolute perspectivity is impossible (absolute perspectivism is erroneous)

Any ontoaxiomatics (causal foundations of particular substantiality; infinite different ontoaxiomatics exist in separate universes) is a perspective blockchain-like connectome. The foundations of substantiality are [foundations is or foundations are? "are" due to ontoaxiomatic incompleteness] based on causal relations; thus relativism is correct for the different foundations of substantiality (different ontoaxiomatics). Universes have to be stable, otherwise they immediately decay but in most cases universes based on extremely malleable ontoaxiomatics don't meet the logical criteria of substantiality to appear in the first place.

The vast majority of universes are nonparallelisable; mathematically incompatible. Any possible ontoaxiomatics necessarily creates substantialities; but most of them aren't parallelisable; one cannot travel in universes with different ontophysics. Perspectivism and relativism are foundational components of ontoaxiomatics but not in a manner that violates causality and the cohesion of each universe's ontophysics. Each nonparallelisable universe, being an ontoaxiomatic self-caused self-observer locks the vast majority of its ontoaxiomatics (the foundations of its causal connectome), thus causality is maintained, but no axiomatics (onto-: true nature and sciento-/scientoaxiomatics: the scientific description of the natural laws) is complete; with the ontoaxiomatic incompleteness itself being a core cosmogonic force (blockchain-like entropic by causally coherent and logic-based [based on mathematical logic; but infinite mathematical axiomatics and mathematics are possible] branching).

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

Why absolute perspectivism is wrong (absolute perspectivity is impossible)?

Many philosophers (not all) in order they boost correct ideas, they introduce mistakes, because mistakes are emotionally more noticeable because they are usually pure ideas and not complex procedures (see: proceduralism, procedural physicalism [it means physicalism focusing on ontological and ontophysical procedures of substantiality]).

When I see your face I entangle parts of your molecules with mine, but not only absolute entanglement exists (most entanglements are partial) and I don't collapse all your molecules. Thus I never create an absolute perspective of you; that is axiomatically and physically impossible (not impossible merely due to human inability). Not even a universe can kill logic (without meeting the ontoaxiomatic prerequisites, it wouldn't exist in the first place) by violating the generic incompleteness of axiomatics; thus it cannot and be absolutely self-perspective. (Not all philosophers promote absolute perspectivism, but few uttered similar erroneous phrasings.)

Absolute perspectivity is impossible for self-definition (when rigorously examined; because no definition of substantialities based on ontoaxiomatics can ever be complete to the foundational level of causality [without being vague, incomplete or over- or sub- defining [defining more or less microstates than the substantial ones; which do not exist in an absolute form and cannot be rigorously interpreted in an absolute manner due to the nature of fundamental axiomatic connectomes in general [substantial or interpreted]]]