Nihilogony vs logicogony

nihilogony = nilogony = cosmogony from nothing

versus logicogony = cosmogony from logical physical foundations.

see: axiomatization of physics, David Hilbert, David Tong, David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, Max Tegmark

Stephen Hawking made nihilogonous (nihiLOgonous) = nihilogonic (nihiloGOnic) comments like: a universe from nothing, but he wasn't really a nihilogonist (nihiLOgonist). He didn't present nothing itself as an active ingredient of existence; instead he was a logicogonist = logical physical foundations are the cause of physical existence.

Brian Cox never stops speaking about cosmogony from nothing. He isn't a nihilogonist. He is a bad thinker and also dishonest. Nihilogony isn't standardized as a word, and weak thinkers are able to play unethical sophistry amongst nihilogony (active involvement of nothing itself in cosmogony; do not confuse it with the void = spacetime with virtual particles) versus logicogony (self-causality of physical allomathematics/ allomathematics means mathematics based on different axiomatics: axiomatic list, axiomatic algorithm or hybrid axiomatics, able to workaround the problems of axiomaticity: axiomatic incompleteness, axiomatic inconsistency, and axiomatic incalculability; at least one of these problems is unavoidable, and a physical allomathematics can workaround the other two, by creating a smaller mathematics, limited on creating a physical foundations [infinite are possible]). Common mathematics have foundational problems, see: Kurt Gödel and Bertrand Russell, thus cannot physically exist. A physical allomathematics can workaround the problems of axiomaticity = of axiomatic systems, with workarounds, like forms of entropy (the expansion of the universe is ontological entropy), Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [or other forms of uncertainty in different universes], and other tricks we don't yet know (they aren't the same for all the universes). These axiomatic workarounds don't cancel the problems of axiomaticity, but can manage it by limiting what the physical axiomatic system can do.

These are opinions. Most opinions are wrong in philosophy, especially about hard topics, but they have to be recorded.

Why cannot we avoid allomathematics = mathematics with different axiomatics, and simply use common mathematics to describe all universes? Universes are logical, the supernatural isn't only unreachable and unteachable, but it's also impossible to scientifically hypothesize, because it lacks logical foundations, and it's impossible to have specific characteristics = identity = existence = substantiality. Most universes being logical can be represented in common mathematics, but certainly not all, because weird and incompatible allomathematics are possible to postulate. Nevertheless our universe seems compatible to common mathematics. Why not only use common mathematics to describe it? Because it's own and exact allomathematics will give us bigger insight. Now we use our own version of mathematics, which is a mathematics good for general calculations but not tautological to the physical foundations of our particular universe. In mathematics is a taboo to create allomathematics but its certainly doable. Also certain allomathematics are better for solving particular problems than common mathematics which is more generic. Of course we should transcribe anything we find in common mathematics, but there isn't an omnitranscriber amongst all the infinite allomathematics. That's one of the many reasons there is no general calculator (it would require infinite formulas and algorithms which are by no means self-evident neither easy to find in a step by step manner). There is no true general intelligence, because infinite memory cannot locally exist.

## comment 1

Many physicists and mathematicians speak about creating a logical system from nothingness which isn't the void that is full of virtual particles.

The logic of axiomatic systems is more fundamental.

Not the nothingness.

A changing oscillation may pass from the zero level transiently, but logical interactions is the basis of any logical system.

Self-causation is required in physical systems like the universe; but not in man-made proof systems like mathematics. Thus the prerequisites for physical axiomatics has to have no causal gaps, but that means that physics isn't a general tool like mathematics, because it fills the foundational gaps with biased self-interactions and the result is one out of infinite possible universes and not a general tool like mathematics. Please work more on the axiomatic prerequisites for physical axiomatics; and parallelize it to Max Tegmark's cosmological calculability and David Deutsch’s cosmological constructor. All these things are vague. According to particle accelerator data, quantum field theory is the deepest theory in physics because it's compatible with special relativity (common quantum mechanics isn't). Help professors who work on bringing the gap between topological quantum field theory and quantum field theory. We have to understand how the initial symmetries break in physics or something we don't know nowadays.