Axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations

## text 1

Προτιμώ την μη κατονομασμένη ανωνυμία. Η κατονομασμένη ανωνυμία (πχ υπογραφή Ανωνύμου) μοιράζεται χαρακτηριστικά με την επωνυμία.

Όνομα είναι και ο τρόπος γραφής (text parsing and text statistics).

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

The hypernym/superordinate term/wider term for both religions and nontheisms (atheism, agnosticism, metaphysical indifference) is: "metaphysical worldviews". Atheism is not a religion because it doesn't include the supernatural = causality violations via exologic. Also atheism accepts the scientific method and doesn't have an unchanging dogma when new evidence is superior. Atheism is a negation; and a negation doesn't explain the physical foundations. Affirmative term for atheism are: logicalism, physicalism, logical positivism, absolute rationalism, metaphysical naturalism, etc.

According (and correctly) to Bertrand Russell, atheism is rational[ist] agnosticism (because knowledge is infinite) and it is differentiated from general agnosticism on the fact that atheism/logicalism/rationalist agnosticism recognizes the necessity of logical foundations and procedures as the foundations for everything that can exist. General agnosticism (both open to rationalism and the supernatural) doesn't recognize the necessity of the logical foundations for everything that exists/everything substantial. Also general agnosticism doesn't reject supernaturalism as something without foundational characteristics, thus necessarily impossible or only possible as an erroneous opinion within a truly physicalist/logical world (substantial wider existence like a universe and spacetime).

Mathematics (geometry is part of mathematics) is a proof system (see: John Stillwell on proof systems).

Physics is a substantiality system. Physics is compatible with mathematics due to logic, but not tautological as a self-coherent axiomatic system.

Infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible.

Stephen Hawking initially had the erroneous view that the physical foundations is finite; has finite axiomatics. During his last years he understood that due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the physical foundations is an open/multifurcating axiomatic tree, because closed and finite axiomatics create inconsisten systems (mathematics has open axiomatics; we can also experiment by creating different axiomatic systems = allomathematics to study the properties of the axiomatic systems).

According to Max Tegmark (he is coherently correct; thus not only according to him) the physical foundations aren't an axiomatic list (list of axioms) but the physical axiomatics is a program (it works better to meet the: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations, which is hypernymic to quantum foundations [quantum field theory is foundational to our spacetime but it's not the only way to meet the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations).

The problem of self-causation/self-causality: Axioms cannot be proven. If axioms are proven they aren't axioms but theorems. Theist believe in the God-Universe system and shift self-causation to the supposedly cosmogonic person, without to elaborate on the prerequisites of the personhood-yielding computer and why it is related to cosmogony. Supernaturalists and theists aren't rationalists because they believe without to logically elaborate. Rationalists work on the physical self-causation. The nowadays Big Bang theory doesn't include the maximal degeneracy state of spacetime; a chromodynamic superfluid in which supposedly all fundamental forces are united (we don't know yet the state before the Big Bang; we don't have good quantum field theories for the maximal degeneracy of spacetime). According to some thinkers our local Universe is non-Penroseanly cyclic, it acceleratingly expands, until it reaches Big Rip, which has enough mass–energy to collapse into a maximal degeneracy superfluid (like the densest part of the black hole; which isn't a singularity, because general relativity doesn't provide the quantum field theory mechanism, and substantiality requires specific foundations, not erroneous approximations). The Big Rip has enough mass–energy to collapse into a maximal degeneracy chromodynamic or uniforce superfluid, which is homogenous and isotropic (the immediate Big Rip - Big Bang doesn't produce a homogeneous and isotropic universe, thus we need the intermediate uniforce maximal degeneracy superfluid)... and the uniforce maximal degeneracy superfluid cannot get more degenerate than the maximal degeneracy of spacetime itself, and it adiabatically phase transitions into the Big Bang, or non-capitalized big bangs in non-Penrosean cyclic cosmology. The Penrosean (Roger Penrose) cyclic cosmology is supernatural/magical/impossible/erroneous because it is non-entropic. The erroneous Penrosean cyclic cosmology is a theory about absolute matches amongst different big bangs (sub-big-bangs) but the correct non-Penrosean cyclic cosmology allows the universe to be entropic, this there isn't a perfect match amongst different sub-big-bangs, and the open system universe is allowed to grow and eternally expand. The non-Penrosean collapse doesn't bring back together exactly the same way as in the previous sub-big-bang. Entropy still exists and each sub-big-bang era generates an ever bigger universe. Entropy is an axiomatic prerequisite for physical foundations in spacetime-like universe which are functional like ours. Non-entropic worlds don't meet all the substantiality criteria to be true universes.

The Big Bang isn't a tautological field of study with the quantum foundations.

see: Robert W. Spekkens - Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

The axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations, is causally deeper than particular events within a substantiality world (universe/spacetime). Sub-big-bangs are cosmic events, resulting from the physical foundations.

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

Humanity has many gaps on these fields of study.

You are allowed to use this text without mentioning its source.

## text 2

1. any universe is logical, even the physical one, meets the prerequisites for physical foundations which is programming and not a list axioms like mathematics (see: proof systems by John Stillwell; but the universe requires an open axiomatic foundations which is program-like to meed the self-causation criterion due to coherent logic, which doesn't yield only one universe)

2. no paradoxical noise patterns have been observed; because every computer has timing errors, thus we live in a physical universe

3. in the theory of infinite simulations of universes, the first universe is always and necessarily physical (it's like shifting abiogenesis outside Earth, but still it cannot exist before the Big Bang)

We don't live in a simulation.

Quantum foundations is about the deep whies of quantum field theory.

But we need to ask deeper questions about any possible physical foundations.

Cosmogony from magical personhood = theism, without to elaborate the personhood-yielding computer and it's supposed cosmogonicity is a fallacy.

We need to approach physics as an open axiomatic system (due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems; closed axiomatics are inconsistent).

The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle isn't fundamental if we take into account the overall Everettian spectrum of wavefunctional sub-alternatives.

\_\_\_\_\_

Infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible. They don't have to be useful.

We should play with allomathematics = mathematical systems with different axiomatic foundations. We need that in order we understand the physical foundations. Not all axiomatic systems are based on axiomatic lists. Programs work better as physical foundations because they're more coherent and create a relational framework which is necessary to meet the criteria of logical systematic self-consistency without exoaxiomatic magic.

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

Also the title:

"axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations" is wrong

because the "axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems" = omniaxiomatics = universal axiomatics doesn't exist, because it would include mutually exclusive axiomatic systems

it wouldn't be able to act as a functional axiomatic system,

only as a set,

but the set of all sets doesn't exist,

thus the axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems (omniaxiomatics/universal axiomatics)

necessarily doesn't exist/ the "Whole"/ the "Everything" doesn't exist as a single possible entity.

Still please work on that.

The hypernym/superordinate term/wider term of the quantum foundations is:

the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations,

which isn't a strict set of rules for all possible/logically achievable physics,

we have to be honest,

but please create a faculty or subfaculty, name it: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations,

collaborate with MIT

and help humanity understand the big questions.