Τα κριτήρια της υποστατότητας (πεδίο μελέτης: θεμελίωση της υποστατότητας) - στα αγγλικά

Substantial worlds (they are self-computing Turing machines [not only one version of substantiality is possible], and their operations can happen simultaneously in n dimensions) have be in tandem:

• hardware: their own computer
(electrical elements don't self-evidently obay physics; that to the computer is a deeper layer of ontoaxiomatics)

• self-causator/self-causer/axiomatic repairer: providing "deep causality evolution": blockchain-like way to express ontoaxiomatic entropy

• software: their own programme[s]

### The criteria of substantiality (field of study: foundations of substantiality)

Any substantial thing has ontological foundations based on ontoaxiomatics (axioms of existence; similar to the scientoaxiomatics of science). Not only one axiomatics (here hypernymically/hypernymously/superordinately: onto- + sciento-) exists; their number is incalculable/incomputable but practically it's infinite.

All ontoaxiomatics is based on mathematical logic, or similar in nature operations (alternative mathematical logics which meet the basic criteria of mathematical logic; the number of alternative mathematical logics is incalculable/incomputable but practically it's infinite.)

All (superordinately mentioned and also hyponymously/separately) axiomatics are incomplete (deep questions about causality and other operations, have to be dealt) (otherwise the system is not axiomatic).

\_\_\_\_

Substantiality is not the result of any mathematical operation, algorithm and formula.
Substantiality has to meet certain criteria:

• The logical operations have to form and exist in a "substantial[ity] phase space" similar (or identical) in nature to spacetime, topological algebra (entropic topological algebra [with evolving/multifurcating formulas] in order this axiomatic system is self-sufficient and not based on a different more fundamental system; because it has to include the axiomatic entropy to dissipate/disperse the ever-growing ontoincompleteness [otherwise the deepest axiomaticity will be reached by a deeper axiomatic layer; or we might have an impossible axiomatic system), etc.

• Fallacious/contradictory axiomatic systems can not give rise to substantiality (for example a human might invent an impossible axiomatic system; it might be partially runnable computationally until it meets a fatal error/logical error).

(see: David Deutsch; I do not represent David Deutsch, I am a different person. Max Tegmark has useful ideas also, but he makes some obvious mistakes; he rejects the field of study called "foundations of substantiality" claiming that all mathematics is tautological to substantial states, but he doesn't properly explain why. Different natures are not tautological. Mathematics is not physics, and physics is not ontophysics [the actual world]. If they were we should use the same name for all different; but that's a fallacy. Max Tegmark has many good ideas, but he cannot be evolve to be correct, or slightly correcter/more correct about/on the hypernymic understanding of substantiality [his work is precious and must not be rejected].)

see also: causal topology/axiomatic topology

...ask me for more