Η οντοαξιωματική μη πληρότητα ως κύριο συστατικό της θεμελίωσης της υποστατότητας (στα αγγλικά)

The ontological axiomatic incompleteness (not the interpretational, epistemological, scientific, etc.) as a core agent of substantiality)

simply put: The view that the axioms (the ontoaxioms) of the foundations of substantiality (here not focusing on the scientific ones) are incomplete (natural processes meet conditions which force them to generate new mathematically logical/nonsupernatural ontoaxioms [here not scientific axioms, but elements of the foundations of substantiality; see the ideas of David Deutsch])

It is the claim that ontoaxioms are a core components of any existence, but also their incompleteness is a basis of the evolution of substantial fundamental systems.

Any fundamental system which corresponds to substantiality, should [self]perform in itself three tasks an everyday computer does.

Any fundamental system must:

1. be the computer

2. be the programs

3. be the ontophysics which determines the way its electronics work (but here its about a physics of physics; a deeper layer of [onto]physics, and it might be an infinite layer of causal foundations, an ontological renormalisation group without trivialities even when some interactions [high-order operations] contribute very little to the central wave function

4. be the active interaction and evolution of all the above

The ontoaxiomatic incompleteness, provides the necessary systematic entropy in order each universe (ontosystem) evolves. Otherwise we have Platonic ontostatues of no physicality. Without entropy there is no thought/informational processing. Ontostatues are ideas/informational concepts which can only exist in entropically evolving systems. (That is one view; others claim that Platonic ontostatues do have physicality, but cannot produce consciousness and sentience [in these sick universes everything is static; see: Sabine Hossenfelder: Everything vibrates. It really does. - But some others attack the Platonic ontostatues notion and claim that substantiality is necessarily entropic, because the fact that any axiomaticity is incomplete [both the scientific axiomaticity and the ontological axiomaticity or ontoaxiomaticity], thus the Platonic ontostatues don't meed David Deutsch's constructor theory criteria and certainly do not exist; which actually is the only rigorous and correct answer on the topic]).

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

There is no "Everything"/"Whole of Wholes"/the "All".

The Everything/the all does not exist as a sole entity, and that is deduced by:

1. the set containing all the sets doesn't exist (same with lists which are ordered sets)

2. an extrapolation: the system of all systems is a set which has the same nature as the set containing all the sets (some systems are fully functional as standalones; thus the system of all system is a set which has the same nature as the set containing all the sets and doesn't exist), thus it doesn't exist

3. the omni-multi-verse (the set or system of all multiverses) doesn't exist because: a. not all universes are mathematically compatible [non-parallelisable universes], b. not all mathematically compatible universes can co-exist in the same set or system - and most importantly the All/the Everything is by no means only the universes; the components/ingredients of the All/Everything are non-definable (I didn't put a different number for the inexistence of the omnimultiverse because its included in the purported ingredients of the Everything/the All) (By no means the foundations of the quantum mechanics of the universe in which humans live is the Everything/the All. If we claim so we are empiricists, but empiricists totally reject (without replacements of equal depth) the deepest questions in foundational fields of study [the foundations of quantum mechanics for example; see: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics; and separately [don't see the work only of Robert W. Spekkens] Robert W. Spekkens)

The "Theory of Everything" ("theory of the local universe" is the correct term) is a harmful misnomer which hinders the evolution of physics.