Quantum field theory

## comment 1

We need an axiomatics of physics.

An algorithmic axiomatics, not list of axioms as in common mathematics.

MIT mathematicians play with alternative axiomatics; I call all these different mathematics "allomathematics" (allo- means different).

What are the prerequisites for a spacetime and a physics in general; not necessarily the physics of our own universe. And I speak about the correct physics, the ontologically correct physics = ontophysics, not the mere scientific physics (scientophysics). (We know the difference, but we can only analyse things via science and gradually reach closer to ontophysics.)

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

Problems of axiomaticity/axiomatics/any axiomatic system based on rigorous rules:

• computability: metaquestions (meta- means self-referential) about physics (are they answerable?)
• consistency: asking the same question slightly different, would change the results?
• completeness: will questions with no answer appear? (one solution is to have an entropic mechanism which generates the missing axiom... and the axiomatic system works better if the axioms are actually an axiomatic algorithm and not a list... for example Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle might be a way for the universe to avoid distressing questions. Sabine Hossenfelder is a superdeterminist, but superdeterminism is the claim that magically during or before the Big Bang, a general bias was inexplicably installed... [see: Causal Closure versus Everettian constructor; a combination of the many-worlds interpretation and constructor theory]

An Everettian constructor makes more sense than superdeterminism.
Superdeterminism as presented by Sabine Hossenfelder works nearly fine (it doesn't mention well what happens when a collision generates more/new/extra particles...; I found many other fallacies).... but superdeterminism CANCELS any effort to understand the cause of physics, because it claims an exophysical magic started everything.

On the other hand, an Everettian constuctor, makes the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction, an attribute of Big Bang itself; thus infinite universes-substrains could result from a single Big Bang, which most probably is cyclic (the universe acceleratingly expands according to the observations; and that leads to Big Rip... cyclic cosmology; but the phase transition Roger Penrose proposed is incorrect; and we must use the ER = EPR for the informational correspondence of parent and offspring universe [the holographic principle still holds true; we simple replace the black holes with the different phases of the universe].

The cyclic universe still isn't the most fundamental answer.
It is not the Theory of the Local Universe (I do not like the term Everything, because no algorithm is possible to be built to collect and describe all its ingredients; and as a singe system it is impossible because it would contain mutually exclusive systems; Physicists confuse the Gerneric True Everything [undefinable and has no meaning mathematically; you cannot even vaguely describe it] with the Everything we Have to Know about Our Local Universe Which Isn't the Generic Everything [the generic true everything doesn't contain only universes; that's the omnimultiverse which still doesn't exist, because many spacetimes and their physics are mutually exlcusive])

An algorithmic axiomatics of physics must be created; and due to causopermeability = causal permeability, that's actually quantum field theory itself... but we have to understand its deeper probabilistic mechanisms.

see: constructor theory

Many people claim that the Everything has a single constructor, and others claim that there isn't a practically unified Everything; and many constructors appear, with partial or no causopermeabilty = causal permeability = something to influence something else (but it has to be mathematically described).

## comment 2

The foundations of physics cannot be discrete, because if something causes the discreteness it has to be defined... and that actually doesn't lead to a foundational theory. That approach is wrong because it causes axiomatic problems to physics. If you kill the true patterns of the fields, you kill the axiomatics of physics. (Discrete physics is useful as an approximation in some cases, but it will never lead to the axiomatic algorithm of physics, because it violates the prerequisites and the axiomatic workarounds [uncertainty, the Universe expands = this is ontological entropy, the wavefunction of the universe can exist only as entropic; the bulk universe is not entropic, but no observer can observe it [observer = impersonal or personhooded = arbitrary referential point in the universe]])

We need to play with topology...

Topological quantum field theory must evolve.

We cannot have discreteness imposed magically by something we don't define.

On the other hand, specific topological rules do act as limiters,
which don't make the foundations of physics discrete, but better define the quantum nature of reality/the quantumness of physics.

The quantum (the cosmos) is discrete-like. Interpreted as discrete in particular events, but ontologically exists in a continuum.