Letters

In The Royal Institution lectures you repeated many times notions about God.

Do you have proof that quantum field theory is a personhood-yielding computer = brain able to yield true personality with all its Brodmann-like processing subroutines?

If not please don't mention God.

Mention ONLY what is proven.

Personhood cannot be immediately yielded, it requires a personhood-yielding computer.
The biological brain is a personhood-yielding computer.
In the future humanity will build truly personhooded robots because personhood has nothing magical.

Is the Chinese room truly personhooded or is it a philosophical zombie?
There is no single answer.

If it has few Brodmann-like subroutines it will be a philosophical zombie.
If it has all personhood-yielding subroutines it will be a true person with degrees of intelligence, emotional experiencing, sentience, sense of agency bias mechanism and empathy.

The personhood-yielding computer is very complicated to be an axiomatic prerequisite for the physical foundations.

According to the Landauer principle any informational processing releases heat when the intermediary calculational stages are deleted. If God is physical, then he's not supernatural.

A reversible computing God would generate a universe made nearly 100% of calculational junk, due to his anxiety not to delete anything, but all that junk is informational entropy. If God is or causes physical and/or informational entropy then he's not God. He cannot be.

Even if God existed, logic defines the logical procedurality (list of procedures) of the personhood-yielding computer = brain. Personhood obeys logic and is the result of mathematical logic.

Mentally ill people don't violate the foundations of logic, but they simply have erroneous semantic maps, damaged informational labelling and impaired data-processing modalities; but no fundamental violation of logic exists within their brain.

The supernatural not only isn't reachable and teachable, but it isn't also scientifically hypothesizeable because it lacks any specific logical foundations, thus it couldn't be anyhow. The supernatural cannot have a specific identity to be in the first place. The supernatural is described with antiscientific and vague empiricism, without any axiomatic analysis and rigorous foundations.

Please don't spread junk theories. Not even as a joke.

Speak about God only if you rigorously describe mathematically a personhood-yielding computer with all the abilities of the biological brain, but then you have to prove it cosmogonic and foundational to many words (universe, heaven, hell; but you have to define these also mathematically).

You're a perfect teacher. I like your YouTube lectures.

Please don't spread junk theories like God, except if you can mathematically prove it.

Otherwise is some boring worthless junk.

In democracies its legal to criticise silly and unmathematical ideas.

Be even more rigorous.

Quantum gravity doesn't seem to work...

Can you please create a transient theory of gravity?

Aalto University and many others work on quantum transitions between energy states [that is true]; and (that's more speculative) [transitions between; if that works] full spin changes.

Create a calculus for transitional quantum interactions, to describe gravity as a transitional phenomenon (that would be useful for solid state physics also).

将微积分应用于过渡性量子场论相互作用以描述引力

## letter 2

nilogony (nil + -o- + -gony) erroneous theory/creation from nothing itself vs topogony (topology, topological algebra + -o- + -gony) creation due to solvability / correct topological algorithms necessarily exist (when is probabilistic and within a range of uncertainty; how is dictated within the rules of the specific hyperset these universes belong)

* Richard Dawkins is a nilogonist, but without a degree on physics and without any mathematical model
* Laurence Krauss has literary but not mathematical suggestions on nilogony
* Max Tegmark and Sean M. Carroll which are more intelligent and I also like them, the are topogonists; they are not stupid to claim that nothing itself may express entropy as some form of existence/objective reality (one out of many possibilities is a universe)

Nothing necessarily doesn't exist. If it existed it would have been something. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was extremely intelligent on other stuff but stupid on his definition of nothing. Not simply wrong, but stupid. Nothing is a human notion of non-existence. Non-existence isn't the vacuum. Non-existence "is" eternal and unchangeable. Well we cannot attribute a verb to the non-physicality of nothing; but as a notion nothing "is" permanently non-existing. If something exists, it wasn't created because of the nature of nothing (-ness) but because of the nature or its own potential (-ity).

Sean M. Carroll and Max Tegmark are important human beings because they are clever to speak and mathematize (= express mathematically) on that. It's not the nature of nothing which creates something; but the potential (-ity) of that particular something, within a probabilistic cloud of other somethings which allow it to be created. Stephen Hawking was intelligent enough to understand that "a probabilistic cloud of other somethings allow it to be created" but he died young. You might claim that Stephen Hawking died old but no, he had many things in mind. Ask people close to him. Stephen Hawking wanted to express mathematically that "a probabilistic cloud of other somethings allow it (= the subject of cosmogony) to be created"... some cladistics or sets of universes which are algorithms of topological algebra... We shouldn't cry, but do our best. Claiming that within the nature of nothing itself (which is a human notion and not a physical actuality) there is the potential of something is wrong (it means that your brain has extreme entropy and now is nothing). One definition of nothing is "not attributable, not existing, strictly and permanently non-entropic[al])

Nothing is nothing. Study logic and metalogic. Otherwise you are lazy and silly. Silly not used as an expletive, but as a description. Only something can become a cause for and an attribution to something; even if that initial something is a probabilistic cloud of the future object, thus a wave function before it became fragmented into micro-events = entropy. Mathematical correctness of a topological system (which creates a process and not a static world, because a static world is hard to get tested even if it existed... but ok, it might not include data-processing machines) necessarily creates it. Not all systems are mathematically compatible among each other (= there's no generic physics for all univeses / and not all univeses are parallel (-zeable, mathematically related).

Claiming that nothing itself might create something it means: 1. you don't know logic, 2. you're unwise because you don't understand nothing and entropy which are the most fundamental notions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411C:4C00:CB3:D88C:6719:FBEA (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411C:E600:255A:73A6:5C1:938C (talk)

### Nihilogony (cosmogony from the actions of permanent inexistence) versus logicogony (cosmogony from logically possible physical foundations)

Logicogony is hypernymic to axiomatogony, topogony, programmogony, etc (they're versions of logical procedurality [complicated procedures]).

A major topic is self-causation. Both the systems physicalist universe and the system God–universe are necessarily self-caused. God is a person, but a personhood-yielding computer: 1. has spacetime as a prerequisite (space for the personhood-yielding computer = brain to exist and time to process information), thus spacetime is more fundamental than personhood and the personhood-yielding computer (even idealized by violating Landauer's principle, or via reversible computing which produces informational entropy = useless intraprocedural data), 2. is operating according to logic (mathematical or allomathematical = different axiomatic systems are possible [the supernatural is impossible because it doesn't have rigorous specific foundations], but they[allomathematics]'re still logical and mathematically describable). Mentally ill people don't violate the laws of nature; they simply have dysfunctional wiring, false semantic labeling, procedural center damage etc.

```
God doesn't have free will because he cannot violate logic. Personhood is the result of personhood-yielding computers = brains, which logically process information. Mentally ill brains don't fundamentally violate logic, but instead have impaired structure thus function. The supernatural isn't only unreachable and unteachable but it's also scientifically non-hypothesizeable. It couldn't be anyhow. It lacks rigorous foundational specifics. Supernaturalists describe the supernatural via vague empiricism without any specific logical foundations. / degrees of personhood in metaphysics: Some Gods like the Japanese kami aren't cosmogonic. Shintoism is a weak metaphysical personocracy (krátos here means dominance). Even an impersonal supernatural field supposedly either helps humans (and personhood-bearers) or it just applies anthropic cosmological esthetics outside logic and science. Thus even an impersonal divine field retains a degree of anthropic biasing. A hollow supernaturalism (as a joke? an ill-sophistry) is the one that doesn't accept any violation of physics and logic, not even for exological cosmic esthetics. Physicalism is the claim that everything that exists has logical foundations. The simple philosophical causal closure hypothesis is erroneous, because it doesn't take into account the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations, the logical self-causation series, the vast majority of open axiomaticity (axiomatic systems) and many other topics. One cannot resolve causality by forcing a closed system answer to a system that might be open. The physical world prerequisites can are hypernymic to the specific quantum foundations of our universe. / Overscientification is the claim without proof, that science is only about our universe, by using mathematics which aren't tautological (they are logically compatible) to physics (the mathematical axiomatic prerequisites as a proof tool are logically compatible but not tautological to the physical axiomatic prerequisites [self-causation via algorithmoid [program] self-interactions resulting in a more sound foundations; but physics can have an axiomatic tree as its foundations, being a program and not a list of unlinked axioms [the universe should have a coherent axiomaticity/ axiomatic foundations, and not separate axioms connected by magic. Physics has to be foundationally presented in a more coherent manner, but not necessarily as a closed axiomatic system [see: problems of axiomatic systems: incompleteness, inconsistency, uncalculability]]).

```

## letter 3 to NHK

### You never had a lecture on any program on physicalism/ logicalism/ atheism/ antisupernaturalism

see: axiomatic prerequisites for physical axiomatics

Mathematics is a measuring-calculational-proof-science/ a general proof axiomatic system.

Physics has to have a program axiomatic foundations and not a list, because the universe has to be more coherent in order to meet the self-causation criterion.

The foundations of mathematics have logical gaps which cannot be resolved because common mathematics has to be a general proof system.

But infinite different physics are possible. Thus universes can have more self-interaction specific logical foundations, which are biased and not the general mathematics.

Plato was wrong. Geometry isn't physics. Geometry is part of mathematics. Physics is transcribable into common mathematics due to logic but that doesn't mean they have the exact sole foundations. Infinite axiomatic systems are possible.

Overscientification is to erroneously claim that science has to only deal with our own universe, via the use of mathematics (which is compatible to physics but not identical as a system; self-causation is necessary to be studied in universes [God is exoaxiomatical and the erroneous claim that quantum field theory is a personhood-yielding computer = brain/ even if God existed, logic is more fundamental than personhood (see: prerequisites for personhood + neuroscience to see how practical it can be produced/ AI can mimic ALL the Brodmann areas + default mode network + activation patterns + coherence centers in order true personhood is produced digitally/ I don't speak about pseudopersonality = philosophical zombiehood).

NHK is intellectual small and ANTIJAPANESE, because many Japanese scholars work on the quantum foundations (there is no final finite theory in a nontrivially open axiomatic system/ the universe expands, we cannot separate its physicality from its foundations) (the physical axiomatics aren't identical to the common mathematical axiomatics, but the physical axiomatics might be branching axiomatics, thus alternative universes are necessary, because in order to have an axiomatic system without foundational gaps you have to fill them in all infinite ALTERNATIVE ways/ infinite universes are logically possible; mathematics describes many different physicalities but isn't itself one physical system).

NHK is ethically small for not elaborating on digital personhood (mimicking rigorously EVERYTHING BUT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the human brain does, including the default network, useful and controlled randomness, self-activation for self-pondering, coherence in data processing to produce personhood [note that personhood is related but not identical to intelligence; for example a personhood-yielding program might produce character = personality biased (via the partial use of flexible artificial neural networks, because true persons are structurally affected by strong emotional events/ partially flexible artificial neural networks because we need basic senses to be standardized and not that flexible as the digital equivalent to the limbic system). A personhood-yielding computer will be less intelligent than a cold heated pseudoperson = philosophical zombie, because to have character means you are biased. Personhood is gradient; not all humans are empathetic at the same degree.

Shinto doesn't have a cosmonic god/ kami, but still the kami maintain most of the degrees of personhood (they are autistic like most Christian saints because there are particular ways of correct approach towards them).

Even in impersonal religions, like the rare atheistic daoism (belief in an impersonal divine/supernatural field without a person-God) some antiscientific anthropic biases are maintained, for example even an impersonal divine field which doesn't help persons, still it imposes a cosmic esthetics outside rigorous logic and within the logic of the supernaturalists who created this religion.

Japan is a democratic country.

NHK doesn't know that.

NHK hinders the studies on personhood, personhood as a physical axiomatic prerequisite (or not), axiomatic differences amongst common mathematics and the infinite possible universes ass allomathematics (allo- means different) = mathematics with different axiomatic foundations [for example tree-like axiomatic program to have more coherent axioms and not separate axioms like in common mathematics] (see: David Deutsch's constructor theory, Max Tegmark's computational universe, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics works on the quantum foundations, etc.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_
I am not important at all.

My ideas aren't correct.

I don't promote specific ideas, only fields of study for us to study.

My conclusions aren't important or correct (or that's not the point even if I am correct).

NHK doesn't understand Japan.

Japan means to be intellectually complete and study everything possible in a rigorous manner.

NHK isn't Japanese, not because it doesn't have the supposed single correct opinion, but because it never rigorously examined the prerequisites for substantiality = for existence.

Presenting things in a soothing way isn't Japanese.

Being honest and studying how the things deeply are IS Japanese.

## letter 4 (Hubble volume field and maximal degeneracy pressure)

Can you please make a rigorous math-based lecture on the Hubble volume? Sorry for asking you things. I know you work very hard. Please never forget that topic: a thorough lecture on the evolution of the Hubble volume = subluminal causality sphere, initially pointwise, then it expands, and if we extrapolate physics, it will shrink and become again pointwise. But the accelerating expansion of the Universe has many implications. The expansion of the universe mostly makes the mass-energy less dense in the universe, but it adds very very low electromagnetic radiation similar to the diameter of a Hubble volume. Even now we experience a big rip, because the Universe expands. The big rip has two sides: 1. it diffuses the existing mass–energy, 2. it introduces new mass–energy relative to the Hubble volume diameter of the particular cosmic epoch. Nowadays the accelerating expansion of the Universe has a mild effect, locally negligible or nonexistent because gravity prevails. In the future, if things continue the same way, the Hubble volume will shrink, due to the ever accelerating spatial expansion. Big Rip will become important, before it becomes truly active (the true Big Rip is Big Bang like, but even today we experience a mild Unruh rip. The nowadays Unruh rip nowadays generates very low-energy radiation, because the nowadays Hubble volume is huge, but when the Hubble volumes become small the causal cut-off radiation will get inverse-equivalently high). / The Hubble volume field is more important than the Hubble volume. We live inside an arbitrary Hubble volume, but still we are transcausally connected to the rest of the universe via intermediary Hubble volumes. According to Everettism/many-worlds interpretation, the further we deviate from our own Hubble volume, the more alternative arrangements of particles may exist out there in relation to us. / If we really love physics, we are supposed to find the correct Hubble volume Unruh cutoff radiation, not according to a standalone Hubble volume, but according to the "Hubble volume field" = the overall Universe described as Hubble volumes, but observed from an arbitrary one. Thus the arbitrary central Hubble volume is more important for the observer, and the other Hubble volumes outside still contribute to the "Hubble volume field Unruh cutoff radiation". The Hubble volumes are infinite and overlapping. A huge mistake is to claim that we merely have our Hubble volume, and ERRONEOUSLY we only have other Hubble volumes outside it (huge misunderstanding). Actually infinite intermediary Hubble volumes exist. When I move, my Hubble volume moves. I don't have to reach the edge of my previous Hubble volume to find a different Hubble volume. The "Hubble volume field" is VERY IMPORTANT in astrophysics and in non-Penrosean conformal cyclic cosmology. The "Hubble volume field" is a mainstream idea, because causality is kept within the overall universe via the infinite intermediary Hubble volumes. We can call transcausality = transcausation the causal coherence which isn't immediate but exists via intermediary Hubble volumes. / Mathematical describing the Hubble volume field is very important for the Big Bang theory, because nowadays many people claim that the pre-Big-Bang state was pointwise, but points include zero spacetime and range of any potential phenomenon. Better understanding causality, will help us understand transcausality = state of the overall universe outside our own Hubble volume, and how it behaves. / Nowadays we don't have the mathematical definition of the maximal degeneracy pressure state of spacetime itself = Planck degeneracy as a pre-Big-Bang state (probably a glueball condensate, because gluons are bosons and a condensate not due to coldness, but due to maximal degeneracy pressure/ nowadays we don't have the quantum field theory definition of the maximal permissible degeneracy pressure of spacetime itself = Planck degeneracy NECESSARILY has to be ultra cold, YES ultra cold, because it's NOT allowed to express any oscillation; but it somehow the pre-Big-Bang maximal degeneracy state has to decay into the Big Bang (we need to improve topological quantum field theory; it might take 30 years; we have to create a more fundamental/superordinate and symmetric quantum field theory, and then decay it into the less symmetric lower energy standard quantum field theory). / Big Rip in a very old Universe might be distorted and nonconformal, because old universes accumulate imperfections. One solution to avoid the "cyclic universe catastrophe" is the omniblackhole hypothesis = the claim that the black hole formation law holds true, thus when (in the afar future) the "Hubble volume field Unruh cutoff radiation" produces enough mass–energy to collapse into an omniblackhole, that omniblackhole forms, initially with imperfections, which are compressed. There isn't more degeneracy than the maximal degeneracy pressure of spacetime itself (we need to use quantum field theory to describe Planck degeneracy). More compression only leads to the adiabatic phase transition of the omniblackhole into a Big Bang process. That adiabatic transition is the cosmological inflation. The omniblackhole has no external spacetime, thus its only option is to [verb:] bigbang. // The natural black holes are Kerr-like. Not everything behind the event horizon of a galactic black hole is maximally degenerate. The black hole has layers like a neutron star. It's deeper layers are meson bosonic condensate and the maximal degeneracy pressure is a glueball bosonic condensate = chromodynamic [strong-force] fluid. We have to replace the ringularity with a chromotorus = chromodynamic torus. The ringularity includes zero spacetime and zero existence. General relativity is a very good approximation that says absolutely nothing about the exact nature of the local phenomena as they procedurally happen. / I am not God and there isn't any. Most of my ideas are stupid and wrong. I am not an important person. All I say is that we should test all these theories or find better ones. You don't work on all the fields of mathematical physics. But you know a lot of people. Please push them to work on these ideas. People mock you for new ideas. Work step by step and sacrifice yourself, tolerate the mocking, if you see that you can help astrophysics. If you can help astrophysics sacrifice the ego and please do your best, no matter what. / We can build computer simulations based on quantum field theory, in order we describe the chromotorus which is a Planck degeneracy glueball which replaces the physically impossible ringularity. / Miniscule black holes immediately evaporate because maximal degeneracy pressure isn't a normal state of mass–energy; it wants to tunnel out. Miniscule black holes have puny event horizons which don't have reabsorption tunneling loops. Physical black holes DO have enough headroom within their event horizons to exhibit reabsorption tunneling loops. / Please keep my ideas and work on them. I am not an important person. Play mathematically with this ideas or tell others to do so. Never mock an idea before you replace it with a better one. We must understand how the Universe works.

I've made a bad disambiguation; it's not only the Hubble volume Unruh causal cutoff that matters; this Unruhness is observational-interpretational. It becomes a general reality by taking into account the "Hubble volume field" = Hubble volume and infinite Hubble volumes which recede from the central arbitrary observer. (that extra energy is everywhere, not only in the cutoff area; that's why we have to mathematically describe the Hubble volume field) Any observer within the universe is surrounded by their own Hubble volume field = 1. subluminal causality sphere Hubble volume and 2. transcausal relationships of the exo-Hubble-volumic superluminally receding rest of the Universe (the further we recede from the arbitrary Hubble volume field origin, the lesser the afar regions contribute to our exact local wavefunction,
and the more Everettian/manyworlded alternative mass–energy configurations can possibly exist there afar (the more Hubble volumes you recede afar from home, the more impossible it gets to find it there when you return; the possibility of finding home approaches zero the further you deviated from it in Hubble volume units).

Claiming that the Hubble volume field = observer region + superluminally receding spacetime, is unimportant, is tautological to claiming that the Big Bang is unimportant; which is stupid.

## letter 4 (axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations)

1. The infinite series of Wigner's friends doesn't violate quantum mechanics, but it introduces transcausality = weak causal links outside Hubble volumes.

2. The infinite series of alien life contamination is wrong because the Big Bang wasn't infinitely back.

3. The infinite series of simulation hypothesis is wrong or trivial, because the first physical axiomatic foundations has to meet self-interaction self-causation program (Deutschian constructors/ TegmarkIan cosmic autocomputer which exists because it meets the logical criteria for physical foundations; but infinite different physics and different universes necessarily exist being logically self-causal (Physical self-causation is unavoidable. The Big Bang isn't tautological to the quantum foundations in a cyclic cosmology. We need to better evolve the treelike program based axiomatics for physical foundations. Mathematics has axiomatic logical gaps [see: foundations of mathematics], totally unavoidable in order mathematics remains a general proof system. See: proof theory. Physics is compatible to mathematics due to logic, but not a tautological axiomatic system. There is no omniuniversal axiomatic system = there is no omniontoaxiomatics. It would have to be nontrivially infinite = a fake man-made wish and not a pure existence. Physics is allomathematical. Allomathematics means mathematics with a different axiomatic foundations. Infinite axiomatic systems are possible. Allomathematics is a taboo for some people, but infinite different axiomatic systems are possible. Physics shouldn't have an axiomatic list. It should be more coherent like a program, with self-interactions and logical toggles used to conceal any logical gap, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [which isn't a fundamental property of the universe in quantum field theory; because it doesn't affect the maximally hypernymic wavefunction = infinite series of Wigner's friends]). See: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations.

## letter 5 - anti-Platonism

The overall simulation hypothesis is stupid... Not because it's stupid in itself, but because most people who like it never work on: the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations (search it online). / Any calculation is physical. See: Landauer principle, reversible computing, physical entropy, informational entropy, etc.

In the infinite series of simulations hypothesis, the first physical world would have to accommodate an impossible local infinity. Locally infinite calculations are impossible. All calculations are physical (see: Landauer's principle). Calculations are only physically performed = they are performed within true universes. Common mathematics is a general proof system. General mathematics is compatible to physics due to logic, but physics and mathematics aren't identical as standalone axiomatic systems. Infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible. Infinite different physics are possible. All the different physics are allomathematical = axiomatic systems with different foundations. There is no finite or infinitely trivial omniuniversal axiomatics/ omniaxiomatics = there is no locally finite axiomatic system which includes all the infinite different axiomatic systems and their transcription algorithms to common mathematics. You can only physically perform a calculation = within a physical world. The axiomatic prerequisites for mathematics (and geometry which is a subfield of mathematics) which are logical proof systems aren't identical to the axiomatic prerequisites for substantiality = physical systems = universes. Universes aren't general proof systems. In the foundations of mathematics, mathematics in order to be a general proof system, has innate permanent logical gaps necessary to keep mathematics a general proof system. For example numbers are defined via set theory in a logically open manner. Physics cannot be logically self-caused with fundamental logical openness. Physics has axiomatic self-interactions, and it doesn't have separate axioms but quantum field theory or more foundationally topological quantum field theory has to be presented as a program and not as an axiomatic list of separate axioms. Physics is biased which means that infinite different other physics are possible. Mathematics is less biased but impossible to exist in itself as a single universe, because in order to be generic it has to be foundationally open. Plato was wrong for claiming that the world of the ideal shapes (geometry but also its hypernym: mathematics) exists = is physical = is physics. Plato never proven that the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations are tautological to general proof axiomatic systems.