Το επεκτεταμένο επιχείρημα εναντίον της μαγείας / the extended no miracles argument

## The extended (or the extension to the) ‘no miracles’ argument

The extended ‘no miracles’ argument

The extended ‘no miracles’ argument for scientific realism is that analytically presented realism is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle. If scientific claims did not describe how the world actually is at the deepest causal level, then there accuracy and predictive success would not necessarily be a miraculous coincidence, but that way they wouldn't close that possibility either (magic is impossible for its own weaknesses: a. without rigorous ontoaxiomatics it's ontologically vague being unprocedural and illogical, and by not creating a causal connectome no substantiality can arise, neither anything specific (object, being, event, attribute, etc.) can be ascribed).

(Example: Isaac Newton never elaborated on deep causal procedures. He didn't answer all the whies (plural of why). If substantiality is an infinite mereological gunk (infinite series of causality) (for example if we live in a multiverse/multiuniverse and not a monoverse/monouniverse/standalone universe, and/or if the causal foundations [ontoaxiomatics] of our universe deal with the axiomatic incompleteness and/or inconsistency with an infinite series of causal stratification/layering) then we will never have the final theory of our particular universe [the universe of humans is not the Impossible Everything; thus we should use the erroneous term Theory of Everything]. This by no means opens the door to unprocedurality and logic violations, because any new layer of substantiality we reveal, always is mathematically and/or allomathematically logical. I personally don't like to play with/to use the word magic, because the [field of study of] foundations of substantiality is both incalculable and undecidable, but it doesn't include magic. Science and philosophy cannot have unrelativistic and generic noncontextual knowledge, but degrees of perspective/relativist knowledge are possible (gradient/gradience view). Supernaturalists use the incompleteness and/or inconsistency of ontoaxiomatics (thus necessarily of science) as a reason to introduce (usually beneficial) causality violating, unprocedural and mathematically (and/or allomathematically) illogical violation of the substantiality foundations.)

Mistakes are not magical. Mistakes are the results of usually multiple (in the case of metaphysical fallacies: supernatural[ist] views) semantic distortions due to false initial data, false logical operations and distorted semantic mappings.

Axiomatics (including ontoaxiomatics) are either incomplete or inconsistent. Ontoaxiomatics deals with that with not being a static/stationary list but a process; an algorithm which includes entropy and/or uncertainty to deal with incompleteness and/or inconsistency. That doesn't open the door to uncausality/unprocedurality/supernaturalism/etc. because ontoaxiomatics is based on mathematical and/or allomathematical (alternative mathematics with different axioms) logic.

## comment 1:

We cannot finalise the [field of study of the] foundations of substantiality (which is hypernymic to the "foundations of quantum mechanics of our particular universe") but at least we can always expose new problems to work on. Isaac Newton didn't do that; he didn't properly expose the next series of ontoaxiomaticity problems (he understood that he didn't prove the causal depths of substantiality, but he didn't have the proper observational instruments and mathematical tools); thus the extention to the ‘no miracles’ argument is by no means trivial.