Why Jim Al-Khalili is wrong about/on ontoaxiomatics/the foundations of substantiality

Hello Mr Jim Al-Khalili. You claim you want to kill the foundations of quantum mechanics because you don't agree on the probabilistic nature of actuality itself. You want to promote a mistake against the data. From CERN and Fermilab we know that the exact nature of particles doesn't exist as a strict standalone. If you hit a particle stronger, you actually change its RELATIONAL guts. Every particle is MAKING the universe. A standalone electron couldn't exist without universe. Don't harm physics with your fallacy that the nature of the cosmos is a dead specific thing without foundations of quantum mechanics which are the foundations of our substantiality (our universe is by no means the only possible universe; with artificial neural networks we can simulate different universes; the criterion of existence is that they must have ontoaxiomatics = be ontological axiomatic systems = universes have to be algorithms based on axioms not eclectically selected to perform good science, but instead ontoaxiomatics must be an algorithm/a mechanism itself (not a static/stable axiomatic list, but an axiomatic mechanism; that's necessary because any axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent (or both, but humans don't usually create these axiomatic systems except for mathematical experimentation). For our universe is the quantum foundations, but other universes do have different axiomatic foundations; the omniaxiomatics [= the axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems] doesn't exist due to mutual exclusions, etc. The ontoaxiomatics must have axioms that are causally coherent. The scientoaxiomatics are eclectically selected to create useful science, but ontoaxiomatics (in plural, because infinite ontoaxiomatics/universes are possible) don't necessarily create useful science, the just provide the causal connectomes of existence.

Any ontoaxiomatics/universe-like entropic/evolving causal connectome is an "ontological Turing machine" (not usually a general Turing machine useful for scientific calculations; the "ontological Turing machine" is not a useful calculator for scientists to own; its usually not good for general purpose calculations; the "ontological Turing machine" is a machine that it is itself the computer AND the programme; and all that ontoaxiomatic algorithm is a universe-like substantiality [universe-like to meet the constructor theory criteria for perspectival existence with a sufficient phase space of operational behaviour and self-causal foam [causal links that justify substantiality, but in a probabilistic manner, because no magic God exists to save the system. The ontoaxiomatic system must provide the causal foam for itself. David Deutsch is deeper (I am a different thinker and I don't represent David Deutsch; I agree with many of his ideas). Max Tegmark is wrong for claiming that mathematics is tautological to physics / ontoaxiomatics, because not all mathematical formulas include their self-causal interlinked ontoaxiomatic foam.).

Quantum foundations is an ontological axiomatics. Ontological axiomatics must deal with axiomatic incompleteness and/or inconsistency with entropy (peroetual expansion of spacetime) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and other tricks, because not only our universe is the sole possible ontoaxiomatics). The axioms of substantiality = ontoaxiomatics, have to be causally coherent (bad for science).