Supernaturalism

Supernaturalism (αφορά την Σημαία της Ελλάδας και το Σύνταγμα της Ελλάδας· στη δημοκρατία οι ιδιότητες του πολιτεύματος υπάγονται στην πολιτική/ είναι νόμιμος ο διάλογος για την εξέλιξή τους)

Supernaturalism

```
The supernatural not only is unreachable and unteachable, but it also isn't scientifically hypothesizeable. It lacks specific foundations of rigorous logic, thus it cannot have understructural characteristics, identity and existence. The supernatural is an impossibility. Supernaturalists describe it with layperson, unscientific, common-sense empiricism with missing steps, biases, semantic distortions, unexplained givens and semantic mismappings.

```

Most supernaturalists believe in procedures and specific foundations; they also believe in logic, usually common sense.

Supernaturalists tough do not elaborate on all aspects of their procedures and specific foundations, or use definitions from everyday life which is based on the physical laws. You cannot say God created the Earth without to define what are the ingredients of the Earth; you cannot reject facts about planet evolution; you cannot reject facts about nuclear physics and quantum mechanics to define matter; because if you start rejecting facts you are factually wrong. Also you create a hollow pseudotheoretical edifice borrowing components from the natural world which has rigorous foundations. Even hallucinations have rigorous causality. Erroneous opinions aren't supernatural. They only appear in logically possible worlds. Erroneous opinions are the result of mistaken teachings, cultural bias, emotional biasing, semantic mismapping, operational mistakes, etc.

You might be correct on a general idea, even if you don't have the theory to support the idea you believe in, but you cannot establish a proof simply by liking an idea which has no explanation.

If you have an idea you like, not supported by facts, and actually being against proven facts; your idea is probably wrong. And if many alternative proofs justify things against your idea you are certainly wrong.

Some supernaturalists pretend that procedures have no importance but all supernaturalisms admit that some procedures exist.

People grow old, the solar system and the whole universe evolve and change. Few supernaturalists don't accept that evolving procedures exist, and accept only stationary solutions like the bulk universe many physicists support. But the bulk universe is a mathematical equivalent to the evolving universe; which also includes all its possible Everettian (many-world) variations. Physics seems to be an open axiomatic system, thus it has no final theory, but humanity keeps evolving it. Physics even if unprocedurally but statically/ stationarily interpreted, still is mathematically equivalent to a bulk definition of all possible alternative outcomes (sub-wavefunctional multifurcation within a wide and common hypernymic indivisible wavefunction; still logically defined). Thus avoiding the specifics of a theory like all supernaturalisms do, is impossible to justify actuality. Supernaturalists describe things like lay-empiricists (not scientific-method empiricists) who avoid details. Without specific logical foundations, things wouldn't only be otherwise, but they wouldn't be at all, because they would have no existential justification and understructural identity.

Logic has to have internal structure, and meet symmetry criteria, otherwise it cannot be logic. Common sense is not common, because people have different ideas, but also due to emotions and other factors, not even one person's common sense is stable. Also common sense is not an axiomatic system, build upon specific and rigorous foundations. Thus only mathematical logic can be the foundations of any possible world. Allomathematics are mathematics based on different axiomatic lists or axiomatic algorithms or hybrid axiomatics. Algorithmic axiomatics works better as a physical foundations, because it better meets the internal coherence criterion. Common mathematics is a measuring-calculational-proof-science axiomatic system, but it's not tautological to physics (see: David Hilbert's axiomatization of physics, but it has mistakes. David Tong is more compatible to particle accelerator data.). A future quantum foundations theory will be a more complete ontophysics, but never totally complete because the universe is an open system, of no trivial infinite axiomatics. The universe has to be allomathematical in order to be an autonomous logic system to meet the self-causation criterion (within it's relative multiverse; but there is no common group of all possible universes [omnimultiverse] because most universes are mutually exclusive and mathematically incompatible. Multiversality isn't traversable at will [we do not choose differentiated realities with free will], but it's a logical multifurcation due to axiomatical and procedural variations.).

Some supernaturalists reject logic in general (actually they are dishonest, because when we study what they say they have logical patterns in their thoughts [mistakes do have patterns and other statistical characteristics]), but without logic and without specifics you can neither have a specific thing (God, universe, whatever) nor a vague substantiality/ vague reality (the universe is a wide reality, an ontological Turing machine; having axiomatics = logical foundations, hardware = particles, and software = observed physical laws, and all these attributes (axiomatics, hardware, and software) are of the same nature. David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto claim that the universe can have a humongous number of different Deutschian constructors, but still causopermeability per different phenomenon and order of magnitude remains).

## see also:

* the prerequisites for physical axiomatics (physical foundations)
see: Axiomatic hierarchy and layering/ stratification
* why logic is more fundamental than nothing (in cosmogonic and mathematical nihilogony)
* why logic is more fundamental than personhood (and why even God wouldn't be able to violate logic and have free will)
* why illogic and exologic can only exist (as ideo-substantialities/ ideas) only as opinions in logical worlds

Self-causal and coherent logic is unavoidable even if one believes in the universe system or the God-universe system. But personhood is neither axiomatically fundamental (it requires a personhood-yielding computer = brain which requires spacetime to be expressed [even idealized topological brains require space, because they aren't "mereological simples"] and perform tasks/ all-knowingness is unprocedural thus it's not a form of intelligence) nor [personhood is (here isn't)] a prerequisite for physical axiomatics/ physical foundations. Including personhood in itself is impossible, thus a personhood-yielding algorithm would have to be included in quantum field theory (or other foundational theory of physics) for God to exist; but that wouldn't guarantee that this personocratic cosmos would be executable (Max Tegmark's cosmological calculability criterion) or personhood-biased with a maximally powerful person controlling everything within one and only one universe (there is no omniuniversal axiomatics [see: John Stillwell]/ omniaxiomatics/ Brahman = common unchanging overall existence/ omnisystem/ omnimultiverse [see: mutually excusive universes]). Also personhood is based on the logical foundations of a physical spacetime in which the personhood-yielding computer = brain dwells, and on the logical foundations of information theory; thus no person (personhood-bearer; individual with degrees of general intelligence, self-awareness, emotions, empathy [a pseudoperson = philosophical zombie does't have good coherence centers and sense-of-agency-biasing centers])... [I return to the subject: thus no person or pseudoperson] can superimpose logic.