Use constructor theory and entropy to explain dark energy

Use constructor theory and entropy to explain dark energy.

Relatively afar stellar clusters, don't fully entangle amongst themselves, but they partially entangle with virtual particles which become real, or at least turbulent in a manner it produces space. Space is the virtual particles (its not nothing); and vagueness = weak entanglement amongst real afar objects, forces them to entangle with virtual particles which either become real, or more accurately their patterns of popping in and out of existence take more space.

dark energy: The entropic ontological vagueness of the universe produces more spacetime due to quantum decoherence on the very large scale.

Universe's constructor poops out spacetime, the arrow of time is Deutschian, and the Universe is cyclic.
But Roger Penrose didn't describe correctly the phase transition before each big bang.

What is the maximally degenerate state of spacetime which acts like a black hole fundamental particle which isn't a singularity? We need to describe the maximally degenerate state of spacetime; a black hole jets it out when it reaches its phase transition (each black hole has a threshold pace of growth and consumption, otherwise it will violate the maximally degenerate state which is impossible and it jets energy out); but the universe big bangs because it has no outside.

• uncapitalized big bang: any big bang in a cyclic universe
• Universe: the name of our universe

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

The Big Bang was an omnipointwise (concerning every point) superluminal expansion of spacetime.
Relative (amongst different points) superluminal motion isn't permitted, thus quantum tunnelling is necessary during the Big Bang, which contributes to the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, but the major idea is that the overall universe was a single omniblackhole indivisible particle when the expansion was maximal; thus a two staged Big Bang would require an initial collapse and rebound we call the Big Bang, which is a cyclic process.

Spacetime is more fundamental than the big band cycles.

Infinite universes are possible and each have their own constructor.

The ontological axiomatics of the physical foundations isn't like the common mathematical axiomatics used for general calculations. Each universe is an Ontological Turing Machine (not necessarily a general calculator or it can be but secondarily). A spacetime-like Ontological Turing Machine is its own software, axiomatics and hardware, all made of the same informational principles per universe. For example we cannot separate a particle form its universe; it cannot exist unrelated.

Ontological axiomatics = ontoaxiomatics works better as an algorithm and not as a list, because it has to work around the problems of axiomaticity: incompleteness and/or inconsistency with entropy and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. An axiomatic mechanism should be able to generate new axioms = new spacetime, because the universe-like substantialities are Ontological Turing Machines and we cannot separate their software, axiomatics and hardware; they're all one.

(We should work on these ideas. I'm not all knowing, but we have to work on these ideas. Or someone should suggest better solutions.)

Sincerely,
Ken Astute