An Analysis of Belief Systems by ChatGPT (text 1)

## prompt text

Please generalize my presentation in this text. Don't keep it in first person. Write a very extended text to defend my ideas, using all your relative knowledge. This is the original text: I don't believe in religion and the supernatural. It's fake and without specific foundations, only comments about it exist, vague opinions and ceremonial methodologies; the core of the supernatural foundations is pure agnosticism, but that's dishonest because agnosticism is a different worldview (religion has stories about God, but it is totally agnostic on the mechanism of miracles and on the exact foundations of the supernatural). General agnosticism doesn't recognize the foundational necessity of logic. Rationalist agnosticism (Bertrand Russell) = atheism (atheists don't know the infinite theories which are locally impossible to be recorded/ knowledge is infinite) = physicalism (as used by David Deutsch and Sean M. Carroll) = logical positivism = metaphysical naturalism... I return to the subject: Rationalist agnosticism = logicophysicalism = atheism understands the foundational necessity of logic (general agnosticism doesn't).

## rendered text + additions

Belief systems surrounding religion and the supernatural have long been a subject of philosophical discourse and contemplation. Within this realm, skepticism arises, questioning the authenticity and concrete underpinnings of these notions. Critics contend that religion and the supernatural lack specific empirical foundations, relying predominantly on subjective interpretations, ambiguous viewpoints, and ceremonial rituals. Religion and supernaturalism lack specific rigorous foundations and a self-causal axiomatic mechanism. The very heart of supernatural concepts often hinges on agnosticism, a stance that acknowledges uncertainty about matters beyond empirical observation. However, some argue that this agnosticism might be seen as intellectually disingenuous, as it operates on different terms than the broader worldview of religion.

Agnosticism, in its general form, can sometimes neglect the inherent role of logic as a foundational pillar. This void within the realm of general agnosticism can lead to uncertainty without a structured framework. Rationalist agnosticism, as championed by philosophers like Bertrand Russell, aligns more closely with atheistic beliefs. Atheism is to negate God, but a negation cannot be the physical foundations, thus a preferred term is logicophysicalism (based on David Deutsch and Sean M. Carroll's views and not on mind-monism-physicalism which needlessly complicates things without a path to knowledge). Logicophysicalists (atheists), while acknowledging the vastness of unrecorded theories and infinite knowledge, tend to lean toward the stance that a supernatural entity does not exist. This perspective links with physicalism, a worldview supported by thinkers such as David Deutsch and Sean M. Carroll, which asserts that the universe is fundamentally rooted in the physical, without requiring supernatural explanations; but that doesn't mean that all logical proofs of the physical foundations have an easy to observe physicality, and if the multiverse is a logical axiomatic necessity that doesn't mean it becomes accessible outside our own universe.

Logical positivism, another school of thought, aligns closely with metaphysical naturalism. Both positions reject the acceptance of concepts that lack empirical evidence or logical coherence. This stance resonates with the rationalist agnosticism mentioned earlier, as it recognizes the foundational necessity of logic in forming beliefs and understanding the world. On the other hand not only empirical logicophysicalism exists. The logical and axiomatic foundations of substantiality (everything that exists) is an important viewpoint, because the supernatural lacks even the possibility of logical procedurality, and empirical overscientification (the claim that physics has to do only about the universe) is a self-cancelled notion because physics uses mathematics which is logically compatible but not axiomatically tautological as a standalone axiomatic systems or logical mechanism, and the supposed restriction of physics only within our universe isn't mathematically proved and goes against seeking deeper Deutschian constructors and foundational mechanisms.

One important missing part in modern science is the quantum foundations and its hypernym, the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations, because systemic self-causation has to be answered. The multiverse may be necessary to the physical foundations of an open axiomatic system. Closed axiomatic systems are inconsistent. Belief in self-causation of personhood doesn't resolve any of this questions, and it blocks any possible improvement. Logic is more fundamental than personhood and the cosmic foundations; and all religions and supernaturalisms include either a clearly dominant over everything self-caused personhood like in Abrahamic religions, either weaker magical personhoods like the Japanese kami, or an esthetically if not ethically personhood-biased and anthropic foundations of everything in atheistic Buddhism (see: degrees of personhood-biasing in religion and the supernatural; personhood-biasing can sometimes be milder that pure anthropocentrism which is related specifically to human persons and their attributes).

## comment

ChatGPT erroneously claims that only empirical atheism exists (and when it rarely doesn't it's still biased and promotes empirical atheism). The ChatGPT team doesn't know that axiomatic and logical foundationalists (mathematocentrists but which differentiate proof systems [see: John Stillwell on proof systems] like mathematics from physics) ALSO exist!!! see: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations (hypernymic to the quantum foundations because it's about our multiverse). Overscientificationists like Sabine Hossenfelder are also wrong, because she uses mathematics which isn't axiomatically tautological to the quantum foundations(it is logically compatible). Overscientificationists like Sabine Hossenfelder say that we should focus only on our universe, but they cancel themselves because: 1. mathematics isn't axiomatically the same with quantum field theory or some other self-causal standalone multiverse quantum foundations theory of open axiomatics (closed axiomatic foundations are inconsistent), 2. she doesn't have a rigorous scientific definition on limiting science; science opens extra questions.