Ontoaxiomatics

οντοαξιωματικότητα

## Ontoaxiomatics vs scientoaxiomatics

Scientoaxiomatics (= axioms in fields of science like mathematics and geometry) is selected in order it generates useful science. These axioms are usually picked by humans in order they create useful science. These axiomatic systems aren't ontological Turing machines because their axioms (usually) don't have a sole algorithmic origin.

Ontoaxiomatics (= axiomatic algorithm [in 'physical foundations' algorithms work better than axiomatic lists because they deal better with the axiomatic incompleteness and/or inconsistency] which is an ontological Turing machine which doesn't have to produce useful science but it is in tandem its own hardware and software and it generates a universe-like substantiality.

## Are different axiomatic systems wholly transcribable into one another?

This is an incalculable question because infinite axiomatic systems can be created.

For most of the axiomatic systems, we cannot transcribe them in one go/wholly; but we can transcribe problem by problem.

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to discover the exact specific allomathematics of our universe = the ontophysics of our universe; thus most probably we'll have fragmented scientomathematical description of phenomena. With artificial neural networks and other heuristic techniques, we will come even closer to the allomathematics which is the ontomathematics of our universe.

## On/about the impossibility of supernaturalism

Supernaturalism not only is empirically (according to non-hallucinating, unbiased rigorous observation) impossible; it is also ontologically impossible being unprocedural/unmechanistic/causally incoherent/illogical/etc.

## to Brian Greene 1:

You asked about scientomathematics vs ontomathematics and scientophysics vs ontophysics = the real exact physics. You didn't use these terms. Use them.

There isn't a single mathematical axiomatics. Some are more useful, others less. Speak to mathematicians who experiment with different axiomatics.

allo-: different

allomathematics: mathematics with different from the mainstream axiomatics (either based on a different axiomatic list, or an axiomatic algorithm [things become more interesting that way]).

Most allomathematics aren't handy/useful to make science.

Most allomathematics fail to be ontomathematics = the mathematics of some of the infinite ontophysics.

The vast majority of the universes are nonparallelisable = based on nonkin axiomatic foundations.

Necessarily speak about these issues because humanity has to move forward.

I don't focus on me. As long as I am alive, my ideas will become even subtler. But I'm not the center of the universe. There is no omniverse = omnimultiverse = omnimultiuniverse because there is no omniontoaxiomatics. There isn't a single way to create axiomatic systems, and there is no axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems = the superaxiomaticity doesn't exist.

These ideas must be debated.

## to Brian Greene 2:

We live in a connectome-based reality. Albert Einstein erroneously wanted an absolute foundation of substantiality, but that would create a supernatural first cause without meeting the ontoaxiomatic prerequisites for existence which is a connectome of possible local microstates which gradually create classical-like macrostates. Each universe is based on ontological axiomatics = ontoaxiomatics, which is identical/tautological to its ontoaxiomatics. Infinite axiomatic systems can be created, most of them don't meet the criteria of substantiality. Universe-like worlds are 'ontological Turing machines' (usually not useful for science/general calculations) which are in tandem their software and hardware without extras; thus even their axiomatic foundations (the way they are created) should have the same algorithmic origin. The problems of axiomaticity (axiomatic systems), namely incompleteness and/or inconsistency cannot be avoided but they can be managed. Algorithmic axiomatics works better for ontological Turing machines, because the algorithm can generate the missing axioms in a procedural way. The ontology of our universe is entropic; our universe expands which means that its ontology isn't constant. We cannot separate the ontophysics from the ontomathematics and the ontoaxiomatics of our universe; they are identical/tautological (infinite different universes exist; most are nonkin = nonparallelisable = mathematically very different). When our universe expands, its ontoaxiomatics expands. The ontomathematics of our specific universe IS our universe. Mathematics isn't physics, because infinite allomathematics = mathematics with different axiomatics can be created (most experimental and not necessarily useful; study the work of mathematicians who experiment with the mathematical axioms and foundations in general). We have to separate the true ontological physics (ontophysics) of the actual mechanism of our universe versus the scientific approximation of the actual physics (scientophysics). Prefer to play with quantum field theory, because it's our strongest tool towards ontophysics. String theory and supersymmetry are useful for insights. But we should aim for total victory. My goal is to understand the universe. I deeply and really want to understand the universe. We should give it all by expressing complex phenomena via quantum field theory, but we'll have to use supercomputers, artificial neural networks and approximations because we cannot measure the position of every single particle. Aim for victory; not for pleasure. Sometimes things seem impossible, but general mechanism can be described and we should do our best to understand how the universe works.

## to Brian Greene 3:

(How the universe is made probabilistically, as a multi-interpretational = ontological perspectival substantiality.) see: Amanda Gefter (New Scientist journalist), Flavio Mercati, Giovanni Amelino-Camelia. Create a World Science Festival video on YouTube. They're good!