The Rubik-Cube-like physical foundations

The Rubik-Cube-like physical foundations

The beginning of the universe = the pre-big-bang state wasn't a point.
Points have no probabilistic range in which they can exhibit quantum field theory mechanisms.
The singularity has to be replaced with a maximal degeneracy chromodynamic superfluid which acted as a single particle = that has point-like behaviour because it is homogeneous and isotropic all over the universe, but it also has some puny deviations as we know from the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

More compression fragmented the omniparticle (omni- = pan- = panto- = the particle which is everywhere) into repelling inflatons/ inflaton particles and then the typical (cyclic) big bang starts.

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

The center of the natural = existing = stellar = rotating black hole cannot have a ringularity (circle-making singularity) because the ringularity is based on general relativity which fails at the extreme energy range. The ringularity has no volume to include any quantum field theory mechanism/phenomenon. Also general relativity is correct in non-extreme cases (with some slight deviations when describing the black hole as a whole; when compared to more rigorous and specific field mechanisms of the fundamental forces; but general relativity works pretty well = close to truth when describing the black hole from afar; BUT NOT FROM WITHIN). General relativity doesn't rigorously elaborate on the specific quantum field theory mechanism of the fundamental forces.

One idea is to play with quantum field theory, to introduce more parameters = that results in very stupid mistakes (we aren't supposed to mess with official quantum field theory), but physicists must be playful and make stupid mistakes (then delete them of course). But we should be a little bit like silly children, playful to try to understand the deepest causes and mechanisms. When you try to make quantum field theory more complicated with extra parameters, in most cases you totally destroy it. But we must make a billion mistakes, then delete our mistakes but if we are playful we might understand the program-like axiomatics of the universe. The axiomatics of the universe = the quantum foundations aren't like the mathematical axiomatics which is an OPEN list (mathematics is an open axiomatic system), neither an algorithm which has ordered steps, but [the axiomatics of our universe = the quantum foundations is a program = programs are more flexible]. The OPEN (otherwise it becomes inconsistent) axiomatics of our universe is like the Rubik's Cube in which the program-axiomatic ALLOWS some actions but DOESN'T ALLOW some other actions (some questions we want to ask make no sense out of context; have no meaning except if we narrow what we ask; and that is axiomatically fundamental and not due to human inability because the physical axiomatics is LOGICALLY SELF-CAUSED which means its only cause it's the mathematical (or allomathematical =a self-sufficient mathematical system with its own axiomatic program [not axiomatic list]; because we cannot use the common mathematics as an external God; we have to gradually understand the self-sufficient axiomatic Rubik-Cube-like quantum foundations). The quantum foundations isn't the finite final theory (Stephen Hawking understood that at his later years) but it is an open physical axiomatics (common mathematics [all geometries are part of mathematics] are proof axiomatic systems but not physical (= spacetime interaction coexistence making) axiomatics. Common mathematics is an OPEN (= we have to create new axioms for the most difficult problems) axiomatic PROOF system = used to logically prove things but it doesn't have the axiomatic foundations of a Rubik-Cube-like mechanism of a single spacetime-field-interaction-coexistence-making universe. Common mathematics as a system for proofs (see::John Stillwell on proofs) can be applied for all the infinite logically possible universes, but the common mathematics is a tool of logic, it's not a single existence = universe (it can help us understand infinite logically possible self-sufficient physical axiomatics; but it is a proof axiomatics).

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

For rigorous rationalism (antisupernatural logicalism, metaphysical naturalism, physicalism, logical positivism, antitranscendentalism [atheism, adeism, antianimism, anti-Shinto, anti-Buddhism, anti-Islam, anti-Christianity, antipaganism, etc.) the understanding of the physical foundations is of core importance.
It is the philosophical substrate of metaphysical logic. (Metaphysics means fundamental/first principles. The deepest principles are impersonal; and personhood = the state of being a person is based on many impersonal logical procedures; ethics cannot exist without a more fundamental framework in which to be applied.)

I am not God. I am a human being. I can sacrifice even my dignity if I can help humanity understand even a little more. My words aren't the words of a God. I have to be rigorously judged.

But an organized state effort is needed in order many professors and PhDs are organized to tackle the FUNDAMENTALLY OPEN (it's not a closed axiomatics with a finite answer; still we can understand more about the Rubik-Cube-like quantum foundations) quantum foundations.

Please establish and build an institution called Quantum Foundations Studies.

Quantum Field Theory isn't separate from the quantum foundations; but nowadays we don't know some important field mechanisms AND AXIOMATIC LIMITATIONS.

I believe in academic freedom. People should play with supersymmetry and [super-]string theory.

But quantum field theory is closer to the lab data and it is self-restrained. Quantum field theory doesn't make extremely impressive claims like supersymmetry and [super-]string theory. But reality is what it is. It's not more or less impressive than the necessary.

I don't totally agree with myself, because I am aware that I am not omniscient (all knowing).
But my opinions are close to the opinions I express. Living thinkers are alive, they cannot be maximally static/stationary neither maximally fluid/inconsistent; a balance of reasoning is necessary.

Quantum Field Theory is the best mathematical description of this universe.

Others ideas are superior, but not as the best descriptions of this universe.

In battle you don't use the best weapon in general,

but you use the best weapon to make specific kills in specific situations.

Because ONLY specific kills matter in battle.