Alternatives to Everettism / εναλλακτικές του εβερεττισμού (της θεωρίας πολλών κόσμων)

## Everettian determinism vs magical murder of unselected outcomes vs something else we don't know

I present three ontoaxiomatic alternatives (usually presented as deterministic, but we can examine other rare alternatives; ontoaxiomatics and substantiality are identical due to causopermeability [both are the same causal connectome algorithm]), each starting with the bullet character (•).

• Everettian (manyworlded/many-worlds interpretation) determinism: All the outcomes of the wave function occur in subuniverses, and the overall universe near an observer keeps evolving all of its alternative versions. The overall universe cannot be defined without to select at least an arbitrary observer (or we should define the specific universe mathematically; but that generates immediately a huge range of alternatives), because the universe is hypernymised (it belongs to eternally bigger sets, like Russian dolls: renormalisation group) ad infinitum, but the closest substantialities to a particular observer, contribute more to the evolution of her/his wave function. (Hubble volumes overlap. Causality cannot be transferred amongst afar Hubble volumes, but they are concatenated in a set of multiple realities.)

Superdeterminism isn't ontologically the final theory, because it can be included as subcases within Everettism. Otherwise we end up with magically put hidden variables as initial conditions. The true initial conditions of the universe are not absolute (it's not a statue but an evolving entropic algorithm) and are defined by its ontoaxiomatics. Infinite ontoaxiomatics are possible. There is no omniaxiomatics thus neither omniontoaxiomatics.

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

Any observer experiences a different wavefunctional evolution. Observers inside the same Hubble volume are locked in the same reality, but the timing of events can differ. Observers of afar Hubble volumes tend unlock from the same subuniverse, according to how many Hubble volumes is the distance between them. The homekill paradox thought (superluminal/impossible) experiment: The possibility of finding home decreases the more Hubble volumes one deviates from it, because quantum decoherence accumulates and the alternative microstates grow larger and larger (at infinity the disentanglement amongst two Hubble volumes becomes absolute... but infinity never physically realises as a coherent substantiality [and not a mere human idea, or the set of all sets which doesn't exist], and arbitrary entanglements do probabilistically occur [most being partial entanglements, but still holding the universe's ontoaxiomatics]). Theoretically the overall infinite universe contains all the Everettian alternatives, but that is an erroneous definition, because ontoaxiomatics is an entropically evolving algorithm, and infinite substantialities don't momentarily, spatiotemporally restricted and finitely exist (infinity is a path; not a momentary coherent existence of finite size; specific substantialities have finite nature and infinity is part of their deep causality).

• magical murder of unselected outcomes: The non-selected outcomes of the wavefunctional collapse, uncausally/illogically/unmathmatically/unprocedurally die of because of magic. Magic isn't ontologically possible (it doesn't have a mere observational/empirical/epistemological problem); because uncausal/illogical/unmathmatical/unprocedural ontologies are impossible natures/nature states (they are non-states).

Mistakes/misconceptions result from false data/corrupted operation algorithms/semantic mismappings/systemic noise, etc. Mistakes are physical in nature but they do not describe true ontologies.

• something else we don't know:  ?