Vasil Penchev

The four-color theorem in standard mathematics and the four-letter theorem in Hilbert mathematics are juxtaposed. The former is a topological theorem thus not allowing for its elementary metric proof as the latter. This is interpreted as an example of "Modernity's bottle" forcing mathematics not to use any tools entering reality even provisionally for complying with the taboo for the gap between mathematical models and what they refer to. The same relation in Hilbert arithmetic is interpreted as passing through the "threshold" between two and three dimensions after the Gleason and Kochen-Specker theorems. The representation of mathematical duality and physical complementarity is discussed. The philosophical concept of "the totality" translated in ontomathematics implies for mathematical models to be "concave" in order to obey the absoluteness of the totality. A principle of the equivalence of "concave" (philosophical or "metaphysical") and "convex" (proper mathematical) explanations being inherent from the viewpoint of ontomathematics is investigated by the example of the correspondence of the Bohmian (non-local and metaphysic: thus "concave") versus "Copenhagen" (local and agnostic: thus, "convex") interpretations of quantum mechanics. The eventual representation of quantum contextuality/ holism as fractal structures/ functional (Hausdorff) dimensionality is conjectured. The third dimension of reality (in the sense of the cited theorems) is researched in its two versions: "concave" (metaphysic, in particular, Bohmian) and "convex" (traditional and mathematical, particularly, "Copenhagen"). An illustration by the "four letters" of DNA (RNA) is considered. An interpretation of Peano arithmetic as the "half" of Boolean algebra unifying propositional logic and set theory is linked. The "fundamental theorem of the universe" is demonstrated as a corollary from the "four-letter theorem".

If one replaces the standard (Gödel) mathematics with Hilbert arithmetic/ mathematics thus able to merge ontomathematically reality and mathematics (in the former case, being prevented by the Gödel objection), "creatio ex nihilo " can be rigorously inferred only from the unlimited function successor, furthermore under the axiom of induction providing universal finiteness. It is caused in the final analysis by the closeness of the universe following from its definition to "be all" and thus single one, in particular excluding: the Big Bang; other universes ("worlds", e.g. after Everett-Wheeler's interpretation); multiverse; etc. That deduction is called the "fundamental theorem of the universe". It is rather a new paradigm implying a class of theories belonging to "ontomathematical Postmodernity", rather than a new theory, belonging together with the Big Bang one (as causing the universe externally) to Modernity, thus needing energy conservation to be kept at any cost, and adding ad hoc external causes such as the Big Bing itself. On the contrary, the alternative paradigm, only in the framework of which the fundamental theorem of the universe can be proved, excludes any causes external to the universe by allowing violations of energy conservation, in turn equivalent to external causes in the former paradigm. Anyway, those violations obey a more general conservation of quantum information. Under the newly introduced "quantum invariance", a further conservative generalization of Einstein's principle of the physical law invariance to smooth transformations between noninertial reference frames in order to include discrete ones, all external causes are equivalent to internal ones. The metaphor of two "ship models", the one of which is built "within in a bottle" (as a figurative illustration of Modernity's restrictions) since both models are quite similar, but that within a bottle needs virtuous skills to be constructed: so both paradigms are formally equivalent, but the ontomathematical one generates much simpler explanations and implies the huge extension of human cognition in the future.

The paper continues the ontomathematical investigation of Postmodernity as involving the third dimension of human experience after Hegel, Marx, and Marxism - Leninism. “Language” instead of “time” or “development” is its new name, which does not call for social revolutions any more. The doctrines of Peirce, Wittgenstein (both “Tractatus” and “Philosophical Investigation”), Heidegger (before and after “die Kehre”), Gadamer’s hermeneutics and its relation to Heidegger’s hermeneutics, Rorty, Derrida, the philosophical interpretation of Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” are considered to search for its “mysterious name”, that of the third dimension of human experience. Ontomathematics allows for them to be reinterpreted as the postmodern introduction of the third dimension of human experience as language, semiotics or “sign”. The conclusion conjectures that mathematics can be reinterpreted as “consistent semiotics” obeying universal Boolean syntax for the two-dimensional space of human experience versus the three-dimensional “generalized mathematics” of semiotics as ontomathematics. The semiotic interpretation of the Gleason and Kochen - Speaker interpretation is involved.

The first paper of a series about the rigorous and ontomathematical definition of postmodernity reinterprets Hegel's dialectics and dialectic logic. His "synthesis", "change", "development", "time" is represented as the third dimension of Hilbert space where the two others correspond to the initial and final state of whether developing "idea" or changing "object" (after Marx's "dialectical/ historical materialism") generating a complete description of reality therefore excluding any hidden variables in principle: after the Kochen-Specker theorem (1967) or forcing a unique probability measure after the Gleason theorem (1957). That approach is obviously geometric rather than logical, thus rather ontomathematical than ontological. Speaking loosely, dialectic logic is not logic in a formal sense: it means only the following negative result after the transition from two-to three-dimensional Hilbert space. The orthomodular lattice of subspaces (projective operators) allowing for a local (i.e., depending on a locally defined context of measurement) Boolean lattice being omnipresently homomorphic (i.e., independent of any locally defined context of measurement) in the two-dimensional case for the Hilbert meta-space of human experience, however, does not allow the same (i.e., both local and universal) Boolean lattice after complementing it by the third dimension of "time", "synthesis", "development", etc. So, dialectic logic is only the "antithesis" of classical logic, but their "synthesis" is not (and fundamentally cannot be) logical, but only geometrical (furthermore originating from Hegel's own understanding of "synthesis": to generate a new quality). Dialectical logic is neither "ontology of change", nor "ontology of time", nor "ontology of contradiction": it is ontomathematics implied by the third dimension, thus beyond logic, but within geometry. It is rather "geometry of reality" than "logic of reality" and quantum mechanics rather than Marx's materialism is what it needs. Speaking loosely, reality starts from the third dimension after the Kochen-Specker and Gleason theorems. Then, Postmodernity versus Modernity can be rigorously and mathematically defined to replace the fundamental metapostulate about the two-dimensionality (e.g., "mindbody"; "objectsubject"; "Self environment"; etc.) of human experience with its three-dimensionality. As that was in fact realized for the first time by Hegel (in a proper philosophical insight since quantum mechanics did not exist in his age), he can be reasonably called the "first postmodern philosopher". The USSR and other socialistic countries' history and their "Marxism-Leninism" provide numerous examples (or counterexamples) for that ontomathematical interpretation of dialectics.

Goldbach's conjecture is simply proved in Hilbert arithmetic. However, that proof is either invalid ("incomplete") or false ("contradictory") in the standard mathematics obeying Gödel's objections about the relation of arithmetic to set theory. The proof uses the "apophatic" (holistic) reformulation of the Kochen-Specker theorem and the fundamental randomness of primes in Hilbert arithmetic: both confirmed to be true in previous papers. A few other conjectures, about twin primes, k-twin primes, k-tuple primes (a part of the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture) including about infinite tuples are deduced from Goldbach's conjecture as corollaries in Hilbert arithmetic. The hypothesis that the asymptotic behaviour predicted by Hardy and Littlewood is false in Hilbert arithmetic is reasoned. A few philosophical observations about "crossing Rubicon to reality" after interpreting the Gleason and Kochen-Specker theorems to the meta-space of human experience to be Hilbert space and considering the opposition of two-versus three-dimensionality meant by them where the former is associated with Modernity and the latter, with Postmodernity: thus, both defined rigorously and mathematically unlike today's vague humanitarian (cultural and relativistic) research about them and that historical development led to it. Another and quite simple proof of the theorem about the asymptotic limit of the number of primes until any natural number is suggested. The link between Goldbach's conjecture and Riemann's hypothesis is demonstrated to be inherent and almost obvious in Hilbert arithmetic. The conclusion explains why the proofs of centuries-old puzzles about primes are so "scandalously" brief and simple in Hilbert arithmetic.

The paper applies the newly introduced “KS fundamental randomness” to the nonstandardly generalized primes in Hilbert arithmetic to prove that the latter satisfies the necessary condition and separately the sufficient condition of the former. When the two conditions can be identified is also investigated. A review of other available generalizations of primes demonstrates that none of them is suitable for approaching the problem. The design aims to suggest a universal method for resolving number theory puzzles such as Goldbach’s conjecture. The scheme is applicable only within Hilbert arithmetic (but not in the standard mathematics) due to the fact that primes are not KS fundamental random in the latter, but only in the former. “Mathematics enters reality” (though only “fetching” a premise for the proof) is the relevant philosophical reflection furthermore reasoned by the opposition of Hilbert space of dimensions d=1,2 versus d3 after both Gleason and Kochen - Specker theorems.

One of the most fundamental theoretical results in quantum mechanics, the theorem of Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker (1967), is investigated from a rather mathematical and philosophical than physical viewpoint (i.e. unlike as usual). The absence of hidden variables is interpreted philosophically and ontomathematically: as the identity of the mathematical model by the separable complex Hilbert space (equivalent to the qubit Hilbert space) and physical reality. It implies the completeness of just that model to physical reality including in the sense of its cognitive finality. In other words, "hidden variables" are also interpreted as any mismatch between model and reality implied by the theorem not to be. That property of the qubit Hilbert space unique among all other mathematical theories (i.e., all first-order logics) is deduced as a corollary from the theorem as well. The approach at issue to the theorem implies its inherent contextuality to be deduced also in an "apophatic" or holistic version stating that omitting even a single "axis" of Hilbert space or a single value of probability density break its contextuality thus being inconsistent to the theorem. The concept of "fundamental randomness" is newly introduced as originating from the absence of hidden variables in any probability (density or not) distribution, the characteristic function of which is interpreted to be a (qubit) wave function. Then, the Kochen-Specker theorem implies no deviation from that "fundamental randomness" exists once its preconditions have been satisfied. The deviations at issue are seen to be any excluded degrees of freedom in a variable describing whatever. Just this statement is interpreted to be the theorem's "apophatic interpretation". A powerful method for proving statements in Hilbert arithmetic's number theory is offered as a conjecture to be reasoned and proved in a forthcoming paper.

The paper proves that the "Champernowne constant" (0.1234567891011121314 … where all natural numbers are consecutive digits of a decimal fraction) is a rational number, but only strictly within (Peano) arithmetic due to the axiom of induction. Combined with the previous well known results proved to be a transcendent real number in both (Peano) arithmetic & (ZFC) set theory, it is demonstrated to be a "Gödelian real number", rational in (Peano) arithmetic, but irrational (transcendent) in (Peano) arithmetic & (ZFC) set theory: for realizing the Gödel (1931) dichotomy about the relation of arithmetic to set theory ("either incompleteness or contradiction"). The method used initially for the Champernowne constant can be generalized to any computable real number. Then, the (uncountable) set of all noncomputable reals can be defined by their representability by more than one computable real. One can speak of the "relativity of rationality / irrationality" (or computability / non-computability) in Skolem's (1922) manner or even it to be continued to the "relativity of P / NP" in the "P vs NP problem: a conjecture visualized by the computability or non-computability of reals.

The proper mathematical proof of Riemann's hypothesis (RH) in Hilbert mathematics is suggested. It follows the methodological and philosophical considerations in Part I of the paper. Riemann's zeta function is continued "physically" at its single and simple pole conventionally to be square integrable there (though not being analytical only there) and thus everywhere on the complex plane in order to be interpreted as a wave function (though with a singularity at the pole, and thus generalizing the Hilbert-Polya conjecture's viewpoint). Therefore, is interpreted physically corresponding to ζ(????) some quantum state described by it This allows for applying the Noether (1918) first theorem after its reformulation by means of the newly introduced "nonstandard bijection" meaning the mapping of any mathematical structure and its nonstandard model after the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem. Then, the additive semigroup of its trivial zeros implies for all nontrivial zeros to share the critical line (i.e. proving RH) furthermore reasoning the reciprocity of the former generator "2" and the constant "½" of "Re(s) = ½". That approach for proving RH implies as "byproducts" also: the fundamentally random (GUE) distribution of all nontrivial zeros due to "nonstandard bijection"; the generalization of the axiom of induction to a conservation low as for the set-theoretical "continuation" of arithmetic (thus from the axiom of induction the axiom of infinity); the generalization of the Noether theorem in a few consecutive levels reaching even to set theory and the foundations of mathematics (after Hilbert arithmetic and ontomathematics). An idea for proving Goldbach's conjecture in Hilbert arithmetic (in a forthcoming paper) is reasoned as a corollary from the same approach for proving RH.

What should be the "physical interpretation" of Riemann's hypothesis? Can its eventual physical interpretation pioneer a pathway for the proper mathematical proof? Answers to both questions are researched in the framework of ontomathematics inherently involving the unity of physics, mathematics, and philosophy. After that viewpoint, a philosophical method for reinterpreting most fundamental mathematical problems (in particular, the seven "Millennium Problems" of CMI) is suggested. Loosely speaking, it consists in determining the ontomathematical "forest" in which the "tree" of a certain very essential mathematical problem is situated, after which the shortest silogism eventually needing a relevant "Gestalt change" appears to be natural and almost obvious, furthermore rather elementarily provable. One even notices that many (if not all) most fundamental problems of contemporary mathematics appeal to the same "Gestalt change" needing the "Cartesian glasses" to be "put off" and Modernity and its episteme to be abandoned. As for mathematics itself, one can conjecture that many or all of the most fundamental problems are (or at least, are linkable to) Gödel's insoluble statements. Ontomathematics suggests a general framework (also) for resolving many essential mathematical problems by breaking the Cartesian prejudice established by Modernity: then, Riemann's hypothesis can be reformulated in terms of the qubit Hilbert space so that the "zeta function" belongs to it. If one manages to demonstrate this, Riemann's hypothesis is rather easily provable since it refers to the fundamental reducibility of any qubit to a single bit "after measurement". From the newly introduced viewpoint, the zeta function is "physically" continued also at its single pole therefore tracing its interpretation by means of the Noether (1918) first theorem. Its application for proving Riemann's hypothesis is sketched in order to be elaborated in the next, second part of the study.

The GOOGLE and XPRIZE $5,000,000 for the practical and socially useful utilization of the quantum computer is the starting point for ontomathematical reflections for what it can really serve. Its “output by measurement” is opposed to the conjecture for a coherent ray able alternatively to deliver the ultimate result of any quantum calculation immediately as a Dirac -function therefore accomplishing the transition of the sequence of increasingly narrow probability density distributions to their limit. The GOOGLE and XPRIZE problem’s solution needs the initial understanding that the result of any quantum calculation is a wave function, or respectively, a probability (density or not) distribution unlike the Turing machine one, and only a “calculating ray” is able to transform the former into the later without any “curving” disturbances. Thus, the unique capability of the quantum computer due to its inherent quantum parallelism can be conserved for all Gödel unresolvable problems, only on the fast “NP” track of which the quantum computer “Achilles” is able practically to overrun the Turing machine “Tortoise” since the latter can “sprint” only by any “P” calculating speed even on it and unlike “Achilles” himself able for “NP” velocities as well. The way for any material body to “calculate” the certain trajectory of least action also resolves the “traveling salesman problem” in fact, therefore illustrating furthermore what the “NP” output of a quantum computer by a “calculating ray” should mean. Another example is the problem of the number of all prime numbers less than “N”, which is suggested to visualize once again the quantum computer capability to resolve problems by a “NP” speed and thus qualitatively to overrun any competing Turing machine. The technically implemented idea of laser is now reinterpreted to “radiate a wave function” in order to explain the “calculating ray” option for a quantum computer “NP” output. The generalization of an entanglement “trigger ray” described by any non-Hermitian operator (unlike a laser) is suggested as well as those “sci-fi” horizons which it reveals. One of them is meant for elucidating the practical meaning of the “Yang-Mills existence and mass gap problem”, one more of the CMI “Millennium Problems” after that of “P vs NP”.

The main idea consists in researching the existence of certain characteristics of nature similar to human reasonability and purposeful actions, originating and rigorously inferable from the postulates of quantum mechanics as well as from those of special and general relativity. The pathway of the “free-will theorems” proved by Conway and Kochen in 2006 and 2009 is followed and pioneered further. Those natural reasonability and teleology are identified as a special subject called “God” and studyable by “quantum theology”, a scientific counterpart of classical theology as far as the latter endeavors to justify rationally God (without quotation marks) postulated by religion, but meaning in the present study, first of all, Christianity. The suggested “quantum theology” is situated in the historical opposition and conflict of science and religion in Modernity and its reflection in Heidegger’s conception of “ontotheology”. The conception of “ontomathematics” introduced in previous papers to unite and unify physics, mathematics, and philosophy is reinterpreted in the present context to be conservatively generalized in a way to include “quantum theology”. Two conceptions, “locality” and “nonlocality”, originating initially from physics and especially, from theory of entanglement and quantum information, are also generalized ontomathematically, and thus in relation to the newly introduced “quantum theology”. The “quantum theology” subject of “God” is juxtaposed with God of religion and billions of believers all over the world. Husserl’s conception of “philosophy as a rigorous science” is considered to be generalized now to theology as quantum theology, particularly by the phenomenon (in the sense of his “phenomenology”) of “God”, or by an “epoché” to whether God exists or not. The research of the phenomenon of “God” is extended to the conception of the “totality” being inherent for philosophy, especially for classical German philosophy preceding Husserl’s phenomenology. Those sequences for philosophy implied by the introduction of quantum theology are investigated further, on the pathway of ontomathematics, also in relation to what “God” should mean for today’s physics and mathematics. The option and research field of “experimental quantum theology” is discussed as a direct corollary from quantum theology though being sacrilegious as for classical theology. The concluding section reflects in a more loose way on the relation of “God” for quantum theology to God for religion and billions of believers all over the world.

The paper is a partly provocative essay edited as a humanitarian study in philosophy of science and social philosophy, reflecting on the practical, “anti-metaphysical” turn taken place since the 20th century and continuing until now. The article advocates that it is about time it to be overcome because it is the main obstacle for the further development of exact and natural sciences including mathematics therefore restoring the unity of philosophy and sciences in the dawn of modern science when the great scientists were philosophers as a necessary condition for their revolutionary achievements, and the physicists were simultaneously mathematicians not less than philosophers and even theologians as Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz were just as their predecessors, Copernicus or Galileo Galilei. The revolution in science accomplished by them needed philosophy since any scientific revolution, then necessarily growing into social, needs philosophy; and if ones wish to prevent social revolutions originating from fundamental scientific discoveries, in turn relying on the close link of sciences and philosophy, they are to cut the link at issue, and just that happened in the 20th centuries therefore implicitly heralding a “brave new world” of eternal normal science without revolutions whether scientific or social. Fukuyama’s “end of history” requires an “end of scientific history” as it is an obligatory premise, and separating sciences from philosophy is sufficient for that, though proclaimed quite otherwise: as overcoming metaphysics preventing sciences and substituting them by quasi-sciences. Particularly, that “anti-metaphysical turn” has established for science to obey society absolutely and thoroughly, obviously a condition contradicting the scientific and social revolutions in Modernity featured by the domination of science over society by the mediation of philosophy able to translate all epochal scientific discoveries as social corollaries. A special attention is paid to quantum mechanics, being the frontier of physics in the 20th century, where that anti-metaphysical turn is discernibly concentrated and may be notated by the famous slogan “Shut up and calculate!” regardless of its authorship. Just the revolutionary discoveries in physics, for example those of “dark mass” and “dark energy” or entanglement force now its rejection therefore restoring the unity of philosophy, mathematics and physics, made ever possible the establishment of modern science by its emancipation from religion, and thus and ind final analysis, from society.

The text aims to explain Radichkov's special magical capaЬility of creating imaginary worlds. His words do not mean any external reality to which they refer. Тhеу themselves are reality. Radickov's language consists of "ontological quanta". Any ontological quantum means both reality and а certain image of it, indivisiЫe and indistinguishaЫe from each other. Here we сап also involve non-Saussurean semiotics. The signifier and the signified are indivisiЫe and complementary in any sign. The meanings are areas of agreement between human beings. Language generates that agreement between people. Its uncertainness and unclearness are not disadvantages. They allow for the people to agree with each other. The opacity of language is not Iess important than its transparency. The opacity means its aЬility to create fictions and literature and to replace reality with them. The basis of that opacity is ontological quanta: they allow апу average human being to use language successfully. Saussurean semiology considers Ianguage as а "Ыасk Ьох" averaged Ьу huge ensemЫes ofuses and only in terms ofthe past: language as well-ordered in ideality. The semiotics of ontological quanta is temporal: it сап refer both to the past and future oflanguage as well as to its present. lt describes how the indistinguishaЫe signs ofthe future are transformed in the well-ordered signs ofthe past Ьу means of choices in the present. The semiotics of ontological quanta сап Ье presented as that modification of the classical semiotic scheme where the signified and the signifier are complementary.

The paper is the final, fifth part of a series of studies introducing the new conceptions of “Hilbert mathematics” and “ontomathematics”. The specific subject of the present investigation is the proper philosophical sense of both, including philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics not less than the traditional “first philosophy” (as far as ontomathematics is a conservative generalization of ontology as well as of Heidegger’s “fundamental ontology” though in a sense) and history of philosophy (deepening Heidegger’s destruction of it from the pre-Socratics to the Pythagoreans). Husserl’s phenomenology and Heidegger’s derivative “fundamental ontology” as well as his later doctrine after the “turn” are the starting point of the research as established and well known approaches relative to the newly introduced conception of ontomathematics, even more so that Husserl himself started criticizing his “Philosophy of arithmetic” as too naturalistic and psychological turning to “Logical investigations” and the foundations of phenomenology. Heidegger’s “Aletheia” is also interpreted ontomathematically: as a relation of locality and nonlocality, respectively as a motion from nonlocality to locality if both are physically considered. Aristotle’s ontological revision of Plato’s doctrine is “destructed” further from the pre-Socratics' “Logos” or Heideger’s “Language” (after the “turn”) to the Pythagoreans “Numbers” or “Arithmetics” as an inherent and fundamental philosophical doctrine. Then, a leap to contemporary physics elucidates the essence of ontomathematics overcoming the Cartesian abyss inherited from Plato’s opposition of “ideas” versus “things”, and now unifying physics and mathematics, particularly allowing for the “creation from nothing” instead of the quasi-scientific myth of the “Big Bang”. Furthermore, ontomathematics needs another interpretation of arithmetic, propositional logic and set theory in the foundations of mathematics, where the latter two ones are both identified with Boolean algebra, and the former is considered to be a “half of Boolean algebra” in the exact meaning to be equated to it after doubling by a dual anti-isometric counterpart of Peano arithmetic. That unified algebraic realization of the foundations of mathematics is related to Hilbert mathematics in both “narrow and wide senses” where the latter is isomorphic to the qubit Hilbert space, thus underlying all the physical world by the newly introduced substance of quantum information being physically dimensionless and generalizing classical information measured in bits. The substance of information, whether classical or quantum, visualizes the way of the unification of physics and mathematics by merging their foundations in Hilbert arithmetic and Hilbert mathematics: thus how ontomathetics is a “first philosophy”. The relation of ontomathematics to the Socratic “human problematics”, furthermore being fundamental for Western philosophy in Modernity, is discussed. Ontomathematics implies its “substitution” by abstract information (or by “subjectless choice” relevant to it), thus “obliterating the human outline on the ocean beach sand” (by Michel Foucault’s metaphor). A reflection back from the viewpoint of mathematic to Western philosophy as the philosophy of locality ends the study.

This is a partly provocative essay edited as a humanitarian study in philosophy of science and social philosophy. The starting point is Isaac Asimov’s famous sci-fi novella “Profession” (1957) to be “back” extrapolated to today’s relation between Thomas Kuhn’s “normal science” and “scientific revolutions” (1962). The latter should be accomplished by Asimov’s main personage George Platen’s ilk (called “feeble minded” in the novella) versus the “burned minded” professionals able only to “normal science”. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” in post-Hegelian manner is now interpreted to an analogically supposed “end of scientific history” without “scientific revolutions” any more. The relevant dystopia of the prolonged or even “eternal” period of normal science is justified to the contemporary institution of science due to mechanisms such as “peer-review”, “impact-factor rating”, the projects’ competition for funding, etc. Positive feedbacks forcing all scientists needing careers to be more and more orthodox are demonstrated therefore establishing for that dystopia to be the real state of contemporary science. Two counterfactual case studies based correspondingly on Feyerabend’s “Against method” (1975) if Galilei should make his discoveries today and Sokal’s hoax (1996) if he suggested a scientific masterpiece to be really rejected by journals are discussed. Still one case study considering the abundance of Kelvin’s “clouds” on the horizon of today’s physics (dark matter, dark energy, entanglement, quantum gravitation, phenomena refuting the Big Bang, etc.) serves to verify the aforementioned conjecture that science has already entered that dystopia of eternal normal science. The conception of “ontomathematics” implying “creation ex nihilo” being scandalous for the dominating paradigm is sketched as an eventual revolutionary way out. An imaginary and utopic “happy end” reinterpreting the analogical “happy end” of Asimov’s “Profession” finishes the essay “instead of conclusion” relying on the Internet and AI in an increasingly “fluid” and anti-hierarchical society.

Gravitation is interpreted to be an “ontomathematical” force or interaction rather than an only physical one. That approach restores Newton’s original design of universal gravitation in the framework of “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, which allows for Einstein’s special and general relativity to be also reinterpreted ontomathematically. The entanglement theory of quantum gravitation is inherently involved also ontomathematically by virtue of the consideration of the qubit Hilbert space after entanglement as the Fourier counterpart of pseudo-Riemannian space. Gravitation can be also interpreted as purely mathematical or logical “force” or “interaction” as a corollary from its ontomathematical (rather than physical) realization. The ontomathematical approach to gravitation is implicit in general relativity equating it to operators in pseudo-Riemannian space obeying the Einstein field equation and also well-known by the “geometrization of physics”. Quantum mechanics shares the same by the separable complex Hilbert space and defining “physical quantity” by the Hermitian operators on it. One can interpret special Minkowski space involved by special relativity and the qubit Hilbert space of quantum information as Fourier counterparts immediately noticing that general relativity means gravitation as the Fourier counterpart of non-Hermitian operators implying non-unitarity and the violation of energy conservation and thus destroying Pauli’s particle paradigm. Since the Standard model obeys it, this explains the impossibility of “quantum gravitation” in any framework conservatively generalizing the Standard model so that it would include gravitation along with electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions. Einstein’s geometrization of gravitation can be continued into a purely mathematical theory of it following Euclid’s realization for geometry to be exhaustively built in a deductive and axiomatic way as well as Riemann’s parametrization of all the class of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries by “space curvature”, then being generalized to Minkowski space as the operators on pseudo-Riemannian space as the Einstein field equation means gravitation. The transition from mathematical gravitation to logical one can rely on the historical lesson of the pair of Lobachevski’s and Riemann’s approaches now “reversely”, i.e., from the latter to the former. Logical gravitation is linkable to Hegel’s dialectical logic and ontological dialectics abandoning their interpretations as a new zero logic substituting classical propionyl logic. The approach of ontomathematics generalizing that of ontology, traceable even to Aristotle’s reformation of Plato’s doctrine, needs Hegel’s doctrine to be formalized as a first-order logic naturally containing Boolean algebra, isomorphic to both classical propositional logic and set theory being the class of all first-order logics, as a sub-logic along with Peano arithmetic as another sub-logic. The first-order logic at issue is called Hilbert arithmetic and elaborated in detail in other papers. It allows for both self-foundation of mathematics to be internally proved as complete and furthermore, quantum mechanics reinterpreted as quantum information to be included by the qubit Hilbert space interpretable in turn as a dual and physical counterpart of Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense, that is, both counterparts constitute Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense, being mathematical and physical simultaneously and thus overcoming the Cartesian dualism of “body” gapped from “mind” by an abyss. Then, the proper philosophical interpretation of gravitation to be the fundamental ontomathematical force or interaction overcomes the ridiculous belief of the Big Bang wrongly alleged to be a scientific theory. Ontomathematical gravitation suggests an omnipresent and omnitemporal medium of “God’s” creation “ex nihilo” following only the natural necessity of quantum-information conservation particularly and locally manifested as energy conservation.

The paper continues the consideration of Hilbert mathematics to mathematics itself as an additional “dimension” allowing for the most difficult and fundamental problems to be attacked in a new general and universal way shareable between all of them. That dimension consists in the parameter of the “distance between finiteness and infinity”, particularly able to interpret standard mathematics as a particular case, the basis of which are arithmetic, set theory and propositional logic: that is as a special “flat” case of Hilbert mathematics. The following four essential problems are considered for the idea to be elucidated: Fermat’s last theorem proved by Andrew Wiles; Poincaré’s conjecture proved by Grigori Perelman and the only resolved from the seven Millennium problems offered by the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI); the four-color theorem proved “machine-likely” by enumerating all cases and the crucial software assistance; the Yang-Mills existence and mass gap problem also suggested by CMI and yet unresolved. They are intentionally chosen to belong to quite different mathematical areas (number theory, topology, mathematical physics) just to demonstrate the power of the approach able to unite and even unify them from the viewpoint of Hilbert mathematics. Also, specific ideas relevant to each of them are considered. Fermat’s last theorem is shown as a Gödel insoluble statement by means of Yablo’s paradox. Thus, Wiles’s proof as a corollary from the modularity theorem and thus needing both arithmetic and set theory involves necessarily an inverse Grothendieck universe. On the contrary, its proof in “Fermat arithmetic” introduced by “epoché to infinity” (following the pattern of Husserl’s original “epoché to reality”) can be suggested by Hilbert arithmetic relevant to Hilbert mathematics, the mediation of which can be removed in the final analysis as a “Wittgenstein ladder”. Poincaré’s conjecture can be reinterpreted physically by Minkowski space and thus reduced to the “nonstandard homeomorphism” of a bit of information mathematically. Perelman’s proof can be accordingly reinterpreted. However, it is valid in Gödel (or Gödelian) mathematics, but not in Hilbert mathematics in general, where the question of whether it holds remains open. The four-color theorem can be also deduced from the nonstandard homeomorphism at issue, but the available proof by enumerating a finite set of all possible cases is more general and relevant to Hilbert mathematics as well, therefore being an indirect argument in favor of the validity of Poincaré’s conjecture in Hilbert mathematics. The Yang-Mills existence and mass gap problem furthermore suggests the most general viewpoint to the relation of Hilbert and Gödel mathematics justifying the qubit Hilbert space as the dual counterpart of Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense, in turn being inferable from Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense. The conjecture that many if not almost all great problems in contemporary mathematics rely on (or at least relate to) the Gödel incompleteness is suggested. It implies that Hilbert mathematics is the natural medium for their discussion or eventual solutions.

The paper discusses Hilbert mathematics, a kind of Pythagorean mathematics, to which the physical world is a particular case. The parameter of the “distance between finiteness and infinity” is crucial. Any nonzero finite value of it features the particular case in the frameworks of Hilbert mathematics where the physical world appears “ex nihilo” by virtue of an only mathematical necessity or quantum information conservation physically. One does not need the mythical Big Bang which serves to concentrate all the violations of energy conservation in a “safe”, maximally remote point in the alleged “beginning of the universe”. On the contrary, an omnipresent and omnitemporal medium obeying quantum information conservation rather than energy conservation permanently generates action and thus the physical world. The utilization of that creation “ex nihilo” is accessible to humankind, at least theoretically, as long as one observes the physical laws, which admit it in their new and wider generalization. One can oppose Hilbert mathematics to Gödel mathematics, which can be identified as all the standard mathematics until now featureable by the Gödel dichotomy of arithmetic to set theory: and then, “dialectic”, “intuitionistic”, and “Gödelian” mathematics within the former, according to a negative, positive, or zero value of the distance between finiteness and infinity. A mapping of Hilbert mathematics into pseudo-Riemannian space corresponds, therefore allowing for gravitation to be interpreted purely mathematically and ontologically in a Pythagorean sense. Information and quantum information can be involved in the foundations of mathematics and linked to the axiom of choice or alternatively, to the field of all rational numbers, from which the pair of both dual and anti-isometric Peano arithmetics featuring Hilbert arithmetic are immediately inferable. Noether’s theorems (1918) imply quantum information conservation as the maximally possible generalization of the pair of the conservation of a physical quantity and the corresponding Lie group of its conjugate. Hilbert mathematics can be interpreted from their viewpoint also after an algebraic generalization of them. Following the ideas of Noether’s theorem (1918), locality and nonlocality can be realized both physically and mathematically. The “light phase of the universe” can be linked to the gap of mathematics and physics in the Cartesian organization of cognition in Modernity and then opposed to its “dark phase”, in which physics and mathematics are merged. All physical quantities can be deduced from only mathematical premises by the mediation of the most fundamental physical constants such as the speed of light in a vacuum, the Planck and gravitational constants once they have been interpreted by the relation of locality and nonlocality.

The paper discusses this year’s Nobel Prize in physics for experiments of entanglement “establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” in a much wider, including philosophical context legitimizing by the authority of the Nobel Prize a new scientific area out of “classical” quantum mechanics relevant to Pauli’s “particle” paradigm of energy conservation and thus to the Standard model obeying it. One justifies the eventual future theory of quantum gravitation as belonging to the newly established quantum information science. Entanglement, involving non-Hermitian operators for its rigorous description, non-unitarity as well as nonlocal and superluminal physical signals “spookily” (by Einstein’s flowery epithet) synchronizing and transferring some nonzero action at a distance, can be considered to be quantum gravity so that its local counterpart to be Einstein’s gravitation according to general relativity therefore pioneering an alternative pathway to quantum gravitation different from the “secondary quantization” of the Standard model. So, the experiments of entanglement once they have been awarded by the Nobel Prize launch particularly the relevant theory of quantum gravitation grounded on “quantum information science” thus granted to be nonclassical quantum mechanics in the shared framework of the generalized quantum mechanics obeying rather quantum-information conservation than only energy conservation. The concept of “dark phase” of the universe naturally linked to the very well confirmed “dark matter” and “dark energy” and opposed to its “light phase” inherent to classical quantum mechanics and the Standard model obeys quantum-information conservation, after which reversible causality or the mutual transformation of energy and information are valid. The mythical Big Bang after which energy conservation holds universally is to be replaced by an omnipresent and omnitemporal medium of decoherence of the dark and nonlocal phase into the light and local phase. The former is only an integral image of the latter and borrowed in fact rather from religion than from science. Physical, methodological and proper philosophical conclusions follow from that paradigm shift heralded by this year’s Nobel Prize in physics. For example, the scientific theory of thinking should originate from the dark phase of the universe, as well: probably only approximately modeled by neural networks physically belonging to the light phase thoroughly. A few crucial philosophical sequences follow from the break of Pauli’s paradigm: (1) the establishment of the “dark” phase of the universe as opposed to its “light” phase, only to which the Cartesian dichotomy of “body” and “mind” is valid; (2) quantum information conservation as relevant to the dark phase, furthermore generalizing energy conservation as to its light phase, productively allowing for physical entities to appear “ex nihilo”, i.e., from the dark phase, in which energy and time are yet inseparable from each other; (3) reversible causality as inherent to the dark phase; (4) the interpretation of gravitation only mathematically: as an interpretation of the incompleteness of finiteness to infinity, for example, following the Gödel dichotomy (“either contradiction or incompleteness”) about the relation of arithmetic to set theory; (5) the restriction of the concept of hierarchy only to the light phase; (6) the commensurability of both physical extremes of a quantum and the universe as a whole in the dark phase obeying quantum information conservation and akin to Nicholas of Cusa’s philosophical and theological worldview.

The previous Part I of the paper discusses the option of the Gödel incompleteness statement (1931: whether “Satz VI” or “Satz X”) to be an axiom due to the pair of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory after interpreting them as logical negations to each other. The present Part II considers the previous Gödel’s paper (1930) (and more precisely, the negation of “Satz VII”, or “the completeness theorem”) as a necessary condition for granting the Gödel incompleteness statement to be a theorem just as the statement itself, to be an axiom. Then, the “completeness paper” can be interpreted as relevant to Hilbert mathematics, according to which mathematics and reality as well as arithmetic and set theory are rather entangled or complementary rather than mathematics to obey reality able only to create models of the latter. According to that, both papers (1930; 1931) can be seen as advocating Russell’s logicism or the intensional propositional logic versus both extensional arithmetic and set theory. Reconstructing history of philosophy, Aristotle’s logic and doctrine can be opposed to those of Plato or the pre-Socratic schools as establishing ontology or intensionality versus extensionality. Husserl’s phenomenology can be analogically realized including and particularly as philosophy of mathematics. One can identify propositional logic and set theory by virtue of Gödel’s completeness theorem (1930: “Satz VII”) and even both and arithmetic in the sense of the “compactness theorem” (1930: “Satz X”) therefore opposing the latter to the “incompleteness paper” (1931). An approach identifying homomorphically propositional logic and set theory as the same structure of Boolean algebra, and arithmetic as the “half” of it in a rigorous construction involving information and its unit of a bit. Propositional logic and set theory are correspondingly identified as the shared zero-order logic of the class of all first-order logics and the class at issue correspondingly. Then, quantum mechanics does not need any quantum logics, but only the relation of propositional logic, set theory, arithmetic, and information: rather a change of the attitude into more mathematical, philosophical, and speculative than physical, empirical and experimental. Hilbert’s epsilon calculus can be situated in the same framework of the relation of propositional logic and the class of all mathematical theories. The horizon of Part III investigating Hilbert mathematics (i.e. according to the Pythagorean viewpoint about the world as mathematical) versus Gödel mathematics (i.e. the usual understanding of mathematics as all mathematical models of the world external to it) is outlined.

The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part.

Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense, including Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense consisting by two dual and anti-isometric Peano arithmetics, on the one hand, and the qubit Hilbert space (originating for the standard separable complex Hilbert space of quantum mechanics), on the other hand, allows for an arithmetic version of Gentzen’s cut elimination and quantum measurement to be described uniformy as two processes occurring accordingly in those two branches. A philosophical reflection also justifying that unity by quantum neo-Pythagoreanism links it to the opposition of propositional logic, to which Gentzen’s cut rule refers immediately, on the one hand, and the linguistic and mathematical theory of metaphor therefore sharing the same structure borrowed from Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense. An example by hermeneutical circle modeled as a dual pair of a syllogism (accomplishable also by a Turing machine) and a relevant metaphor (being a formal and logical mistake and thus fundamentally inaccessible to any Turing machine) visualizes human understanding corresponding also to Gentzen’s cut elimination and the Gödel dichotomy about the relation of arithmetic to set theory: either incompleteness or contradiction. The metaphor as the complementing “half” of any understanding of hermeneutical circle is what allows for that Gödel-like incompleteness to be overcome in human thought.

The previous two parts of the paper demonstrate that the interpretation of Fermat’s last theorem (FLT) in Hilbert arithmetic meant both in a narrow sense and in a wide sense can suggest a proof by induction in Part I and by means of the Kochen - Specker theorem in Part II. The same interpretation can serve also for a proof FLT based on Gleason’s theorem and partly similar to that in Part II. The concept of (probabilistic) measure of a subspace of Hilbert space and especially its uniqueness can be unambiguously linked to that of partial algebra or incommensurability, or interpreted as a relation of the two dual branches of Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense. The investigation of the last relation allows for FLT and Gleason’s theorem to be equated in a sense, as two dual counterparts, and the former to be inferred from the latter, as well as vice versa under an additional condition relevant to the Gödel incompleteness of arithmetic to set theory. The qubit Hilbert space itself in turn can be interpreted by the unity of FLT and Gleason’s theorem. The proof of such a fundamental result in number theory as FLT by means of Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense can be generalized to an idea about “quantum number theory”. It is able to research mathematically the origin of Peano arithmetic from Hilbert arithmetic by mediation of the “nonstandard bijection” and its two dual branches inherently linking it to information theory. Then, infinitesimal analysis and its revolutionary application to physics can be also re-realized in that wider context, for example, as an exploration of the way for physical quantity of time (respectively, for time derivative in any temporal process considered in physics) to appear at all. Finally, the result admits a philosophical reflection of how any hierarchy arises or changes itself only thanks to its dual and idempotent counterpart.

The paper is a continuation of another paper published as Part I. Now, the case of “n=3” is inferred as a corollary from the Kochen and Specker theorem (1967): the eventual solutions of Fermat’s equation for “n=3” would correspond to an admissible disjunctive division of qubit into two absolutely independent parts therefore versus the contextuality of any qubit, implied by the Kochen – Specker theorem. Incommensurability (implied by the absence of hidden variables) is considered as dual to quantum contextuality. The relevant mathematical structure is Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense, in the framework of which Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense and the qubit Hilbert space are dual to each other. A few cases involving set theory are possible: (1) only within the case “n=3” and implicitly, within any next level of “n” in Fermat’s equation; (2) the identification of the case “n=3” and the general case utilizing the axiom of choice rather than the axiom of induction. If the former is the case, the application of set theory and arithmetic can remain disjunctively divided: set theory, “locally”, within any level; and arithmetic, “globally”, to all levels. If the latter is the case, the proof is thoroughly within set theory. Thus, the relevance of Yablo’s paradox to the statement of Fermat’s last theorem is avoided in both cases. The idea of “arithmetic mechanics” is sketched: it might deduce the basic physical dimensions of mechanics (mass, time, distance) from the axioms of arithmetic after a relevant generalization, Furthermore, a future Part III of the paper is suggested: FLT by mediation of Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense can be considered as another expression of Gleason’s theorem in quantum mechanics: the exclusions about (n = 1, 2) in both theorems as well as the validity for all the rest values of “n” can be unified after the theory of quantum information. The availability (respectively, non-availability) of solutions of Fermat’s equation can be proved as equivalent to the non-availability (respectively, availability) of a single probabilistic measure as to Gleason’s theorem.

In a previous paper, an elementary and thoroughly arithmetical proof of Fermat’s last theorem by induction has been demonstrated if the case for “n = 3” is granted as proved only arithmetically (which is a fact a long time ago), furthermore in a way accessible to Fermat himself though without being absolutely and precisely correct. The present paper elucidates the contemporary mathematical background, from which an inductive proof of FLT can be inferred since its proof for the case for “n = 3” has been known for a long time. It needs “Hilbert mathematics”, which is inherently complete unlike the usual “Gödel mathematics”, and based on “Hilbert arithmetic” to generalize Peano arithmetic in a way to unify it with the qubit Hilbert space of quantum information. An “epoché to infinity” (similar to Husserl’s “epoché to reality”) is necessary to map Hilbert arithmetic into Peano arithmetic in order to be relevant to Fermat’s age. Furthermore, the two linked semigroups originating from addition and multiplication and from the Peano axioms in the final analysis can be postulated algebraically as independent of each other in a “Hamilton” modification of arithmetic supposedly equivalent to Peano arithmetic. The inductive proof of FLT can be deduced absolutely precisely in that Hamilton arithmetic and the pransfered as a corollary in the standard Peano arithmetic furthermore in a way accessible in Fermat’s epoch and thus, to himself in principle. A future, second part of the paper is outlined, getting directed to an eventual proof of the case “n=3” based on the qubit Hilbert space and the Kochen-Specker theorem inferable from it.

A homeomorphism is built between the separable complex Hilbert space (quantum mechanics) and Minkowski space (special relativity) by meditation of quantum information (i.e. qubit by qubit). That homeomorphism can be interpreted physically as the invariance to a reference frame within a system and its unambiguous counterpart out of the system. The same idea can be applied to Poincaré’s conjecture (proved by G. Perelman) hinting at another way for proving it, more concise and meaningful physically. Furthermore, the conjecture can be generalized and interpreted in relation to the pseudo-Riemannian space of general relativity therefore allowing for both mathematical and philosophical interpretations of the force of gravitation due to the mismatch of choice and ordering and resulting into the “curving of information” (e.g. entanglement). Mathematically, that homeomorphism means the invariance to choice, the axiom of choice, well-ordering, and well-ordering “theorem” (or “principle”) and can be defined generally as “information invariance”. Philosophically, the same homeomorphism implies transcendentalism once the philosophical category of the totality is defined formally. The fundamental concepts of “choice”, “ordering” and “information” unify physics, mathematics, and philosophy and should be related to their shared foundations.

Lewis Carroll, both logician and writer, suggested a logical paradox containing furthermore two connotations (connotations or metaphors are inherent in literature rather than in mathematics or logics). The paradox itself refers to implication demonstrating that an intermediate implication can be always inserted in an implication therefore postponing its ultimate conclusion for the next step and those insertions can be iteratively and indefinitely added ad lib, as if ad infinitum. Both connotations clear up links due to the shared formal structure with other well-known mathematical observations: (1) the paradox of Achilles and the Turtle; (2) the transitivity of the relation of equality. Analogically to (1), one can juxtapose the paradox of the Liar (for Lewis Carroll’s paradox) and that of the arrow (for “Achilles and the Turtle”), i.e. a logical paradox, on the one hand, and an aporia of motion, on the other hand, suggesting a shared formal structure of both, which can be called “ontological”, on which basis “motion” studied by physics and “conclusion” studied by logic can be unified being able to bridge logic and physics philosophically in a Hegelian manner: even more, the bridge can be continued to mathematics in virtue of (2), which forces the equality (for its property of transitivity) of any two quantities to be postponed analogically ad lib and ad infinitum. The paper shows that Hilbert arithmetic underlies naturally Lewis Carroll’s paradox admitting at least three interpretations linked to each other by it: mathematical, physical and logical. Thus, it can be considered as both generalization and solution of his paradox therefore naturally unifying the completeness of quantum mechanics (i.e. the absence of hidden variables) and eventual completeness of mathematics as the same and isomorphic to the completeness of propositional logic in relation to set theory as a first-order logic (in the sense of Gödel (1930)’s completeness theorems).