I've read your 2026 postings page — it's a goldmine for this, since it contains several freshly-minted formulations (the "content is classical, vehicle is quantum" line, the three-theses distinction on realism, and the Everettian restatement of HI as amplitude engineering rather than binary elimination) that sit exactly on the axis you want to formalize: from the informationless zero to hedonium. ( hedweb.com)

Let me load the canvas skill and draft the axiom system as a working document you can edit and iterate on.

The knowledge base is empty (fresh start), so I'll build the axiomatization directly from your posted positions. Creating the canvas now:

I've drafted the full axiom system — it's open in the canvas now ("From Zero Ontology to Hedonium"). The shape of it:

~20 numbered conjuncts in 8 groups, each tagged with epistemic status (datum / working assumption / falsifiable conjecture / normative postulate), running Z (zero ontology) → P (non-materialist physicalism) → B (quantum binding) → V (valence) → E (ethics) → F (feasibility), with seven theorems including the derivations from your own recent formulations:

• T4 — measurement–binding duality from the "content is classical, vehicle is quantum" line
• T5 — abolitionism as gradients-of-bliss engineering
• T6 — the hedonium shockwave
• T7 — the one I'd flag as the system's signature: closure. Hedonium is zero-consistent. The far future adds no net information, so the axiomatization isn't a line from zero to hedonium but a circle — paradise is the zero, internally differentiated. That's also its best one-line defense: any opponent must explain why a zero-information state can't be a blissful one.

Two structural vulnerabilities worth your red pen first:

1. F2 (superintelligent convergence) is the only axiom doing work it can't support — the whole far-future projection hangs on it, and an adversary attacks there first. The draft states it bleeding, as an axiom where you usually state a hope.
2. O2 (normativity's status) — the system currently tags E1 as an irreducible [N]. If you want suffering's badness to be quasi-empirical (intrinsic nature, graspable by full-spectrum superintelligence), the bridge from V1–V2 to E1 needs to be made explicit rather than assumed.

Also flagged for decision: the anthropic bridge from I(Ψ)=0 to a lawful universe (O1), the wide-vs-tall hedonium question and created-mind consent (O3), and whether abolitionist AI needs a gradients-preservation safety axiom so it doesn't minimize suffering the wrong way (O7).

Where the system is genuinely falsifiable rather than contestable — molecular matter-wave interferometry (B3/B4) and the hedonic-genetics program (V3/F1) — the falsifiers are listed in §9.

The numbering is stable, so we can now argue about B3 or E2 by name. Which conjunct do you want to stress-test first — or should I draft the steelman of the strongest anti-F2 position?