Nihilogony vs struogony

## nihilogony (nothing is potentiality) vs struogony (the Nothing doesn't exist; fundamental constructors are self-causal)

I write "the Nothing" to avoid confusion, because nothing as a word is used also in everyday language.

nihilogony (nothing is the infinite potentialities; which is wrong, because the Nothing is the permanent state of inexistence) vs struogony (the Nothing doesn't exist; fundamental constructors are Everettianly self-causal)

Everettianly means in an ontologically fading out infinite connectome. No generic reality can be experienced by a single observer, but a multiverse connectome which fades out ([spatiotemporally] afar in space and time events have little chance [due to the infinite overlapping Hubble volumes and due to probabilistic entanglement which both keep the Universe as a whole, the probability of exohubblovoluminal interaction isn't zero] to interact with the arbitrary central observer in a Hubble volume's center.

The Generic Constructor doesn't exist. Like the set of all sets doesn't exist. That open-endedness is necessary for the self-causality/self-causation of any substantiality. The cyclic universe isn't the deepest foundations of our local Universe; but the constructor of our local Universe is. That constructor isn't simplistic; but it's ontologically open-ended and Everettian (to work around axiomatic problems of substantiality; remember that universes aren't calculatory axiomatic systems created by humans; universes require a coherent algorithm for their axiomatics; see: axiomatic criteria of physical foundations vs axiomatic criteria of calculatory systems created by people).

meta-Everettism: fading out axiomatic connectomes related to the wavefunction but also related to physical foundations (meta-, same in nature but not necessarily the original Everettism/manyworldness; due to causopermeability actually both Everettism and meta-Everettism are identical/tautological. Why? Because any self-caused universe is an Ontological Turing Machine: being comprised of software + algorithmic [not a list of axioms] axiomatics and hardware [fields] made of the same informational connectome. A universe = Ontological Turing Machine doesn't have to be a general calculator, at least foundationally. It's not a criterion of universe axiomatics. Practically most universes are General Calculators, because their axiomatics isn't a list but it's algorithmic, and calculatory/calculational degrees of freedom are necessary to create tricks like Heisenberg uncertainty principle and applications of entropy, leveraging them to work around the problems of axiomaticity (incompleteness and/or inconsistency). The problems of axiomaticity aren't directly confronted. They are worked around. The uncertainty principle limits the information one observer can gain, and also the fact that the universe expands is ontological entropy = the definition of any [self-caused] universe isn't stationary [otherwise it doesn't meet the prerequisites for a universe and it wouldn't be self-caused].

Stephen Hawking believed - without any mathematical theory on it - in nihilogony = cosmogony from nothing [and he didn't claim to believe in David Deutsch's struogony: cosmogony from our local Universe's constructor. (Universe with capitalized U is the name of our local universe.)

OK. Stephen Hawking didn't finish his work. He would have made corrections.