Ontophysics = physical allomathematics

Was the universe created because nothing is something = a potential for existence? Cosmogony from nothing, nihilogony, nilogony. That is necessarily wrong because nothing isn't the void. The other option is the physical axiomatics/ physical foundations/ logic itself = logicogony. In an Everettian cyclic universe there is no specific first universe, only parental possible ones. Thus the Planck-degenerate pre-Big-Bang state isn't the biggest question in physics. The logical foundations of the universe is a deeper question than the conditions before the Big Bang. Because the Big Bang happened within spacetime; and spacetime isn't a decay of the NOTHING (which isn't the void). If we don't have a word for nihilogony we wouldn't be able to debunk it. Because vagueness allows nihilogony/ nilogony to survive. Logicogony is the deepest foundations of reality, based on common mathematics, but most probably allomathematics = mathematics with a different list or algorithm or hybrid axiomatics. Am I stupid for introducing allomathematics? Actually no. Allomathematics is necessarily logically rigorous but it has altered axioms or axiomatic algorithm. We cannot avoid logic as the physical foundations, because without logic there are no specific characteristics/ identity (specific existence requires logical and specific characteristics; thus the physical foundations are necessarily logical). But not only Euclidean geometry and common mathematics can be presented as axiomatic systems. Infinite axiomatic systems are possible to exist. But why not to present our universe with our common mathematics; that's what we already do. Because if our universe is itself a different axiomatic system, it still would be transcribable to common mathematics (every axiomatic system should be logically describable), but not necessarily without fragmentations or unnecessary intermediary steps when we switch amongst different axiomatic systems. Not all axiomatic systems are overall transcribable, which means that for many there isn't a general algorithm for transcripton, but case-by-case/ problem-by-problem transcripton (if we experiment we can even create nontranscribable axiomatic systems; very weird axiomatic systems [they might include randomness axioms, data loss, and other impractical techniques which seem stupid, but have to be examined]; it is doable but a taboo for many mathematicians). If we don't have the exact axiomatic system of our universe, still common mathematics would be able to describe it, but not necessarily in the most succinct way; thus we wouldn't be able to have good insight on the physical foundations of our particular universe (infinite universes with different physics are possible = can meet the criteria of spacetime-like axiomatics). David Deutsch claims that the overall universe isn't necessarily a sole constructor (see: constructor theory), but whenever a gap exists, new and separate constructors emerge to fill the gaps per order of magnitude. On the other hand we have causopermeability = causal permeability amongst different phenomena. We humans separate different phenomena per order of magnitude, for simplification, but the universe doesn't do that. That's a very huge question. Is the overall universe a single Deutschian constructor, or do we have different constructors per order of magnitude; or ìs there a hybrid reality, with dominant generic constructors, and percentages of various constructors for each order of magnitude [the latter seems closer to truth].