Why there is something rather than nothing?

Robert Lawrence Kuhn and too many others ask/ed: Why there's something rather than nothing? Nothing cannot exist. Only miseducated PhDs claim that nothing is a sophistry/ word-trick that exists, even as a potential decay for cosmogony. We have to separate the Big Bang from the axiomatization of physics (David Hilbert had mistakes on it; David Tong is closer to the observational data). Bertrand Russell revealed a problem in the foundations of mathematics. Mathematics isn't physics. Physics is necessarily substantial. Scientophysics is what we know, and ontophysics is the deeper truth. We need gradient set theory and uncertainty set theory in order we workaround the problems of common mathematics. (An ontophysics has to be more limited than common mathematics, because common mathematics is impossible to physically exist because it has foundational contradictions. The physical foundations can workaround this via entropy, axiomatic generation of spacetime, many-worlds Everettism and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The physical foundations can avoid the absolute categorization [when that causes a foundational contradiction] by a connectome handling of relationships, uncertainty, entropy and other techniques. An ontophysics isn't itself a generic common mathematics, but being logical it's transcribable to it.) We have to create allomathematics = mathematics with different axiomatics (axiomatic list, axiomatic algorithm or hybrid axiomatics). Our common mathematics is good to describe the universe, but not the exact axiomatic system of the universe because the universe isn't a system for calculations but it is a system for existence. Thus any ontophysical allomathematics (which has to be an ontological Turing machine, a subcategory of the Turing machine; its own axiomatics, software and hardware, all of the same nature; and ontophysical allomathematics has to be focused on meeting the criteria for physical foundations. The ontophysical allomathematics is transcribable to common mathematics, but in a difficult/ unintuitive way.). Pure nothing (which isn't the void) cannot exist. Nihilogony = nilogony = cosmogony from nothing is an impossibility. Logicogony = logical foundations = mathematical or better put ontophysical allomathematics = physioallomathematics is self-caused due to its logical correctness and that suffices. Infinite physioallomathematics = allomathematical systems which are ontophysics are possible and all necessarily exist due to their correctness. In a cyclic universe big bang are phase transitions of very old acceleratingly expanding universes which get [verb:] big-ripped and produce enough mass–energy to create a single primordial omniblackhole which doesn't have external spacetime, it cannot compress more the Planck degeneracy and it phase-transitions into the next big bang. The Big Bang isn't the cosmic foundations and the description of the fields. Which Everettian universe-strain was the first one? That is a wrong question. We can only compare universe-strains, as acceptable solutions and we can relate parent to offspring universes. There is no sole primordial universe, neither our particular big bang has to be an omniblackhole = an infinite black hole, but it has to be humongous enough to decay into a big bang before it explodes to external regions. Why nothing doesn't exist? Because the Nothing can never exist. Why all physioallomathematics self-causally exist as universes by definition due to rigorous logic? Because logic can guarantee existence if the prerequisites for physical axiomatics are met. Easier universes are more probable, but not more or less existent. Any logically correct allomathematical ontophysics necessarily exists. Most thinking persons probabilistically exist in medium complexity universes, because very simple and very complicaded ones have lower probability for intelligent life. A very simple universe doesn't have enough complexity, and a very complicated universe doesn't have stability. We have to better elaborate on the ontoaxiomatic workarounds (axiomatic incompleteness, axiomatic inconsistency, incompatibility [the axiomatic workarounds don't cancel these problems, but they deal with them]). Ontophysics (= the true physics which isn't scientophysics/what we know) doesn't have to be a closed axiomatics/ axiomatic systems. It actually works better for the potential of existence an open axiomatics (axiomatic list, axiomatic algorithm or hybrid axiomatics/ axiomatic algorithms work very good for ontoaxiomatics = axiomatic foundations of big physical systems = universes).

## videography

* · Logic at its Limit: The Grelling-Nelson Paradox · Dialect · YouTube