Γιατί είναι ανέφικτη η ουδενογονία; (στα αγγλικά)

Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox and many others speak (and spoke) about nilogony/nihilogony/cosmogony from nothing, but most of them don't actually mean it because they don't have specific theories of nothing decaying into something or everything.

I sometimes use the form the "nothing" in order to differentiate it from other meanings it has.

"Nothing"/The nothing/nothingness/insubstantiality is an impossible state of substantiality. Insubstantiality is a categorisation-hypernym of nothing (categorising types of ideas; but not all ideas are physically substantial; some are substantial merely as definitions of ideas [ideosubstantiality: things expressible as ideas vs real/physical substantiality]). Ontologically there is only one nothing which actually "there is not"/it has no ontological substance, neither ontological potential, nor entropy, evolution, change, etc. Erroneous logic is an impossible physical state, sometimes interpreted as possible. Computers (including biocomputers: brains, bioneural networks) cannot make ontological mistakes; they simply sometimes make false mappings of symbols. Miscalculators don't violate physics. They simply invent complex operations with noise or other procedural extras. Human miscalculators invent false theories, like mythology about the violation of physics; because they have dysfunctional operators (neural networks) and mismappers (for example symbolic mismappers, and subsymbolic [distorted fundamental definitions]). They don’t violate physics while thinking.

The word nothing can be used for something existent but unimportant.
The ontological nothing is the sole nonstate of inexistence (it doesn't have variants, attributes, etc.). Nothingness doesn't have degrees. Substantiality has degrees (being a relative notion) because it results from ontoaxiomatic connectomes; and not all are equally strong.

The "nothing" isn't a potential state of actuality/substantiality (the "nothing" doesn't have the potential of actuality/substantiality).

The "nothing" isn't entropic and it cannot evolve.

see/study the differences: nothing, zero, void, null set, zero potential

Transient zeros in equations which predict change, aren't themselves a causal mechanism; they merely are a transient value. Zeros can represent transient values; thus not necessarily nothing[ness].

The "nothing" doesn't exist neither does it have the potentiality to exist.

The "nothing" doesn't have flavours (as defined in rigorous science; in oratorical trickery [sophistry has more than one meanings] the correspondence between words and meanings is violated, thus any arbitrary claim might arise).

There "is" only one nothing, and that doesn't exist; neither does it have substantiality potential.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Universes are not created by the impossibility of existence and the lack of substantiality potential of nothing.

Universes are resulting from their ontoaxiomatic connectomes (axioms of substantiality; here not axioms of science; ontoaxiomatics should be causally coherent [blockchain-like] in order to self-exist as a coherent whole) which yields their ontophysics (physics as it is and not its scientific description). Strict epistemology is causally shallow for rejecting the mathematically logical foundations of substantiality. There is no single axiomatics, single universe nor the omniaxiomatics and the omnimultiverse (mathematically and ontologically the omniaxiomatics and the omnimultiverse are impossible; mutual exclusions and contradictions are some of the reasons).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

correct phrasing:

Cosmogony from causally coherent ontoaxiomatics based on versions of mathematical logic (not only one mathematical logic is possible; infinite axiomatics are possible; but they necessarily are procedural, logical and causally coherent; otherwise their particular substantiality cannot hold its oneness and decays or it cannot exist in the first place)

## related topics: The impossibility of the impossible

Things without a possible causal connectome, cannot exist.
Speaking about the impossible is possible though, because ideas about something aren't usually that particular something.

## Why cosmogonic self-causation is unavoidable?

Because both systems: a. physicalist universe and b. the God—universe system are self-causal.