thinking covariantly about time (mathy and potentially confusing)

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, Metric, would it be fair to say that, contrary to popular belief, theories of physics/cosmology, specifically those including a Big Bang, do <font color="red">NOT</font> require that something comes from nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there still is the problem of the whole universe |PSI&gt; existing at all, but as far as something "causing the big bang to happen" -- yeah, there is nothing really special about it, except that classical theories are singular there (but no more so than at the center of black holes, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the question of why does something exist instead of nothing to be really easy. There is exactly 1 way for nothing to exist and infinitely many ways for something to exist, so it seems infintessimally likely for nothing to exist by any reasonable measure.

BTW I had been planning to start a thread entitled `Something <font color="red">CANNOT</font> come from Nothing' but I think I can make the point in your thread now. So, Metric, you seem to agree with the statements that `Theories of physics/cosmology, specifically those including a Big Bang, do <font color="red">NOT</font> <u>require</u> that something comes from nothing' and moreover `Theories of physics/cosmology, specifically those including a Big Bang, do <font color="red">NOT</font> <u>claim</u> that something comes from nothing'. Do you also agree with the statement that `Something <font color="red">CANNOT</font> come from Nothing'?

Also, on the spectrum ranging from a specific, fully understood, tested, coherent, consistent equation, to a vague and nebulous concept or principle, where does "Wheeler-DeWitt equation" sit (and how does it compare to other theories in this regard)? What otherwise-normally-assumed physics concepts does it dispense with, and what does it retain and/or require?