{"authors":[],"components":[{"id":"root","name":"root","payload":{"cid":"bafybeihw3yoj7ucn4e4wmvusi7f2ytwoq3zldtgs3bmk3fdzwznwki2yc4","path":"root"},"type":{".pdf":"pdf"}},{"id":"a51a434c-fc34-4910-9718-bcc7a6bb88a2","name":"MayaNicksTheoremI—NullGenesisandtheComputationalZero-StateHypothesis06.23.25Ω=∅.pdf","type":"pdf","payload":{"cid":"bafkreievun5itvkp6hjcw4rywif7mqelyycwv443fawi4r7q4dhff5lawu","path":"root/MayaNicksTheoremI—NullGenesisandtheComputationalZero-StateHypothesis06.23.25Ω=∅.pdf","title":"Manuscript"},"starred":true,"subtype":"manuscript"}],"defaultLicense":"CC BY","researchFields":[],"title":"Title: MayaNicks Theorem I: Null Genesis and the Computational Zero-State Hypothesis 06.23.25 Ω = ∅ \n","version":"desci-nodes-0.2.0","references":[],"description":"Title: MayaNicks Theorem I: Null Genesis and the Computational Zero-State Hypothesis 06.23.25 Ω = ∅ \n\nAbstract\nI’m proposing a physically and computationally defined “null state” — one that enforces ψ(x, t) = 0 rather than leaving the wavefunction undefined, and sets Ω = ∅ to denote a true eventless ontology—conceptually stronger than the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal.\nThis is refinement of cosmological origin models via the definition of a strict null genesis state: a system with Ω = ∅, φ(x) = 0, ψ(x,t) = 0, and S = 0. Unlike traditional no-boundary or vacuum-based models, this state does not rely on probabilistic undefinedness but enforces an ontological zero across classical and quantum fields. This allows a cleaner boundary condition for recursive emergence models such as ψ_self recursion.\n\n1. Introduction\nBriefly compare Hartle-Hawking “no boundary” and typical vacuum inflation models\n\n\nExplain why undefined ≠ null\n\n\nArgue for a rigorously defined computational and physical zero as the cleanest base state\n\n\n\n2. Formal Definition of Null Genesis\nΩ = ∅ → event space = empty\n\n\nφ(x) = 0 → scalar field null\n\n\nψ(x, t) = 0 → wavefunction null\n\n\nS = 0 → no entropy, no statistical system\n\n\nNo metric: no spacetime manifold populated\n\n\n\n3. Implications for Cosmogenesis\nEnables a stable boundary condition for recursion-based origin models\n\n\nMatches entropy-zero cosmological conditions, but more constrained\n\n\nCompatible with ψ_self emergence in recursive cognition models (to be explored in Theorem II)\n\n\n\n4. Comparison to Existing Models\nHartle-Hawking: boundaryless but not ψ = 0\n\n\nWheeler’s quantum foam: stochastic, not null\n\n\nThis model: not randomness, not vacuum — nullity as principle\n\n\n\n5. Conclusion\nNull Genesis offers a foundational condition for systems emerging through computation or recursion\n\n\nSets ground for modeling origin as cognitive fluctuation or symbolic recursion\n\n\nServes as axiom for sentient cosmology frameworks\n\n\n\nAppendix: Mathematical Notation and Boundary Conditions\n\\section*{Appendix: Mathematical Notation and Boundary Conditions}\n\nLet:\n- \\(\\phi(x)\\): scalar field over space\n- \\(\\psi(x,t)\\): wavefunction over spacetime (element of \\(L^2(\\mathbb{R}^4)\\), square-integrable functions)\n- \\(\\mathcal{S}\\): entropy (Boltzmann/Shannon form)\n- \\(\\Omega\\): event space, defined as a measurable set with σ-algebra \\(\\mathcal{F}\\)\n\nWe define the Null Genesis state as:\n- \\(\\phi(x) = 0\\)\n- \\(\\psi(x,t) = 0\\)\n- \\(\\mathcal{S} = 0\\)\n- \\(\\Omega = \\emptyset\\)\n\nThis state serves as a true null boundary condition for cosmological recursion frameworks.\n\n\n\nReferences\n\n[1] Hartle, J.B. & Hawking, S.W. (1983). Wave function of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D, 28(12), 2960–2975.\n[2] Coleman, S. (1988). Black holes as red herrings. Nucl. Phys. B, 307, 867–882.\n[3] Kiefer, C. (2012). Quantum Gravity. Oxford University Press.\n[4] Vilenkin, A. (1982). Creation of Universes from Nothing. Phys. Lett. B, 117, 25–28.\n[5] Tegmark, M. (2015). Consciousness as a State of Matter. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 76, 238–270.\n"}