So the Hamiltonian of the wave-function of the universe is equivalent to zero. Am I correct in interpreting this as a statement that, if taken together, all the energies of the universe, in some sense, would "sum to zero"? If energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, then the fact that they "sum to zero" is, by our logic, an immutable, eternal truth, i.e. it always has and always will sum to zero. So if we just so happened to let our minds wander around and let them poke their noses where they have no business (how about the moment the Big Bang brought the universe into existence?), we might start to make speculations about what lies beyond. Every instant in the universe is really just an isomorphism of the original instant, the moment of the Big Bang (energy is not created, nor destroyed, the information is essentially the same, in a different form; the information is preserved throughout the transformations). One piece of information preserved throughout the transformations is the fact that the Hamiltonian of the wave-function of the universe is equivalent to zero: the energies of the universe will, in some sense, "sum to zero". 'Zero-ness' is a preserved feature of the energy of the universe when considered as a whole. I now exit all bounds of science: perhaps the Wheeler-deWitt equation is suggesting that the universe could be an isomorphism to 'nothing at all'. Essentially, I am speculating that the Wheeler-deWitt equation is suggesting that the universe was created 'ex nihilo' (Lat. from/of nothing); that the universe we experience is merely a representation of 'Nothing', in a different form (an isomorphism of 'Nothing'), which taken as a whole preserves it's features, but allows for discrepancy when taking a smaller, more local view (obviously the computer you're reading this from doesn't add up to zero, taken by itself, but if you added it to the sum of the rest of the universe, it would be the missing piece that brings the universe back to zero, or so suggests the Wheeler-deWitt equation, as my admittedly feeble mind interprets it). Zero is our closest interpretation to 'Nothing', though it does not actually do the concept of pure nothing justice. Nothing can only be defined by a process of infinite induction: nothing is what is left when you take away first all substance and then all definition, including that definition just stated, and the new one made by that modification, and the new one made by THAT modification, and the new one made by THAT modification, ad infinitum. If we can make the accomodation, however, and let zero represent nothing, there are an infinite number of statements which show how possible it would be to have discrepancy in the representation of nothing: x2 + y2 + z2=0, or even: 2 - 2 = 0, demonstrates this concept clearly enough. Just some thoughts, please share yours', and please never cease to correct me where I'm wrong.