Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

In what sense does the law of non-contradiction apply to the universe rather than to statements ?Given that sense how can it have a source ?

What do you mean "in every sense" ? To what other than statements CAN a semantic rule like the law of non-contradiction apply ?And the question of how the law of non-contradiction could have a source seems clear enough - how could such a source operate ? How do you avoid getting trapped in a vicious circularity ?

You mean that the statements " exists" and " does not exist" cannot both be true unless the identification of the star or the understanding of existence are different (i.e. there are differneces in semantic content of the statements other than the fact that the latter contains a negation).
It's all about statements and the meaning of negation. Haven't you noticed that the law of the excluded middle is often not applied in natural language ? But that law is as fundamental to simple predicate logic as non-contradiction.

​

I suggest that you consider wave-particle duality, understand why it is not a contradiction and see for yourself how we would resolve "contradictions" in reality.

​

And you still aren't explaining how a source of "non-contradiction" is even possible or how it could work. Maybe in the circles you travel in "God does it" is an adequate answer - even though it is more of an evasion than an answer. It isn't here.

With regard to the law of the excluded middle you have it correctly. However it is frequently not used in normal speech (e.g. "I do not beleive that God exists" often means "I do not beleive that God exists" - in a formal two-valued logic this violates the law of the excluded middle).With regard to wave-particle duality there is a contradiction between the behaviour of a particle and that of a wave. That is, light must formally speaking be neither but instead something that bheaves in some ways like both. And this points again to logic being an issue of semantics, since the resolution of the contradiction is to point out that light neither fully fits the definition of a wave nor of a particle.As to the idea of "non-contradiction" having a source I wouldn't even try to explain it. I reject the idea on the grounds that it makes no sense to me. That's why I asked you fro your explanation to see if you had thought of something I'd missed.