I don't think we can distunguish between meaning (purpose) and pursuing goals as an outside observer. If we program the humanoid to pursue their goals with all their live, with all their capabilities, I don't think as an outside observer we can distuinguish whether the humanoid really find the goal meaningful, or whether they're simply fulfilling their programmed task to pursue the goals.

It's like when successful enterpreneur call their hard work as passion. Maybe it is, or maybe they just have a tendency to work hard to pursue any goal they set onto. Or it's like someone who said family is the most important thing. We can only observe whether they really show sign of happiness/depression when enganging with family activities to know if they said the truth or not.

So in a way, as long as we program some goals for each of the humanoid to strive for, and program their internal system (mind/consciousness) to give reward in the form of happiness or satisfaction, I think we can program meaning. Though as an outside observer we can never know whether something meaningful for them or whether they simpy get an internal reward for pursuing their programmed goal.
Maybe we can if their internal monologue can be known. Then we program their internal monologue to give positive feedback while striving for certain goals.

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on this idea, Universe from Nothing. It was discussed up-thread — TheMadFool

I read the review on the book.
Seems like quantum fluctuation is one of the key idea of how universe come into existence from nothing.
Though in my understanding quantum fluctuation is just something 'semi-real' in which particle and antiparticle come in and out of existence and only the effects can be observed. Still, this theory in a way support my argument because that means nothing have a tendency to keep being nothing. No something has really come out from that quantum fluctuation as the particle-antiparticle keep collapsing back to nothingness. If scientist found evidence of 'real' particle created (or observed) out of that nothing without immediately collapsing again, then my argument really fall apart. Something really can come out of nothing.

Anyway after thinking some more on your original thesis, I think there's some hidden assumption there. Your conclusion of P(S) > P(N) assume that the probability of each S is the same as the probability of N.
But, what if the probability of N is 0.99 and the probability of each S is just 0.00001? Maybe the universe is more like a weighted dice, in which the probability of one side of the dice 'face' (for example 3) is a lot higher because there's a weight put inside on the opposite side. For example 3 has 0.8 chance of being on top, and the other number only has 0.04 chance of being on top because of the weight.
Maybe the probability of nothing is a lot higher than the probability of something, even though that something numbered more than one. Or maybe the probability of 'nothing keep being nothing' is enormously high, likewise the probability of 'something keep being something' is also enormously high. Anyway that's quite a huge assumption to make about the nature of matter and until it's cleared I don't think the conclusion holds.

I think it's impossible for beauty to be objective. But as the same humans, we have a tendency to like the same things. So I think 'majority subjectivity' is the closest thing we can get to objective beauty. It's the phenomenon where most people like the same green/blue painting about nature. Or the phenomenon where certain individual are regarded as beautiful by most people in a given society (it involve symmetry, biological make up, and social hierarcy as far as I know).
But I guess beauty for other creature like animals or aliens would be very different from our definition of beauty.

Well, your argument doesn't have any evidence in observation as far as I know. I don't think any scientist have found "something to come out of nothing (vacuum)" even though the probability of something is greater like you said. The only time something came out from nothing is when the Big Bang happen. And we found no evidence of such ever since.
I think Heidegger ask that question with assumption that everything start from nothing. So a better question is "Why is something come out from nothing rather than it keep being nothing?"