NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE

[roydop]

It's all you. You are the "god" playing this game. You are so interested in it that you have forgotten your true Self, just like when deeply involved in playing a video game.

The way to no longer identify with the character is by abiding in/as thought free Awareness.

The misinterpretation of this realm being fundamental reality is the singular source of all suffering.

It's so fucking simple.

[upsurgent]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" is unanswerable because "nothing" (as currently defined/thought of) does not exist in reality (it exists only as [an incorrect] thought/idea). If the question itself is in error (based upon an incorrect model of reality), all subsequent answers will produce inaccurate models of reality (they will not satisfy the query). A more accurate model of reality will produce a more satisfactory answer. If consciousness comes to accept a model that satisfies the "Why", that model must be more accurate than one where the "Why" is not satisfied.

Basically, the reality that is being framed by the question is in error. The conceptualization of "nothing" as a lack or an absence (of a thing) is in error.

It is logically impossible for a phenomena's existence to be dependent upon an absence of something else. If X exists only in the absence of Y, then X requires Y to exist prior to it's own existence, and yet paradoxically can only exist in Y's absence. So X requires Y to exist, and be absent. X's existence is completely dependent upon Y (X is the absence of Y) whereas Y's existence is not dependent upon X.

If we put all of physicality into a set (the universe) and assign it the thing (Y) to which nothing (X) is compared, we run into problems. If nothing is the absence of something, then prior to the Big Bang nothing should exist. However, the current model requires the thing to exist prior to the nothing. In order for something to be absent it first must be. One can say that the world is absent of unicorns without being wrong, and still be in error. In the same way, the current ingrained conceptualization of nothing is logically consistent and yet incomplete/in error.

Our model of reality, upon acute investigation, doesn't work, in much the same way that particle/classical physics doesn't work, but it's close enough for it to be accepted. This is how Maya works. It's far easier to lead consciousness deeper into the game if it no longer questions the status quo.

"Nothing" as a lack, or a void, or of non-existence, does not exist in Reality.

A physicist discusses your question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QkJUxcGt8

[jayjacobus]

If nothing is defined as a point then something other than the point exists even though the point doesn't have any length, width, any dimensional attributes nor any physical features. Yet a point exists in a location and the points surrounding the location create a dimension in the surrounding area.

If there are no locations, then there are no points and nothing is undefined the same as nothing divided by zero (nothing) is undefined. Doesn't that mean that nothing is both a point and infinity at the same time?

[Age]

"Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" IS because there NEVER could be just nothing.
The Universe is something.
The Universe always exists.
Therefore, there HAS TO always be something (as opposed to nothing).

This question IS now ANSWERED so this means the question posed IS ANSWERABLE.

[Age]

If nothing is defined as a point then something other than the point exists even though the point doesn't have any length, width, any dimensional attributes nor any physical features. Yet a point exists in a location and the points surrounding the location create a dimension in the surrounding area.

If there are no locations, then there are no points and nothing is undefined the same as nothing divided by zero (nothing) is undefined. Doesn't that mean that nothing is both a point and infinity at the same time?

But 'nothing' is NOT defined as a point, and could NOT logically be defined as a point. Therefore, the rest is moot.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" is unanswerable because "nothing" (as currently defined/thought of) does not exist in reality...

The very first part of your thoughts as expressed in your writings are illogical and contradictory, lacking the scope necessary for understanding the question. You said that nothing cannot exist within existence. Of course not! Nothing is the antithesis of something. The two ideas together create a dichotomy.

I see that the question is much larger that the current capabilities of humanity

I would say that the question largely depends on ones definition of a universe. Some scientists theorize that there is the possibility of a multiverse. If true, how does it work? Do you "Know?" Since it's a theory, is it the only way it can work? If the universe is a container, could there be one containing nothing? Does nothing mean that nothing can be sensed by any means no matter how advanced the technology? Would that be enough to satisfy the question?

Some people take on the largest currently unanswerable questions to impress, to boost their self esteem. Because there is no currently known answer, they can neither be proven incorrect, nor correct. Within such a situation they feel secure. The point of the matter? Of course the odds that they are correct are rather slim, much like a lottery jackpot of a googolplex entries?

I have no problem with people doing this exercise in ego reinforcement, there are many here that do it all the time. I just take note!
I know there is no shame in not knowing, (humanity is relatively young), and that I'll not buy swampland, because it's nearly impossible to build on.

I believe it's better to know what one knows, and that there are probably a great many things they don't know, rather than to start believing in those things they don't know, because it's then easy to undermine what one in fact does know, (the lines get blurred).

"Men are four:"

"He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;" (To my way of thinking, this is a fool)
"He who knows not, and knows he knows not;" (To my way of thinking, this is a smart man and the actual state of current affairs)
"He who knows and knows not he knows;" (To my way of thinking, this is a lucky fool)
"He who knows and knows he knows." (To my way of thinking, this is what we all aspire to become, but it's a very long way away)

Of course as to, 'my way of thinking,' as indicated above, I'm considering the absolute truth of 'everything'. It differs a bit in terms of single bits of knowledge, as I'm sure you can imagine.

[roydop]

The definition for "nothing" is the absence of things. So in order for "nothing" to be, "things" must exists FIRST. If "things" are not existing prior to nothing, then not even the potential for nothing exists.

A more accurate word to use would be "nonthing" rather than "nothing". Non things actually do exist, as thought.

There is no such phenomena as a void, or non-existence.

Essentially we have an inverted view of reality. We assign the physical realm as the frame of reference, when it isn't fundamental reality. What's real/unchanging is the "nothing". Except that it's not nothing, it's pure potential/life. As the Tao De Ching points out, it's "nothing that can be described." Since our minds can't grasp it we say its non existent.

[jayjacobus]

The definition for "nothing" is the absence of things. So in order for "nothing" to be, "things" must exists FIRST. If "things" are not existing prior to nothing, then not even the potential for nothing exists.

A more accurate word to use would be "nonthing" rather than "nothing". Non things actually do exist, as thought.

There is no such phenomena as a void, or non-existence.

You could be right.

A point is nothing. It has no dimensions. It has no content. But it does exist.

It only has a location. Nothing more.

But to have a location it must be in relation to other points: a set of nothings.

Then space is the set of points which are nothing. So the set of points (nothings) creates space. Space is the set of nothings.

Where does everything else come from? It must come from a different set of nothings. What else could it be?

[Age]

The definition for "nothing" is the absence of things. So in order for "nothing" to be, "things" must exists FIRST. If "things" are not existing prior to nothing, then not even the potential for nothing exists.

A more accurate word to use would be "nonthing" rather than "nothing". Non things actually do exist, as thought.

HOW can SOME thing, such as 'thought', ALSO be a 'non thing'?

There is no such phenomena as a void, or non-existence.

Essentially we have an inverted view of reality.

Who/what is this 'we' that does such a thing.

'I' certainly do NOT do such a thing.

We assign the physical realm as the frame of reference, when it isn't fundamental reality.

Again, who/what is this 'we' that does such a thing?

And, if 'you' KNOW this, then WHY do 'you' as part of that 'we' do this?

What's real/unchanging is the "nothing".

Obviously an 'absence of things', by definition, would be unchanging. Unless, of course, things were being added to the 'absence of things'. But WHERE is this 'absence of things' place exactly?

Except that it's not nothing,

So, what is real is the "nothing" EXCEPT that it is not nothing, correct?

If yes, then are 'you' absolutely 100% sure that this makes sense, is logical, and is absolutely True, Right AND Correct?

If yes, then are 'you' able to elaborate on this or explain it in terms that make far more sense to those that are NOT specialized in this as 'you' are?

it's pure potential/life.

So, what is real/unchanging is the "nothing", which is really not nothing, AND, the "nothing" is pure potential/life, correct?

If yes, IF the "nothing", which is really not nothing, is unchanging and real, then how could some or any thing, which is unchanging and real also be some thing else like pure potential/life, EXACTLY?

Pure potential/life implies some actual thing and NOT "nothing" at all.

As the Tao De Ching points out, it's "nothing that can be described."

WHY do 'you' human beings make complex what IS essentially NOT, and make hard what IS essentially NOT?

What does, "It is "nothing that can be described" ", actually mean? What is the "it" which is the "nothing that can be described". If "it" is nothing that can be described, then just describe "it". In other words, just describe what "it" is. Simple really.

Since our minds can't grasp it we say its non existent.

Who/what is this 'thing', which supposedly has some 'mind' thing?

And, what is a 'mind' actually?

And, WHY can "your" "mind" NOT grasp "it", which 'you' "yourself" say it is 'non existent' anyway?

Maybe if 'you' STOP telling "yourself" that "it" is non existent, then 'you' could grasp "it". Obviously if you keep telling yourself some thing is non existent, then you obviously BELIEVE there is nothing there/here, to grasp.

Thee ONLY reason WHY 'you' human beings still find things complex and/or hard is SOLELY because of the words 'you' tell "yourselves".

[jayjacobus]

If nothing is defined as a point then something other than the point exists even though the point doesn't have any length, width, any dimensional attributes nor any physical features. Yet a point exists in a location and the points surrounding the location create a dimension in the surrounding area.

If there are no locations, then there are no points and nothing is undefined the same as nothing divided by zero (nothing) is undefined. Doesn't that mean that nothing is both a point and infinity at the same time?

But 'nothing' is NOT defined as a point, and could NOT logically be defined as a point. Therefore, the rest is moot.

As you previously stated, "There has to be something" but a point is nothing other than a location which means that nothing is a set of points. Space is that set of points.

[Age]

If nothing is defined as a point then something other than the point exists even though the point doesn't have any length, width, any dimensional attributes nor any physical features. Yet a point exists in a location and the points surrounding the location create a dimension in the surrounding area.

If there are no locations, then there are no points and nothing is undefined the same as nothing divided by zero (nothing) is undefined. Doesn't that mean that nothing is both a point and infinity at the same time?

But 'nothing' is NOT defined as a point, and could NOT logically be defined as a point. Therefore, the rest is moot.

As you previously stated, "There has to be something" but a point is nothing other than a location which means that nothing is a set of points.

Is a location 'something' or 'nothing', to you?

When 'you' go somewhere, do 'you' go to somewhere (something) or to nowhere (nothing)?

If a 'point' is "nothing OTHER THAN a location", then this is very different to meaning "nothing IS a 'set of points' ".

If a point is nothing other than a location, then this means different or varying locations is a 'set of points'. Or, a set of points means different or varying locations, well to me anyway.

What exactly is a 'point', itself, to you?

Space is that set of points.

Space, to me, is just the distance between things. This space obviously has to be made up of no things, or nothing. However, in a sense, this 'nothing' is also something, as it is, or called, 'space', itself.

[surreptitious57]

Space to me is just the distance between things . This space obviously has to be made up of no things

An absolute vacuum cannot persist so there will always be things within space beyond a certain time frame
The so called empty space you actually see all around you is not empty at all - you just perceive it to be so

[Age]

Space to me is just the distance between things . This space obviously has to be made up of no things

An absolute vacuum cannot persist so there will always be things within space beyond a certain time frame

What about at the time frame of NOW?

What things are there in between the spaces between and around the smallest of physical things?

The so called empty space you actually see all around you is not empty at all - you just perceive it to be so

Could parts of the not empty space 'you' actually see around 'you' actually be empty really?

If yes, then okay.

If, however, no, then what causes physical things to appear to be separate and distinctively different things?

If there is some physical thing around and between ALL physical things, then what is this physical thing?

If there is NOT an absolute vacuum of distance between physical things, then what would exist only would just be one singular infinite compression of matter. Does one singular infinite compression of matter exist?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then what keeps one singular infinite compression of matter apart?

If it is NOT a 'distance', or a space of absolute vacuum/nothing, then what makes it appear that the Universe is made up of different physical things?

[surreptitious57]

Absolute vacuums are forever being violated including at the very infinitesimal time frame of NOW
The smallest of physical things is actually unknown but absolute vacuums at that level would be violated too
Therefore parts of the not empty space one sees around them is actually not empty beyond the infinitesimal

Electromagnetism is universal but it is a force rather than a thing and gravity is universal too though only at the classical level
Gravity is also regarded as a force although it may be more accurate to describe it as the effect that mass has upon spacetime

There is no one universal singular infinite compression of matter because it all has significantly different properties and capabilities
There are four states of matter - solid - liquid - gas - plasma - and each state will have a different atomic composition and density

The Universe is a single entity but it is equally made up of many individual physical things just like many things are

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re: NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE.

The above cannot be absolutely absolute.

It is answerable but depend the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

First there is no framework of knowledge [conditional] that is absolute, i.e. this is contradictory.

Example, within common sense framework, it is either there is something in the drawer or nothing in it. Space is not viewed as a thing.

'Things' that exists within the scientific framework of knowledge may not be 'things' [i.e. nothing] within certain philosophical framework of knowledge.
Scientific things are nothing in terms of the one perspective of the Philosophy of Substance.

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
-wiki

Certain Eastern Philosophy view [Maya] whatever is 'something' is an illusion [nothing], i.e. not-that-thing supposed.
An apple is a thing, but an apple is more precisely a cluster of a number-n of molecules, atoms, particles or waves [note], quarks and ultimately substantial 'nothing' that one can speak of.

Within theological philosophy, God is a thing, but an illusion [no real thing] within Kantian philosophy.

Re the OP the statement cannot be absolutely absolute but applicable depending on the context and framework of knowledge and how one defines 'something' and 'nothing'.

What is critical to the question of something or nothing is the resultant utility that should be a net-positive contribution and optimal to the individual and therefrom to humanity on an on-going basis.