Why doesn't nothing exist?

Existence, by logic, had to come from non-existence. Unless you're one of those who say existence had no beginning.

This might sound paradoxical, but there never 'was' nothingness, but at the same time all things came from nothingness.

Nothingness is literally the lack of anything, it isn't a thing in itself, nor does it exist, it's merely the state of not existing. For example, look forward and think about what you see behind you right now. Because you don't have eyes on the back of your head, you don't see anything behind you. That IS nothingness. It's not a thing, is it? There is no non-sight that exists, you simply just have no sight (behind you)

The fact you are surrounded by spacetime makes you unable to understand the concept of nothingness. The ball can't be in nothingness, its existence would be the totality of existence. There wouldn't be anything it dwells in.

That's not an accurate view of the universe or the singularity, though. When people say 'space is expanding', they actually mean the distance between galaxies is gradually going further and further away. Space isn't a fabric, it's literally the distance between two points. Because the universe is limited, there is no space outside because there is no other point to compare distance with. However, the layman understanding of 'space' does exist 'outside of the universe'. Honestly, though, saying it like that is what causes confusion.

Think about the dimension of time. It is expanding just like space. It is only 1 dimensional though, so it can only go one direction: forward. "Beyond time" is more time, the future. Except, that future just isn't there yet. More time exists outside of time, in layman terms, but because time hasn't expanded that far yet, it's classified as nothingness.

I do love the mysterious ideas of 'nothingness' though, it's very interesting.

My view is that "absolute nothingness", if looked at another way can be seen to be an existent entity. That is, that our distinction between "nothing" and "something" is not correct. I put "nothing" and "something" in quotes because I think our distinction between them is incorrect. Two arguments that support this are:

1. Consider the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. Two choices for addressing this question are:

A. "Something” has always been here.

B. "Something” has not always been here.

Choice A is possible but does not explain anything. Therefore, choice B is the only choice with any explanatory power. So, let's explore this choice to see where it leads. With choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. By “nothing”, I mean the same "absolute lack-of-all” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete "lack-of-all") described above. In this "absolute nothing”, there would be no mechanism present to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice then is that “nothing” and “something” are one and the same thing. This is logically required if we go with choice B.

Instead of just saying "That can't be. Nothing and something are not the same; they're opposites.", I think it's more useful to accept what is logically required with choice B and try to figure out how "nothing" and "something" could be the same. This is gone over in #2, below.

2. I think that a thing exists if it's a grouping defining what is contained within (e.g., the surface of a book, the definition of what elements are contained in a set, the mental/neural construct called the concept of love defines what other mental constructs are contained in it, etc.). The grouping is equivalent to an edge or boundary that gives substance and existence to the thing. So, if there is a grouping defining what is contained within, it's an existent entity.

In regard to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", if we consider what we've traditionally thought of as “the absolute lack-of-all” (no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this “absolute lack-of-all”), and not our mind's conception of “the absolute lack-of-all”, this "absolute lack-of-all" would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. That's it; that's everything; there's nothing else; it would be everything that is present. It is absolute nothing, and also the all. An entirety or whole amount is a grouping defining what is contained within and is therefore a surface, an edge and an existent entity. In other words, because the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is present, it functions as both what is contained within and the grouping defining what is contained within. It defines itself and is, therefore, the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. The grouping/edge of the absolute lack-of-all is not some separate thing; it is just the "entirety", "the all" relationship, inherent in this absolute lack-of-all, that defines what is contained within.

If anyone's interested, I've got more on this at:

https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist...

(4 page summary)

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite

(click on 3rd link; contains more detail and philosophical stuff)

Thank you.

Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only made to change form, therefore existence is eternal. "Nothingness" only exist as a mental category of thought as the absence of 'something'. You cannot have nothing. It cannot have actual existence because nothing would imply no where or no thing for it to exist with in. Even if nothing were to exist there wouldn't be an awareness to recognize it. Existence is all there is, was, and ever will be, because the nature of existence is to exist, not nonexistence.

Because the condition where space, matter, time, all physical/natural laws and energy are not present is probably the most unstable condition attainable within the boundaries of our universe. If you take an empty glass and immerse it in water, it immediately fills up. In NATURE, gaps are usually filled whether it is in the ecosystem, or physical systems -- an entire universe would theoretically rush in to fill the "nothing" void. Not just matter and energy, but physical laws that were previously absent would rush in as well -- for example gravity could hypothetically be a property of energy (a new physical law) rather than be a property of matter as it is in our universe.

The closest thing you could get to where there is "nothing" would be about 14 billion light years from the edge of the universe (Approximately 28 billion light years from earth) where the light from our universe hasn't reached yet.

Nothingness is literally the lack of anything, it isn't a thing in itself, nor does it exist, it's merely the state of not existing. For example, look forward and think about what you see behind you right now. Because you don't have eyes on the back of your head, you don't see anything behind you. That IS nothingness. It's not a thing, is it? There is no non-sight that exists, you simply just have no sight (behind you)

The fact that we exist is the absence of nothingness. Each of us creates our own reality and value system. If you don't see value in anything that exists in your world, you are doomed to a miserable life. The path to a better life begins with gratitude and ends with peaceful fulfillment. It's up to each one of us to find that path if we have any desire for happiness.

Because God created everything that does exist. Even if he didn't, He would still exist. He exists because He has it in Himself to exist.

Those are the only two miserably inadequate answers available at this time: 1) We don't know, or 2) God.

"nothing" is something. Space is not nothing; we don't understand 95% of the composition of space. Its a combo of dark matter and particles and how they interact, therefore, not nothing. If you say "sitting space" is nothing then we could be nothing. By saying that time is passing eludes that there is something, since time is a human-made concept.

Nothing exists all over the place. Most of our universe is nothing.