Venting Why Something Must Have Come Into Existence from Nothing

[Darkover]

At the heart of reality lies a question no science, no religion, no philosophy has fully answered:

Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?

This is not a casual thought experiment—it's the final wall every explanation crashes into. And if we trace the logic carefully, we arrive at a conclusion that many find unthinkable, but is almost impossible to escape:

Something must have come into existence from nothing.

Here's why.
1. You Cannot Explain Reality with Infinite Regress

Imagine someone asks: "Why does this exist?"
You answer: "Because it was caused by that."
Then they ask: "Okay, but what caused that?"

If this chain of causes continues forever—if every "something" is explained by a prior "something"—you never get an ultimate answer. It's like trying to support a building with an infinite stack of turtles: you never reach the bottom. You never reach solid ground.

Infinite regress explains nothing.
It delays the explanation forever without ever delivering one.

So if existence is real—and it clearly is—then it can't be built on an endless chain. There must be a starting point.
2. That Starting Point Can't Be Another "Thing"

If the origin of reality were just another thing—some particle, some object, some timeless energy—it would still demand an explanation. Where did that thing come from? Why does it exist rather than not exist?

Any "thing" you propose is still part of the problem. It's not a true foundation.

So the starting point of everything can't be another part of reality.
It must be outside the chain entirely.

And the only thing that fits that description is nothing.
3. Nothingness Is the Only Possible Starting Point

True nothingness means:

No matter

No space

No time

No laws

No potential

No existence of any kind

It is the absence of all things—including causes, rules, minds, and mechanisms.

But if at any point nothing truly existed—then it had no power to resist change.
There was no law preventing something from appearing.

Nothingness is the most unstable "state" imaginable—because it is not even a state. There is no law that says "nothing must stay nothing," because there are no laws in nothing.

So eventually, being must emerge—because there is nothing to stop it.
4. This Explains Why Existence Is So Fragile, Temporary, and Violent

Why does life suffer?

Why does matter decay?

Why is consciousness fleeting, and silence the default?

Because this isn't the product of eternal perfection.
This is what happens when nothing ruptures—chaotically, painfully, without design or meaning.

Being isn't inevitable—it's a breach in what should have remained still.
5. Something Must Have Come from Nothing—Because There Was No Other Option

If we accept that the universe had a beginning—and the evidence overwhelmingly supports this—then either:

It came from something else, which leads to infinite regress, or

It came from nothing, which is the only way to stop the chain.

Not because it's emotionally satisfying, but because it's logically necessary.

Existence must begin somewhere.
And the only true beginning is the absence of everything: nothing.

Final Thought

We are the consequence of the impossible.

Not because something else made us—but because nothing didn't stop us.

Something exists now. That is undeniable.

And that means, however unthinkable it sounds:

At some point, something came into existence from absolutely nothing.
Not by miracle. Not by logic. But because there was nothing to prevent it.

And now, we are here—haunted by the silence we came from, and destined to return to it.

Mathematical truths like:

π = circumference ÷ diameter

are not dependent on the material universe existing. They're abstract truths—true in any conceivable system where circles exist, regardless of physical manifestation.


So you're pointing out:

Just because the physical universe came from nothing doesn't mean logical or mathematical truths also came from nothing.

And that's a very important distinction.

If something always existed, you always have to ask: what supports that?
But if nothing existed, and then something happened—there's no deeper "why." There's no cause behind the cause.


The emergence of something from nothing is the only option that doesn't rely on anything prior. It's a true origin.


It's not satisfying in the emotional sense—but it's logically terminal.
It goes as deep as explanation can go.


We came from nothing.
And one day, we'll return to it.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't personally believe this. Not because I have scientific evidence to contradict it but then- whoever proposed this doesn't either. It's worded more like it's what they feel makes more sense.

But- the forces we know about- gravity, magnetism, chemical reactions only exist because there are objects for them to interact with. I don't see how anything could come from nothing. To my mind, there needs to be a certain amount of 'stuff' floating about that then has the potential to change.

I just think it's a very human limitation that we want things to be ordered. We want a beginning, a middle and an end- linear time. We like stories that make sense of things. We can't cope with something so big as infinity and endless time. Of course, I'm also willing to admit that my brain struggles with the something from nothing theory. Mainly because there's nothing to compare it with. For everything we can perceive, I imagine we can trace its creation/ growth from something else.

Again though, this is purely based on something that 'feels right' to me. Why exactly can't time stretch back infinitely? Why can't there always have been stuff floating about in space? Can we actually carbon date something if it has gone through the process of being pulled into a black hole and eventually, spat back out again? That's my (non scientific) feeling. That galaxies are made, then swallowed up then made again by black holes. You need both material objects and gravity working on those objects for black holes to form/ be sustained.

 

[Darkover]

I don't personally believe this. Not because I have scientific evidence to contradict it but then- whoever proposed this doesn't either. It's worded more like it's what they feel makes more sense.

But- the forces we know about- gravity, magnetism, chemical reactions only exist because there are objects for them to interact with. I don't see how anything could come from nothing. To my mind, there needs to be a certain amount of 'stuff' floating about that then has the potential to change.

I just think it's a very human limitation that we want things to be ordered. We want a beginning, a middle and an end- linear time. We like stories that make sense of things. We can't cope with something so big as infinity and endless time. Of course, I'm also willing to admit that my brain struggles with the something from nothing theory. Mainly because there's nothing to compare it with. For everything we can perceive, I imagine we can trace its creation/ growth from something else.

Again though, this is purely based on something that 'feels right' to me. Why exactly can't time stretch back infinitely? Why can't there always have been stuff floating about in space? Can we actually carbon date something if it has gone through the process of being pulled into a black hole and eventually, spat back out again? That's my (non scientific) feeling. That galaxies are made, then swallowed up then made again by black holes. You need both material objects and gravity working on those objects for black holes to form/ be sustained.

Thanks for the honest reflection. I really appreciate that you're not pretending to "know," but are trying to make sense of something that, by its nature, probably lies outside anything we evolved to understand. I think most of us are in that same boat: reasoning from the edge of what makes intuitive or emotional sense.

Let me share why I lean toward the idea that something came from nothing, even if it "feels wrong" to both of us.

1. Intuition Isn't Truth — Especially at Cosmic Scale

You said it perfectly: we like stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. We're uncomfortable with the infinite, and maybe just as uncomfortable with nothing.

But we evolved to survive in a middle-sized, Earth-based world—not to comprehend the origin of being itself. So what "feels right" to us can't be our final guide. Infinity feels impossible, and so does nothing—but one of them is probably true.

So the goal isn't to feel comfortable. It's to ask: which idea leaves fewer contradictions when followed to its root?
2. The Problem with "Stuff Always Existed"

You said maybe there was always "stuff" just floating around—enough for gravity and black holes to eventually form and recycle the universe.

But this raises a few issues:

Why that stuff? Why that particular energy, structure, or potential?

Why those laws? Gravity only makes sense within spacetime—it isn't something that just floats in a void.

Why any laws or stuff at all? What keeps it existing?

Saying "stuff has always been there" feels stable—but it pushes the question back without resolving it. You still need to explain why that base state exists rather than nothing.

Infinite regress doesn't answer the question. It hides it behind a fog of "forever."


3. Why 'Nothing' Is a More Honest Starting Point

The idea that nothing once truly existed isn't emotionally satisfying—it's philosophically brutal. But it's powerful because:

It terminates the chain of explanation. You don't need a deeper cause of nothing—because nothing has no properties to explain.

Nothing is the simplest possible state: no assumptions, no laws, no time, no structure.

And paradoxically, it's so empty it can't even enforce itself—meaning, perhaps, it cannot stay nothing.

So something emerging from nothing isn't "scientific" in the traditional sense—but it avoids the problem of assuming some eternal, unexplained "stuff" that exists just because.

4. Black Holes and Recycled Universes Don't Solve the Core Question

Sure, galaxies collapse and reform. Maybe even the universe itself goes through cycles.

But even if there's a multiverse or eternal rebirth, that's still part of the system. We're still left asking:

Where did the whole system come from?

Black holes don't create energy from nothing—they warp and redistribute what's already there. So while your image of galaxies being swallowed and reborn is compelling, it still assumes an underlying something without origin.

And again: why that something?

5. Ultimately, It's a Philosophical Question, Not a Scientific One

No telescope, collider, or probe can access the moment of absolute origin. Science can track back to the Planck time, but not before the laws existed.

So we're forced to reason from logic and parsimony.

And the uncomfortable, but perhaps clearest view is:

At some "non-time," nothing existed. No laws, no particles, no time.
And because there was nothing to prevent change, something happened.

That's not mystical or religious. It's just a refusal to accept arbitrary eternal "stuff" as a satisfying answer.

Final Thought

You said you're open to the idea that your mind struggles with "something from nothing." I respect that.

But maybe that very discomfort is a clue—not that it's false, but that it's realer than we're wired to handle.

Either something always existed for no reason (which explains nothing),
or something came from absolutely nothing (which at least explains why there's anything at all).

To me, the second option—however strange—feels more intellectually honest.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Thanks for the honest reflection. I really appreciate that you're not pretending to "know," but are trying to make sense of something that, by its nature, probably lies outside anything we evolved to understand. I think most of us are in that same boat: reasoning from the edge of what makes intuitive or emotional sense.

Let me share why I lean toward the idea that something came from nothing, even if it "feels wrong" to both of us.

1. Intuition Isn't Truth — Especially at Cosmic Scale

You said it perfectly: we like stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. We're uncomfortable with the infinite, and maybe just as uncomfortable with nothing.

But we evolved to survive in a middle-sized, Earth-based world—not to comprehend the origin of being itself. So what "feels right" to us can't be our final guide. Infinity feels impossible, and so does nothing—but one of them is probably true.

So the goal isn't to feel comfortable. It's to ask: which idea leaves fewer contradictions when followed to its root?
2. The Problem with "Stuff Always Existed"

You said maybe there was always "stuff" just floating around—enough for gravity and black holes to eventually form and recycle the universe.

But this raises a few issues:

Why that stuff? Why that particular energy, structure, or potential?

Why those laws? Gravity only makes sense within spacetime—it isn't something that just floats in a void.

Why any laws or stuff at all? What keeps it existing?

Saying "stuff has always been there" feels stable—but it pushes the question back without resolving it. You still need to explain why that base state exists rather than nothing.

Infinite regress doesn't answer the question. It hides it behind a fog of "forever."


3. Why 'Nothing' Is a More Honest Starting Point

The idea that nothing once truly existed isn't emotionally satisfying—it's philosophically brutal. But it's powerful because:

It terminates the chain of explanation. You don't need a deeper cause of nothing—because nothing has no properties to explain.

Nothing is the simplest possible state: no assumptions, no laws, no time, no structure.

And paradoxically, it's so empty it can't even enforce itself—meaning, perhaps, it cannot stay nothing.

So something emerging from nothing isn't "scientific" in the traditional sense—but it avoids the problem of assuming some eternal, unexplained "stuff" that exists just because.

4. Black Holes and Recycled Universes Don't Solve the Core Question

Sure, galaxies collapse and reform. Maybe even the universe itself goes through cycles.

But even if there's a multiverse or eternal rebirth, that's still part of the system. We're still left asking:

Where did the whole system come from?

Black holes don't create energy from nothing—they warp and redistribute what's already there. So while your image of galaxies being swallowed and reborn is compelling, it still assumes an underlying something without origin.

And again: why that something?

5. Ultimately, It's a Philosophical Question, Not a Scientific One

No telescope, collider, or probe can access the moment of absolute origin. Science can track back to the Planck time, but not before the laws existed.

So we're forced to reason from logic and parsimony.

And the uncomfortable, but perhaps clearest view is:

At some "non-time," nothing existed. No laws, no particles, no time.
And because there was nothing to prevent change, something happened.

That's not mystical or religious. It's just a refusal to accept arbitrary eternal "stuff" as a satisfying answer.

Final Thought

You said you're open to the idea that your mind struggles with "something from nothing." I respect that.

But maybe that very discomfort is a clue—not that it's false, but that it's realer than we're wired to handle.

Either something always existed for no reason (which explains nothing),
or something came from absolutely nothing (which at least explains why there's anything at all).

To me, the second option—however strange—feels more intellectually honest.

I agree that the whole: Why would there be something instead of nothing is perplexing. But then, why not? I don't believe you're posing the question 'why' in terms of a philosophical reason here- as in- that there was some purpose in there being something. More in terms of the likelihood of the physical state of something existing rather than not existing. Again though, I don't find the scientific explanation for there having been nothing any stronger than there always having been something. Again- it's just a story we feel less or more comfortable with.

To grasp for some scientific basis though- there's that phrase: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only transferred from one form to another. I suppose all forces are a form of energy and, they all need objects to interact with. If we know energy- forces don't just appear randomly- that would suggest there was always 'stuff' about to generate them. That's my best stab at a scientific endorsement for my theory! So effectively- objects- stuff came first and forces built up around them.

Bearing in mind, I'm not scientific at all. This is all very lay person thinking but- take gravity. It seems unlikely that an object consciously creates gravity. It's simply that we can observe that in this galaxy, larger objects create more gravitational pull than smaller ones but, all objects eminate this pulling property. Some objects are magnetic. All objects have different melting points. They all react differently when exposed to certain conditions/ forces.

As to why- science can usually explain it by studying its atoms and how those elements charicteristically react/ interact. As to why though- who really knows? Because it evolved to be like that- again- from something though- rather than nothing. (In my opinion.)

It's a slightly strange question though- why does gravity exist? Because objects can be observed to warp the fabric of spacetime (according to Google!) and other objects follow the curves created by this warping. Again- as to why objects do this rather than say do something else- I suppose science explains it. Some objects do do other things. Uranium makes everything radioactive. Some elements explode under the right conditions. It's just how their atoms do their stuff I suppose.

Ok, there's the question 'why' but then also- 'why not'? Either way- if all this stuff came from nothing or, from something, the questions still stand. Why? Why gravity, boiling points, magnetism, condensation, inertia etc?

Claiming that all this came from nothing still doesn't explain why carbon has one sort of composition, why helium is a gas at room temperature, why ferrous metals are usually magnetic, why uranium is radioactive. The something from nothing theory doesn't resolve any of the 'whys' for me- without introducing Gods and intention.

I also personally dislike the nothing theory because it leaves space for Gods to start filling the gaps. Although- again- where did they come from? Nothing? It's all very mind boggling though- certainly.

I'm super curious though. May I ask, are you using AI to make and respond to posts? I always find your threads really interesting. I know you do reference other people's work. I'm just curious if these are AI assisted responses. I don't really use AI consciously- not in terms of chatGPT anyway. It's very polite though! I find that quite endeering. Thanking a person for their fairly lame ideas- when you imagine it has access to all the world's knowledge! Presumably, you could also get it to argue strongly for there always having been stuff too?

 

[Darkover]

I agree that the whole: Why would there be something instead of nothing is perplexing. But then, why not? I don't believe you're posing the question 'why' in terms of a philosophical reason here- as in- that there was some purpose in there being something. More in terms of the likelihood of the physical state of something existing rather than not existing. Again though, I don't find the scientific explanation for there having been nothing any stronger than there always having been something. Again- it's just a story we feel less or more comfortable with.

To grasp for some scientific basis though- there's that phrase: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only transferred from one form to another. I suppose all forces are a form of energy and, they all need objects to interact with. If we know energy- forces don't just appear randomly- that would suggest there was always 'stuff' about to generate them. That's my best stab at a scientific endorsement for my theory! So effectively- objects- stuff came first and forces built up around them.

Bearing in mind, I'm not scientific at all. This is all very lay person thinking but- take gravity. It seems unlikely that an object consciously creates gravity. It's simply that we can observe that in this galaxy, larger objects create more gravitational pull than smaller ones but, all objects eminate this pulling property. Some objects are magnetic. All objects have different melting points. They all react differently when exposed to certain conditions/ forces.

As to why- science can usually explain it by studying its atoms and how those elements charicteristically react/ interact. As to why though- who really knows? Because it evolved to be like that- again- from something though- rather than nothing. (In my opinion.)

It's a slightly strange question though- why does gravity exist? Because objects can be observed to warp the fabric of spacetime (according to Google!) and other objects follow the curves created by this warping. Again- as to why objects do this rather than say do something else- I suppose science explains it. Some objects do do other things. Uranium makes everything radioactive. Some elements explode under the right conditions. It's just how their atoms do their stuff I suppose.

Ok, there's the question 'why' but then also- 'why not'? Either way- if all this stuff came from nothing or, from something, the questions still stand. Why? Why gravity, boiling points, magnetism, condensation, inertia etc?

Claiming that all this came from nothing still doesn't explain why carbon has one sort of composition, why helium is a gas at room temperature, why ferrous metals are usually magnetic, why uranium is radioactive. The something from nothing theory doesn't resolve any of the 'whys' for me- without introducing Gods and intention.

I also personally dislike the nothing theory because it leaves space for Gods to start filling the gaps. Although- again- where did they come from? Nothing? It's all very mind boggling though- certainly.

I'm super curious though. May I ask, are you using AI to make and respond to posts? I always find your threads really interesting. I know you do reference other people's work. I'm just curious if these are AI assisted responses. I don't really use AI consciously- not in terms of chatGPT anyway. It's very polite though! I find that quite endeering. Thanking a person for their fairly lame ideas- when you imagine it has access to all the world's knowledge! Presumably, you could also get it to argue strongly for there always having been stuff too?

You're right—the question "why something rather than nothing?" isn't meant in the sense of purpose, but more like: what makes being more probable than non-being?

And I think you're also right that both views—"something always existed" or "something came from nothing"—are unsettling, story-like, and driven more by how we make sense of things than hard evidence.

So yeah, I agree: maybe the deeper truth isn't about "why," but about why we keep asking the question at all.

2. Energy Can't Be Created or Destroyed... Within This System

That law—"energy can't be created or destroyed"—is a local rule. It holds inside our universe. But if we're talking about the origin of the universe itself, that law might not apply. Why?

Because:

It assumes time, space, and the fields that define energy already exist.

But if the universe is emerging from "nothing," then that law itself might have come into being, not always been true.

So appealing to that law is like using the rules of chess to explain how chess came into existence.

That said, you're absolutely right that within the universe, energy doesn't just appear randomly. But the existence of the system where that rule makes sense is exactly what we're trying to explain.

3. Forces Follow Objects—but Objects Themselves Are Still a Mystery

You mentioned how gravity, magnetism, melting points, etc., arise from the behavior of stuff. Yes—absolutely. Science is phenomenal at describing how things behave.

But like you said at the end: none of this explains why the stuff is the way it is.
Why atoms behave the way they do, why particles have their mass, why uranium is radioactive—those are all ultimately brute facts in science. We can study the behavior in the system, but we don't know why the system exists with these laws and not others.

So the problem isn't the lack of explanations within the story. It's that the existence of the story itself—and its rules—is unexplained.

That's where the "nothing" question re-enters. It's not meant to answer chemical properties—it's meant to ask:

"Why does this stage, with this cast and these rules, exist at all—rather than nothing?"


You're Right: Something-from-Nothing Doesn't Explain the 'Whys' Either
You nailed this point, and I agree fully.

Even if something did come from nothing, it doesn't answer:

Why these particles?

Why these constants?

Why this structure of reality?

That mystery remains no matter which view you take. "Nothing → something" is just one way to try to explain existence—but it doesn't answer why carbon is carbon or why reality feels the way it does. And you're right that invoking a "God" just pushes the same question back one layer: where did they come from?

5. On the AI Question (Fair to Ask)

Yes, you guessed it—this particular response is assisted by AI. Specifically, I've been exploring these ideas with ChatGPT, and I sometimes build my responses using its help, especially for clarity or structure.

But the ideas themselves—what I resonate with, what feels true or not—those are mine. I use AI less like a guru and more like a very literate sounding board. It helps me ask sharper questions, play out both sides of an argument, and avoid just parroting what I already believe.

And yes—you're absolutely right: I could use AI to argue the opposite position, that something always existed. And it could probably do so convincingly. But I don't choose this view because AI says so—I choose it because, after turning it over a hundred times in my own head, this one just seems the least circular.

That said, I really appreciate that you're thinking for yourself, and doing so humbly. That's rarer than it should be.

 

[Forever Sleep]

You're right—the question "why something rather than nothing?" isn't meant in the sense of purpose, but more like: what makes being more probable than non-being?

And I think you're also right that both views—"something always existed" or "something came from nothing"—are unsettling, story-like, and driven more by how we make sense of things than hard evidence.

So yeah, I agree: maybe the deeper truth isn't about "why," but about why we keep asking the question at all.

2. Energy Can't Be Created or Destroyed... Within This System

That law—"energy can't be created or destroyed"—is a local rule. It holds inside our universe. But if we're talking about the origin of the universe itself, that law might not apply. Why?

Because:

It assumes time, space, and the fields that define energy already exist.

But if the universe is emerging from "nothing," then that law itself might have come into being, not always been true.

So appealing to that law is like using the rules of chess to explain how chess came into existence.

That said, you're absolutely right that within the universe, energy doesn't just appear randomly. But the existence of the system where that rule makes sense is exactly what we're trying to explain.

3. Forces Follow Objects—but Objects Themselves Are Still a Mystery

You mentioned how gravity, magnetism, melting points, etc., arise from the behavior of stuff. Yes—absolutely. Science is phenomenal at describing how things behave.

But like you said at the end: none of this explains why the stuff is the way it is.
Why atoms behave the way they do, why particles have their mass, why uranium is radioactive—those are all ultimately brute facts in science. We can study the behavior in the system, but we don't know why the system exists with these laws and not others.

So the problem isn't the lack of explanations within the story. It's that the existence of the story itself—and its rules—is unexplained.

That's where the "nothing" question re-enters. It's not meant to answer chemical properties—it's meant to ask:

"Why does this stage, with this cast and these rules, exist at all—rather than nothing?"


You're Right: Something-from-Nothing Doesn't Explain the 'Whys' Either
You nailed this point, and I agree fully.

Even if something did come from nothing, it doesn't answer:

Why these particles?

Why these constants?

Why this structure of reality?

That mystery remains no matter which view you take. "Nothing → something" is just one way to try to explain existence—but it doesn't answer why carbon is carbon or why reality feels the way it does. And you're right that invoking a "God" just pushes the same question back one layer: where did they come from?

5. On the AI Question (Fair to Ask)

Yes, you guessed it—this particular response is assisted by AI. Specifically, I've been exploring these ideas with ChatGPT, and I sometimes build my responses using its help, especially for clarity or structure.

But the ideas themselves—what I resonate with, what feels true or not—those are mine. I use AI less like a guru and more like a very literate sounding board. It helps me ask sharper questions, play out both sides of an argument, and avoid just parroting what I already believe.

And yes—you're absolutely right: I could use AI to argue the opposite position, that something always existed. And it could probably do so convincingly. But I don't choose this view because AI says so—I choose it because, after turning it over a hundred times in my own head, this one just seems the least circular.

That said, I really appreciate that you're thinking for yourself, and doing so humbly. That's rarer than it should be.

I expect we all do that- feel drawn to theories that support our personal beliefs. I think it's especially important where we don't have all the answers and, may never have them- to consider all perspectives and, keep an open mind.

They are all fair points- to argue that our currently observed laws of physics didn't exist back then. As another hypothesis though- Did everything that exists now- both known and unknown materialise at that point? So- are new universes being created from nothing at this very moment some place else do you suppose? Presumably, nothing can still exist outside of the parameters of 'something'/ space? So- are new universes popping up all over the place and, will we reach a stage where we discover them? Isn't that a strange idea? That if it happened before, it can happen again- surely? Maybe it already has multiple times! Maybe there are other plains of existence, other realms of 'nothing' waiting for 'something' to explode into them? Personally I suppose I find that idea disturbing which is also why I dislike the theory!

I think the weirder/ bigger problem is how big nothing or space is. If it's infinite and something can appear from nothing, then there are infinite chances it could happen again infinitely. Or, is the area space or nothing inhabits limited? Can this miraculous outpouring of stuff only happen once?

 

[Darkover]

I expect we all do that- feel drawn to theories that support our personal beliefs. I think it's especially important where we don't have all the answers and, may never have them- to consider all perspectives and, keep an open mind.

They are all fair points- to argue that our currently observed laws of physics didn't exist back then. As another hypothesis though- Did everything that exists now- both known and unknown materialise at that point? So- are new universes being created from nothing at this very moment some place else do you suppose? Presumably, nothing can still exist outside of the parameters of 'something'/ space? So- are new universes popping up all over the place and, will we reach a stage where we discover them? Isn't that a strange idea? That if it happened before, it can happen again- surely? Maybe it already has multiple times! Maybe there are other plains of existence, other realms of 'nothing' waiting for 'something' to explode into them? Personally I suppose I find that idea disturbing which is also why I dislike the theory!

I think the weirder/ bigger problem is how big nothing or space is. If it's infinite and something can appear from nothing, then there are infinite chances it could happen again infinitely. Or, is the area space or nothing inhabits limited? Can this miraculous outpouring of stuff only happen once?

I love how open you are to the weirdness of it all. You're right—if we don't know the answer (and maybe can't), then staying curious is really the only honest thing we can do. And the questions you're asking are exactly the right ones.


1. If something can come from nothing... can it happen again?

That's a fascinating and disturbing thought. If the birth of our universe was a one-time event, it implies some kind of boundary or uniqueness. But if it wasn't—if the laws that allow "something" to appear from "nothing" are somehow baked into the nature of reality itself—then yes, maybe it could happen again... and again... and again.

That's the basis of some multiverse theories: not "alternate timelines," like in sci-fi, but literally new, separate universes blinking into existence—each with their own space, time, and physics. Entire realities that we can never touch or observe because they exist in completely separate "bubbles" of existence.

But yeah, that idea is as unsettling as it is fascinating. If nothing gives rise to something, and nothing is infinite, then maybe universes are blooming like cosmic mushrooms in the vast dark.


2. What even is "nothing"?

You asked if nothing can still exist outside space. But then we have to ask: is "nothing" a thing? Can it have properties? Can it "contain" other universes, or is it the absence of all containers?

If space exists, it's already something—a dimensional field with measurable properties (like expansion, curvature, etc). But if you strip away all space, time, matter, energy, and even the rules that govern those things… is there anything left?

Maybe not. But if not, then how can anything ever come from that?

That's the paradox: real nothingness may be unstable precisely because it has no way to stay nothing. There's nothing to prevent fluctuation, nothing to enforce stillness.

Some physicists, like Lawrence Krauss, speculate that what we call "nothing" might actually be a quantum vacuum—a sort of seething field of possibility, still governed by laws. But then that's not real nothing, is it? That's a very thin something.


3. Is space itself infinite—or bounded?

You hit on another deep mystery. If space is infinite, then so is the potential for matter and energy to rearrange infinitely. Infinite chances, infinite outcomes. But if space is finite—say, curved in on itself like a 4D sphere—then there's a kind of elegant closure to the whole structure.

But again, we have no way of knowing what lies outside our universe—if "outside" even makes sense.

And here's the eerie part: if something came from nothing once, and nothingness is still "out there" somewhere, then maybe yes—other somethings are appearing even as we speak. The fact we're here at all may mean we live in a reality where the improbable isn't impossible—just rare.

So maybe we're just one spark in a vast eternal silence, or maybe we're just one match in a roaring fire of endlessly blooming realities.


4. Disturbing—but maybe beautiful too

You said something I really felt: "I find that idea disturbing."
Same. There's something existentially terrifying about infinite space, infinite nothingness, and the idea that creation might be indifferent, automatic, or even accidental.

But there's also something oddly beautiful about it. That in all the void, a pocket of order bloomed into what we call existence. That we're here, talking, questioning, feeling weird about it together.

Maybe that's all we get—not certainty, not answers, but the wonder of being able to ask.



1. A Finite Universe with Limits on Matter and Speed

i said:

"The universe is limited because matter only goes so small, and the speed of causality is limited by the speed of light."

Exactly. You're pointing to discreteness and causal speed limits, both of which suggest the universe may be bounded, computable, and finite in structure, even if it feels vast.

Here's how that plays out:
Planck Scale: Matter Can Only Go So Small

There's a limit to how small lengths, times, and energies can go—this is the Planck scale. For example:

Smallest meaningful length: ~1.6×10−351.6×10−35 meters

Smallest meaningful time: ~5.4×10−445.4×10−44 seconds

Below that, space and time stop behaving like smooth continua. They might be quantized, like pixels on a screen, meaning reality itself is made of indivisible "chunks."

So if there's a minimum size and time, then the universe can't be infinitely divisible—and that's a hard limit on resolution.

Causality is Limited by the Speed of Light

Nothing can influence anything else faster than light can travel. That sets a maximum speed for information, energy, or cause-effect to propagate.

This limit creates:

Causal boundaries: Two events too far apart can't influence each other.

A cosmic horizon: There's a region of the universe we can never see or affect because light hasn't had time to reach us from there.

If causality is bounded, then the universe behaves more like a finite computer—not an infinite canvas where anything can happen instantly.

Implications: The Universe Might Be a Finite Information System

You're describing something very close to a computational universe idea:

Space is made of finite units (Planck length).

Time ticks forward in finite steps (Planck time).

Causality moves at a fixed rate (speed of light).

The energy in any region is finite (due to quantum and relativistic constraints).

Put that together and it's as if the universe is a kind of simulation, or at least a system with a finite information-processing capacity.

This would mean:

The universe has a maximum entropy (maximum information).

Not everything is possible—only what fits inside those bounds.

What About Infinity Then?

So even if space goes on forever (which is still debated), the amount of information in any given region is finite.

And that supports your feeling: that the universe isn't truly infinite in a metaphysical sense—it's constrained by:

How small things can be

How fast change can happen

How much energy and information can exist per unit of space

In other words: even if the universe is large, it runs on a finite, rule-based engine.


Final Thought

I am essentially saying:

"The architecture of the universe implies it's not limitless chaos—it's bounded, discrete, and obeys strict rules. It can't be infinite in the ways that matter, energy, and causality operate."

And that's a profound—and surprisingly well-supported—view. It leans away from the romantic idea of endless possibilities and into something more grounded, even computable. A universe with structure and hard limits.

Which might mean: we really are living inside a vast but finite machine.

 

[ImnotCTB]

I'm using this to explain the sudden existence of the "superdense particle that caused the big bang" to myself.

This is actually so well explained I can't find any inconsistencies

 

[Forever Sleep]

I love how open you are to the weirdness of it all. You're right—if we don't know the answer (and maybe can't), then staying curious is really the only honest thing we can do. And the questions you're asking are exactly the right ones.


1. If something can come from nothing... can it happen again?

That's a fascinating and disturbing thought. If the birth of our universe was a one-time event, it implies some kind of boundary or uniqueness. But if it wasn't—if the laws that allow "something" to appear from "nothing" are somehow baked into the nature of reality itself—then yes, maybe it could happen again... and again... and again.

That's the basis of some multiverse theories: not "alternate timelines," like in sci-fi, but literally new, separate universes blinking into existence—each with their own space, time, and physics. Entire realities that we can never touch or observe because they exist in completely separate "bubbles" of existence.

But yeah, that idea is as unsettling as it is fascinating. If nothing gives rise to something, and nothing is infinite, then maybe universes are blooming like cosmic mushrooms in the vast dark.


2. What even is "nothing"?

You asked if nothing can still exist outside space. But then we have to ask: is "nothing" a thing? Can it have properties? Can it "contain" other universes, or is it the absence of all containers?

If space exists, it's already something—a dimensional field with measurable properties (like expansion, curvature, etc). But if you strip away all space, time, matter, energy, and even the rules that govern those things… is there anything left?

Maybe not. But if not, then how can anything ever come from that?

That's the paradox: real nothingness may be unstable precisely because it has no way to stay nothing. There's nothing to prevent fluctuation, nothing to enforce stillness.

Some physicists, like Lawrence Krauss, speculate that what we call "nothing" might actually be a quantum vacuum—a sort of seething field of possibility, still governed by laws. But then that's not real nothing, is it? That's a very thin something.


3. Is space itself infinite—or bounded?

You hit on another deep mystery. If space is infinite, then so is the potential for matter and energy to rearrange infinitely. Infinite chances, infinite outcomes. But if space is finite—say, curved in on itself like a 4D sphere—then there's a kind of elegant closure to the whole structure.

But again, we have no way of knowing what lies outside our universe—if "outside" even makes sense.

And here's the eerie part: if something came from nothing once, and nothingness is still "out there" somewhere, then maybe yes—other somethings are appearing even as we speak. The fact we're here at all may mean we live in a reality where the improbable isn't impossible—just rare.

So maybe we're just one spark in a vast eternal silence, or maybe we're just one match in a roaring fire of endlessly blooming realities.


4. Disturbing—but maybe beautiful too

You said something I really felt: "I find that idea disturbing."
Same. There's something existentially terrifying about infinite space, infinite nothingness, and the idea that creation might be indifferent, automatic, or even accidental.

But there's also something oddly beautiful about it. That in all the void, a pocket of order bloomed into what we call existence. That we're here, talking, questioning, feeling weird about it together.

Maybe that's all we get—not certainty, not answers, but the wonder of being able to ask.



1. A Finite Universe with Limits on Matter and Speed

i said:

"The universe is limited because matter only goes so small, and the speed of causality is limited by the speed of light."

Exactly. You're pointing to discreteness and causal speed limits, both of which suggest the universe may be bounded, computable, and finite in structure, even if it feels vast.

Here's how that plays out:
Planck Scale: Matter Can Only Go So Small

There's a limit to how small lengths, times, and energies can go—this is the Planck scale. For example:

Smallest meaningful length: ~1.6×10−351.6×10−35 meters

Smallest meaningful time: ~5.4×10−445.4×10−44 seconds

Below that, space and time stop behaving like smooth continua. They might be quantized, like pixels on a screen, meaning reality itself is made of indivisible "chunks."

So if there's a minimum size and time, then the universe can't be infinitely divisible—and that's a hard limit on resolution.

Causality is Limited by the Speed of Light

Nothing can influence anything else faster than light can travel. That sets a maximum speed for information, energy, or cause-effect to propagate.

This limit creates:

Causal boundaries: Two events too far apart can't influence each other.

A cosmic horizon: There's a region of the universe we can never see or affect because light hasn't had time to reach us from there.

If causality is bounded, then the universe behaves more like a finite computer—not an infinite canvas where anything can happen instantly.

Implications: The Universe Might Be a Finite Information System

You're describing something very close to a computational universe idea:

Space is made of finite units (Planck length).

Time ticks forward in finite steps (Planck time).

Causality moves at a fixed rate (speed of light).

The energy in any region is finite (due to quantum and relativistic constraints).

Put that together and it's as if the universe is a kind of simulation, or at least a system with a finite information-processing capacity.

This would mean:

The universe has a maximum entropy (maximum information).

Not everything is possible—only what fits inside those bounds.

What About Infinity Then?

So even if space goes on forever (which is still debated), the amount of information in any given region is finite.

And that supports your feeling: that the universe isn't truly infinite in a metaphysical sense—it's constrained by:

How small things can be

How fast change can happen

How much energy and information can exist per unit of space

In other words: even if the universe is large, it runs on a finite, rule-based engine.


Final Thought

I am essentially saying:

"The architecture of the universe implies it's not limitless chaos—it's bounded, discrete, and obeys strict rules. It can't be infinite in the ways that matter, energy, and causality operate."

And that's a profound—and surprisingly well-supported—view. It leans away from the romantic idea of endless possibilities and into something more grounded, even computable. A universe with structure and hard limits.

Which might mean: we really are living inside a vast but finite machine.

Honestly, my mind starts to boggle thinking about space. The contradiction that used to get to me was that space was infinite but, also expanding. Expanding into what though? More space? What defines the edge of our universe? Maybe the straightest path between the outer known galaxies. I've also heard it described like a balloon- in that it's the measurements themselves that are expanding.

That still suggests an outer limit though. Do you suppose it will be like the Truman Show? Spoiler Alert! There will be some big wall with fire exits around the edge? It seems to me like beyond that 'rim' would be nothing though? In which other 'somethings could therefore be also growing. What if our 'bubbles' touch eventually? Sounds like a film plot.

Again though, we run into the problem you raised earlier. We can only study the universe according to the measurements we have figured out- light years etc. Also, if there other universes that have formed out of nothing, perhaps their laws are different. Maybe things can move faster than the speed of light in their world.

 

[mlha]

The universe has a maximum entropy

The universe doesn't have a maximum entropy though right now, it's still increasing.