When I was younger I would think about “nothingness” a lot… wondering what it would be if there was nothing instead of this something we all reside in. This realization – or the lack of, whatever it is, would be possibly obtained after pondering blackness for sometime. Realizing that there would still be dimensional void as of such nothingness would come to light as of which nothing could be conceptualized and my mind would go off somewhat satisfied thinking about other things. Of course, because the mind is constantly thinking if one were to think of nothing the brain simply must continue thinking, nullifying this impartial experience of “nothing” in my mind. Bringing up yet again another “something” for me to think about.
The question itself is unfair to “nothingness”. “Why is there something instead of nothing?” “Is”, being a qualifier for existence in itself, implying “to be”, that is there must be something if something “is” to be qualified for anything. With that we have already created a philosophical Faux Pas by asking a question of this nature. There could only be something, because “nothing” is not possible “to be”, or to be included as something that can be answered by “Why is”, unless we look at “nothing” as a concept itself. That being the idea of nothing does exist and it even has a label. A symbol, the word nothing or nothingness itself refers to nothing. Yet how can that be if nothing truly is nothing? I go back to my thought experiments as a child, there is no things of course in “nothing” thus to obtain the concept of nothing one must not think of anything, if not for just a fraction of a second.
But Rather than argue the conceptual nature of “nothing” as existing I would rather get to the crux of the matter which is the metaphysical, or rather the anti-metaphysical perhaps. We utilize the concept of nothing to discuss the nature. While the question may somewhat disqualify nothingness from being asked in such a manner to exist as does “somethingness”, is it fair to ask a question of this nature? Probably not, but I would like to pursue it nonetheless. We can bypass the nature of Grammar itself as Grammar doesn’t entirely define our concepts nor does it determine the nature of reality in itself, it is just a tool and a flawed tool at that. There really isn’t much of a better way to ask the question why “does something exist instead of there being nothingness?”
As a thought experiment,us think about the idea of multi-verses. That being there are various dimensions, lets say each of which infinite in their own dimensional space. With that, would it be fair to include “nothing” as one of these parallel dimensions that would qualify “nothingness” to be a non state of parallelity? That is that “there is nothing instead of something” if one conceptualizes the lack of parallel dimensions. As such something and nothing may be on equal battleground as far as there being “something” and “nothing”. But of course since there is at least one dimension of “something” it isn’t fair, something does exist regardless of this multiverse theory. As such, we have our dilemma.
So for another thought experiment if we were to look from the outside of nothingness one might ask the same thing, well why doesn’t something exist? I am one to subscribe to the idea that something has always existed. I don’t find any reason or how that something could exist from nothing. If that were the case then there was nothing, until something became, and we have the universe. I don’t find that presumption to be very logical as there is no reason behind something coming from nothing, it is without reason. Yet if it were true perhaps this might mean the universe isn’t very logical at its core. After all, we know how gravity exists but we really don’t know why the force of gravity exists? Is it a logical necessity that mass have force to pull things closer to it? Why? Of course, that is one question in physics that we can ponder all day and not produce a satisfactory result. Perhaps it is due to limitations of our own understanding of the universe, or perhaps it is without reason of this nature. There must be limits to what the human mind can know, or the question is not an applicable question to ask. Perhaps the why of gravity existing falls into this arena. Yet since I find it logical that the universe must have always existed as opposed to coming from nothing, which is without reason or rather unreasonable to the best of our knowledge, I will continue my argument based upon that premise.
Being that something has always exists it is only “natural” for it to be that way. This may be unsatisfactory; Ultimately we have a question that does not have an answer. My thought is that existence exists without reason. It is unreasonable that we exist; although natural. Not every question has an answer and this I find to be one of them. I have no qualms with this but it is in this nature of the answer that there is no answer I find awe, alluring curiosity into other aspects of reality and our relationship of reality through our comprehension.
Any qualms with this result I find to be related to our every day encounters in the world. After all, most pragmatic questions can be answered with why to some satisfactory degree. This means existence itself is absurd. Yet ultimately the most profound thoughts we will find many why’s go unanswered. Perhaps these too do not have answers, their state of physicality or what not do not require the recognition of conceptual truth, things simply are what they are on their own accord without reason. One may find peace in understanding this or frustration. Such is life.