Existence

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Here are two possibilities:

1. There was nothing at all, then there was something.
2. There has always been something.

However, these two possibilities are, as far as we know, impossible. We know of no way for something to come from nothing*. We also know of no way for something to have no beginning**.

*A common rebutal for this point is quantum physics where it is observed that particles can pop into and out of existence. At least, that is how it is commonly talked about. However, we do not know enough to say for sure that these particles truly pop into and out of existence. They may simply move in a way we cannot yet observe. Further, we do not know that they come from nothing. In fact, it is possible they may use some aspect of existing particles in their process of generation.

**A common rebutal to this point is a circle. However, I contend it is different. The beginning of the circle's existence and the beginning of the circle's path are two different things. We can easily imagine a walking trail with no beginning and no end. However, no one would contend the fact that the path is a circle proves it was never created. There is also no reason to believe eternity or eternal timelines take the form of a circle. The circle represent recursion, which is different than eternity or being without beginning.

So, the two possibilities available to us are not comprehensible to us.

Because of this, alternate possibilities are often put forward. They typically take the form of, 1) "The rules don't apply to X thing." Where X is the universe, or God, or the original particle, and so on. Or 2) "X brought something from nothing." Where X is logical necessity, random chance, and so on.

These alternates have issues as well.

1. The fact that there is an exclusion to the rules begs the question: where do the rules come from and why do they not apply to this particular thing? So, this is not a real answer but an evasion.

2. This assumes that X exists (logic, randomness) and therefor there was not nothing. So it is actually alternate #1 masquarading as alternate #2, since it has thrown out the fundamental assumption that there was nothing.

What are we left with?

One possibility is that there are states we are unaware of. If we know of non-existence and existence, perhaps there are other forms that allow for the creation of the universe in some way we cannot presently understand.

Alternatively, perhaps our logic is not the only type of logic and in other times and places this other logic may apply. Perhaps this other logic allows for things that are considered impossibilities.

Another, perhaps less interesting alternative, is the brute fact. Perhaps there is a single brute fact of existence that has no reason, no cause, it simply is. This would be quite disappointing and I'm not sure if we could ever even know it. Presumably, if we ever got to the brute fact, we would not accept it. Instead, we would continually assume we have failed to find its cause.

In my view, the best approach forward is to assume we are missing some key piece of information. Rather than inventing wild logical scenarios that attempt to explain an impossibility, we should admit that existence as we know it is impossible. This opens the door to finding states of being or logics that allow it to be possible, as we clearly know it is.