You can’t make something out of nothing.


Why? Because:

There isn’t anything in nothing that may become something.

It is important to understand nothingness and the repercussions that its existence has on your existence. If nothingness exists, only then is existence truly absurd. Otherwise, however weak the something is, there is purpose.

Purpose is merely the existence of a next step in a process.

So, what is nothingness anyway?

It is definable only by comparison: nothing is the opposite of anything. No matter, no dimensions, no space, no thought, no scale, no direction, no speed, no time and, most important: nothing to be defined exists in nothingness.

If, say, before the Big Bang there was nothing, it can only mean that nothingness has a property which makes is create a Big Bang but that is contradictory because there is no something in nothing to create anything from.

We need to be clear on nothing. Nothing is no thing.

Nothing is not emptiness, because emptiness contains the borders of itself. To define something as empty you need to explicitly define a cavity.

Nothing is not absence, because absence is limited by its object, while nothingness is unlimited. In absence only the named absent is not. In nothingness nothing is.

Nothingness is not void because void contains space. Nothing contains nothing, not even empty space. Empty space, aside from the fact it isn’t really empty, is still something, space, so at least one degree removed from nothing.

Nothingness is dimensionless too simply because there is no space. No space, no dimensions.

Death is not nothingness either. Death is non-existence, for both us and all other living things all over this universe. Unless we’re alone, in the entire infinite universe, which raises a lot of hope. But hope always bears disillusionment, so let’s not hope.

Let’s think.

Non-existence is simply being merged with everything-ness. That means there is no self sustaining process anymore. Non-existence is not really about self perception. A person with head trauma who is in a coma but breathes on their own still exists, because there are self sustaining processes that run. Some of the processes stopped or are failing, but others work, and they run.

Nothingness is not lack of perception. Even if all awareness and consciousness would vanish, there would still be something left behind, that is, everything else. The tree that falls without being heard is its own thing. And I know that because the universe in which this tree exists is made of rules. Rules upon rules and all these rules precede consciousness and perception.

That’s why I think our universe is infinite in both dimensions, and directions.

Infinity is necessary because something exists.

Infinity is far more plausible than nothingness because of this paradox:

  • if there is a limit in dimensions or directions, it means that right next to that limit there is nothing,
  • therefore, nothing envelopes everything,
  • but each thing has a size which adds up to the size of everything, yet nothing has no size
  • so the fact that something with no size envelopes all the size
  • makes it not be nothing, but a something

Infinity is far more plausible than circularity too because, by definition circularity implies a circular edge, which again should be enveloped by nothingness and that is paradoxical. There could be circularity inside infinity, if this infinity is self generating it is bound to repeat, but not outside.

So, now the big question, if there has always been something from which everything happened, what is it?