[vokep]

Because nothing is precisely what does exist. But nothing implies something, so my working theory is that nothing's implied opposite something is itself the first thing, then some cellular automata like progression results from similar logical self-reference and down the line our physics (and the entirety of every logical permutation of information n-dimensionally) results from that.

A similar conception I've heard is that its like something and nothing, at the beginning of time, made a bet whether there'd be something or nothing, but the act of making the bet was already something, rigging it in something's favor. Nothing thought that was bullshit and tried to call it so, and they've been battling it out ever since.

[lewispollard]

> But nothing implies something

Put another way, nothing has absolutely no properties - including the property of being nothing, or empty. If an empty nothing lacks the property of being empty, or nothing, then something must arise.

[lorepieri]

I'm working on writing a paper along those lines. I do believe that the answer to "why there is something rather than nothing?" may be: actually nothing is the only thing that exist, but its instability creates our apparent reality trough a self-referential observer-observed reality loop. I would love to chat, use my research email.

[EMM_386]

> A similar conception I've heard is that its like something and nothing, at the beginning of time, made a bet whether there'd be something or nothing

The problem is that nothing can't make bets.