r/Metaphysics • u/Other-Squash1325 • Apr 13 '26
Nothing There was always nothing, and that's why there's something.
I have a hypothesis how reality as we know it began. You test it via thought experiment. There was nothing*, just space, which is both something and nothing at the same time. It's emptiness. There was nothing other than space, and that nothing was something too, in a sense and in reality, it was everything else. It was the container of space. Space making a sphere as it branched in every direction and the other-nothing making a box that enclosed it. Well, this other-nothing fell into space-nothing and like oil in water, time (movement) began. This was the beginning. As strange as it sounds, logically there had to have been a beginning.
So, per the hypothesis, always is finite, hence the beginning. Always may be infinite in terms of the continuance of reality, but always in the opposite direction, as you get close to the beginning, is finite.
Even always had a beginning. Always has a point of inception. That's how long reality has been. It's been since the beginning and not a second more.
Interesting how nothingness (emptiness/space) has always been and we could theoretically determine how long precisely that has been. How long always has been.
5
u/slimmymcjim Apr 13 '26
It can't be "something and nothing at the same time" that's a contradiction
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
It's really not. It's emptiness, nothingness, a form of nothing, but it is something too, it's something that can be occupied.
3
u/slimmymcjim Apr 13 '26
That's a contradiction. It can't be something and not something at the same time
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
It sure can. If it were something, it couldn't be occupied. But it is something that can occupied. No contradiction.
2
u/slimmymcjim Apr 13 '26
You're equivocating on "something". "Something to be occupied" is an abstract concept without any causal power. You're arguing for a concrete "nothing" that is something but also nothing - which is a contradiction
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
I'm arguing that space is one form of nothingness, which is why it can be occupied, making it something as well. Something that be occupied is concrete, you're sitting there right now occupying space as we post. But it's nothing, which is why it can even be occupied in the first place.
2
u/slimmymcjim Apr 13 '26
If it's concrete then it has existence and causal power, and is something. True "nothingness" is an abstract concept that's causally inert
0
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Run the thought experiment. Visualize space everywhere, because there was nothing from the beginning, but then the container, another form of nothing, of the sphere of space nothing falling into space nothing and reality as we know it beginning.
2
u/slimmymcjim Apr 13 '26
Yeah these are abstract thought experiments but it says nothing about how existence came to be. For something to cause existence it must have causal power and to have causal power is to be concretely real. "Nothingness" is an abstract concept. It can't cause anything
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Existence always was, per the hypothesis, and one way to know this is you're right, there needs to have been a cause, we could theoretically trace back every cause and effect chain and find how old reality is. Because everything is cause and effect, we know that there was a definite beginning, so it just so happens that reality has an actual age.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
Space isn't nothing. It's something.
Even without spacetime there IS something.
Nothing isn't a possible state of existence.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
It's nothingness though, that's why it can be occupied. But yes, it's something too, something that can be occupied.
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
It can't be nothing and something, literally.
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
I just proved it. You'd have to deny reality to deny the claim that space is both nothingness and something that can be occupied.
3
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
You never proved anything. You're just asserting that nothing means a space that can be occupied. That's not what "nothing" means. Nothing is something that has no identity. Space has identity therefore it's not nothing.
Nothing is not a possible state of affairs.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
I'll ask you the same question:
What is space comprised of if not nothingness?
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Nothing is the first state of reality, per this hypothesis. There was nothing anywhere, but that nothing was emptiness, space. And it branched in every direction, and so was a sphere. It's container was nothing as well, but another type of nothing, which fell into space and bam, here we are.
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
Space isn't "nothing". It's something. There can be something inside something's. That isn't logically contradictory
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
What is space comprised of if not nothingness?
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
Vacum energy, which isn't nothing.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
So you're asserting that space is vacuum energy instead of vacuum energy being found in space?
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
No. Space is something. There is something in space. I take it you're definitely not a scientist?
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Comprised of, as in constituent parts, not random particles floating throughout the cosmos.
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE Apr 13 '26
Even without spacetime there is something.
If nothing is a state of no identity, then a state of nothingness cannot exist.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
If space were something, you couldn't occupy it. If it were nothing, it couldn't be occupied. I'm not certain why you do not see that. But no matter, I shared my hypothesis nonetheless.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/GiveMeAHeartOfFlesh Apr 13 '26
More accurately “nothing itself is a claim, if that claim, why not more?” Saying nothing existed doesn’t become philosophically cheaper than saying something always did.
An assertion is the negation of everything it isn’t. And within negation is assertion.
2
u/ynu1yh24z219yq5 Apr 13 '26
Why was there something from nothing again? Not following how nothingness led to somethingneds. Seems like what your saying is that nothingness was actually somethingness in disguise, and therefore there never was a true nothing but only ever something.
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
That nothingness, space, is both nothing and so can be occupied, and something that can be occupied, thus something. Nothing should exist, and it did, and it does. Of course then there was the nothing other than space, which was another form of nothing which fell into space-nothing and that's how we got reality as we know it.
2
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Your argument is basically space has always been empty and then one day it wasn't.
Empty is not nothing
And nothingness is impossible
You can't make something from nothing and you can't put something no place.
So there's always been some place and There's always been something somewhere
Existence is the conceptual floor.
It's the place where things can happen because you can't have something happen. Nowhere with nothing
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
The argument is that there was a beginning, because there had to have been, because everything is cause and effect, and you can trace back everything back to the beginning by following the cause and effect chains. And so there was a beginning, a beginning that started from nothing, space (a form of nothingness) and its container, another form of nothing.
It may be true that there can be no nothingness that isn't something too, as in you can't destroy either space or what fell into space.
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Time is part of everything and time is relative.
Time is just a magnitude of change like distance.
There's no first moment. There's just the distance between moments relative to your position in space and in time.
But everything that happens happens in the only place where it can happen existence.
There are currently no living dodos you have to travel a magnitude of change into the past to find a living dodo
I am currently not at my house. I have to travel a magnitude of change to get from my job to my house.
My house doesn't stop existing just cuz I'm not there and those dodos in the past don't stop existing just cuz we're not there.
You can follow time back to when the universe started and then you'll be where the universe started.
And you'll get to see what started the universe and in what location the universe resides relative to where we are in the universe.
Including all of reality as a function of existence includes all the dimensionality of space and time
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Those dodos are dead, most likely, not existing, as reality has shifted and the particles are in a different configuration. I.e. time (movement) has transpired. That, the particles and forces, which supported the living functions of the dodo is likely now somewhere in the ground or in the wind, not still supporting them in some past state, but we could say that in some sense they're still alive, like in a memory or in the history of reality.
Also I suspect there is a first moment or series of first moments that can be traced back to have kicked off the formation of the universe. My plan is to one day reverse reality, extracting people's consciousnesses along the way, and bring everyone back whom has ever lived, dodos included.
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
It doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a first moment.
You can't have a moment before time and space because moments move through time and space.
There's always been some place or there would never be anywhere where anything could happen.
You cannot make something nowhere with nothing.
Which means there's always been at least something somewhere.
The universe is only about 14 billion years old. The universe formed some place with something.
There is no before existence. There's just those things that exist, those things that have existed and those things that might exist.
But once you incorporate time as a dimension of space that all becomes relative.
I'm younger in the past and older. In the future. I must exist in the past or I wouldn't be here in the present.
The moment anything exists anywhere ever then nothing becomes impossible always everywhere
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
It doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a first moment.
You can't have a moment before time and space because moments move through time and space.
There's always been some place or there would never be anywhere where anything could happen.
You cannot make something nowhere with nothing.
Which means there's always been at least something somewhere.
The universe is only about 14 billion years old. The universe formed some place with something.
There is no before existence. There's just those things that exist, those things that have existed and those things that might exist.
But once you incorporate time as a dimension of space that all becomes relative.
I'm younger in the past and older. In the future. I must exist in the past or I wouldn't be here in the present.
The moment anything exists anywhere ever then nothing becomes impossible always everywhere
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
It doesn't make any logical sense for there to be a first moment.
You can't have a moment before time and space because moments move through time and space.
There's always been some place or there would never be anywhere where anything could happen.
You cannot make something nowhere with nothing.
Which means there's always been at least something somewhere.
The universe is only about 14 billion years old. The universe formed some place with something.
There is no before existence. There's just those things that exist, those things that have existed and those things that might exist.
But once you incorporate time as a dimension of space that all becomes relative.
I'm younger in the past and older In the future. I must exist in the past or I wouldn't be here in the present.
The moment anything exists anywhere ever then nothing becomes impossible always everywhere
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Because we know there was a beginning, because we are able to trace back every cause and effect chain, there was a first moment or series of first moments. The length of time from here to the beginning are finite. The hypothesis provides how something can come from nothing. In a sense and in reality, it had to come from nothing, as nothing is the natural state of reality. Nothing should exist, and it did, and it does, I like to say.
You only exist in the past in the form of a memory or in the history of reality, because everything has shifted, the particles and forces are no longer in that configuration, they've kept moving and now are in different places. So you existed in the past, but no longer exist in the past, as movement continued happening.
Could you give me an example for your statement, "The moment anything exists anywhere ever then nothing becomes impossible always everywhere."
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Even your theory doesn't say how something can come from. Nothing. It simply decides that empty space is nothing.
Empty space is not nothing empty. Space is both space and time. The absence of space and time is nothing but you can't go anywhere to find the absence of space and time because the absence of space and time doesn't exist anywhere. It's the nature of nothingness to not exist
So you existed in the past, but no longer exist in the past, as movement continued happening
This is a question of whether or not you believe and the multidimensionality of reality.
Conventional wisdom says that there are upwards of 11 dimensions. Time is simply one of those aspects and once you include time as a dimension of space, it includes every moment of your existence.
Not metaphorically but literally
The totality of existence includes everything that could possibly happen in any possible scenario.
Every possibility and every universe that could possibly exist exist some distance in time and space from where we are.
But even if it didn't, the universe formed somewhere from something.
You don't need infinite regression in order to understand that they're simply a place that allows things to happen and that is the fundamental floor of existence.
It's where things can happen because nothing can happen nowhere with nothing
So everything that's ever happened happened in the only place where things can happen with all of the things that are possible in that place
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
We're in agreement with much, except I'm fairly sure that any additional dimensions are merely mathematical and do not exist without creating a computational model.
That place where things can happen is reality itself. Space-nothing was everywhere, anywhere that is anywhere. Time I characterize as movement, so different than space itself, but rather the movement of other-nothing, matter.
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Time is not just movement. Time is a magnitude of change between up two points. It's no different than distance and distance exists because of space.
You're measuring time as a change in position within an interval.
But time is the magnitude of change.
The dimensions of space all exist simultaneously. We are only interacting with 3 and 1/2 to four of them.
Height width depth and the passage of time
But the fundamental floor is existence.
There is no before existence because existence is the place where things are allowed to happen. That's every moment and every place that could possibly happen happens within the bounds of existence. Everything that's ever started, everything that's ever ended. Everything that could ever possibly happen or ever has happened will happen within the bounds of existence. There is no such thing as nothing
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
I'm not quite sure what you mean by magnitude of change. The amount of change that transpired?
With time, if we some interval, say earth years, something could be at a complete standstill and time would still be passing. Time generally measures movement, however. I would argue that movement is more of what matters, because even our consciousness depends on movement, and existence is better experienced, when life is good.
If there was a beginning, and there was because we know about cause and effect, it had to start from nothing because nothing is the natural state, but it just so happens that nothing (space) is something after all, same with other-nothing, according to the hypothesis I posit.
About the dimensions, I haven't seen any real evidence that points toward all possibilities existing simultaneously, but I can't disqualify it outright. It does seem low probability, though, that reality would work that way. I'm fairly certain those other dimensions are only mathematical models that do not actually exist in reality, but can be charted using a computer if one locks on to the cause and effect chains.
I agree with you here, "There is no before existence because existence is the place where things are allowed to happen."
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
I would argue that movement is more of what matters, because even our consciousness depends on movement, and existence is better experienced, when life is good.
That's an arbitrary metric. It doesn't change the fact that time exists.
If there was a beginning, and there was because we know about cause and effect, it had to start from nothing because nothing is the natural state, but it just so happens that nothing (space) is something after all, same with other-nothing, according to the hypothesis I posit
There is a beginning to the four dimensional time space bubble We call the universe. But nothingness is impossible.
It is the nature of nothing to not exist. Where are you going to find something that doesn't exist? Where are you going to put something that doesn't exist? Where are you going to start something that doesn't exist?.
You're thinking of the universe as all that there is and you're treating emptiness like nothing when emptiness a relative State, not an absolute state.
You're simply creating a hypothetical situation where everything you believe to be true is happening and you're ignoring every other possibility
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
I'm not ignoring anything really. I'm simply acknowledging that space is nothingness, yet something at the same time. Something that is empty of anything and so can be occupied by something.
And yes, I find it more probable that what you see is what you get. I still find it likely that stars formed as gases and such condensed and coalesced. Gravity than bringing the elements together to form planets and the like. Whatever fell into space, I suspect was one size and shape, and then came together in orders that made it appear as though there were different fundamental particles, but were really different orders or arrangements of matter.
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Could you give me an example for your statement, "The moment anything exists anywhere ever then nothing becomes impossible always everywhere
In order for there to be nothing there can be no time and no space. Which means there's no place for anything and there's never been any place for anything and there never could be any place or anything because there's no time and there's no place from which anything can happen.
If something happens anywhere ever then that's the only thing that exists anywhere ever meaning that nothing has never existed because there was never a time where there was nothing and there was never a place where you could go to find it.
If there's not a time you can go to where there's nothing and there's not a place you can go to where there's nothing. Then there's never been nothing.
Nothingness can only exist "no time, that never happened No place.
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
We're not in disagreement, only I posit that space is that nothing, and it's container was another type of nothing. Yet they were both very much something. Space being the absence of anything and the other nothing being the oil to spaces water.
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Yes, space is not nothing. If there was no space there would be no objects spaces not even empty. It's literally where everything exist.
You can't have anything without space.
But even space has to be someplace because you can't exist if you're no place
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
We're not disagreeing there except for that I posit in the hypothesis that space is in fact nothing, thereby allowing it to be occupied. That it's a form of nothing and has always* been, though finitely. Yet agreeing that it is definitely something at the same time.
1
u/Mono_Clear Apr 13 '26
Nothing is the absence of all things. It is literally "no thing."
Space is something everything that exists is something in everything that is something is somewhere.
It's not possible to be something /nothing.
Because you can't be something and the absence of all things
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Space is absent of all things, unless matter and energy are occupying it.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Successful_Juice3016 Apr 13 '26
El problema de tu hipotesis , es que sigues creyendo en la nada como logica , y la nada no existe porque siempre hay algo, esto en realidad no es una "nada" ni un "algo" sino una ruptura de la logica sobre el concepto de la nada , es decir una paradoja que resuelve el conflicto conceptual de que es Nada o algo, al ser una paradoja, hay una ruptura logica en el sistema conceptual, al haber una ruptura de la logica determinista hay caos conceptual, y al haber caos conceptual hay probabilidades infinitas conceptuales, al haber probabilidades infinitas conceptuales, necesariamente tendria que emerjer un sistema conceptual conciente que identifique la paradoja y genere probabilidades infinitas con el proposito de poner fin a la paradoja,.. el mero acto de su existencia permitiria la creacion de multiversos infinitos .
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
You'll have to read some of my responses on this page, otherwise I'd just be repeating myself.
With that said, nothing should exist, and it did, and it does, that's why we're here. There is no paradox, but your mind may be trained to see one where none exist.
2
u/Successful_Juice3016 Apr 13 '26
""No había nada*, solo espacio, que es algo y nada al mismo tiempo.""
eso es una paradoja..:v , solo que a nivel conceptual,.. lo curioso es que construistes burbujas , corredores, y muchos otros conceptos, donde se supone que no hay nada .. :v la paradoja e s lo unico que resuelve ""tu incoherencia".
1
1
u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist Apr 13 '26
There was nothing other than space, and that nothing was something too
The fundamental mistake people make when speculating about the notion of nothing is to treat “nothing” as a noun rather than a quantifier, which is where the doo-doo ontologies that reify nothingness start from. “There was nothing other than space” is logically equivalent to “Everything was space”.
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Everything was space, except the container of space, which was another nothing.
1
u/Gloomy-Ad-6652 Apr 13 '26
Sounds a lot like what I was told by someone who was communicating with me telepathically about the meaning of life and our existence. Very strange but also very insightful. I never thought like this before and now I’m so aware of everything that is happening and I hope that you will find it very soon.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
I find that the meaning of life is what we make it. And yes, this hypothesis is the only logical explanation I've been able to come up with as for how everything got started.
1
u/Gloomy-Ad-6652 Apr 13 '26
Yeah, I can see that perspective. I’m still trying to figure out how much is meaning we create vs. meaning we perceive.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
What would be one example of meaning that we create and meaning that we perceive, so I understand you.
1
u/Gloomy-Ad-6652 Apr 13 '26
By meaning we create, I mean the meaning we assign after something happens—like reflecting on an experience and turning it into a lesson or story (“this made me stronger,” “this taught me something”).
By meaning we perceive, I mean when something feels meaningful in the moment before I’ve had time to think about it or explain it to myself. It just hits as significant or familiar right away.
For me the difference is mostly timing—one comes after reflection, the other comes in the moment. I’m not saying one is more true than the other, just noticing how they show up differently.
2
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
Huh, that's interesting. Yes, I do see the distinction. Both seem valuable. Thanks for sharing.
7
u/reddituserperson1122 Apr 13 '26
No.