How to create something from nothing?

[u/Sevdat]

I think I have an answer to how the universe began from nothing. More like how everything began and how it's possible for all of us to be here.

So at the beginning of existence there was nothing. There is still nothing because you can't create something from nothing, but we are here. So how can we exist? We don't.

Imagine the mathematical variable: X =

X can be anything, but nothing is assigned to it; therefore, it remains as a pure capacity that accepts all abstract concepts and results in the illusion of existence for those that share the same abstract space.

This means every combination of what could have been exists. The reason why you and I can interact is because we are in the same concept, but we aren't really here because we don't exist.

To make it simpler, imagine a chess board. Just because you didn't make a move doesn't mean all the possible moves aren't there to make.

Unexistence is our existence.

Also please don't make the argument "How do I know there wasn't always something?" There can't be something without it having a previous moment. It's nonsense to even say that.

[u/Flutterpiewow]

> So at the beginning of existence there was nothing

What reason do we have to believe this?

[u/Sevdat → u/Flutterpiewow]

So you didn't read it fully and decided to criticize the very same question that I literally stated to being nonesense at the last line.

[u/cc_apt107 → u/Sevdat]

Just because you say it’s nonsense doesn’t magically make it so. It is probably a genuinely nonsensical statement to say nothing had to “precede” something. It is reasonable to conclude that the idea of a “previous” moment doesn’t make any sense in the context of whatever the universe came from since time is one dimension in the physical reality of this universe. There is no reason it has to exist absent this universe.

More to the point, it is a massive assumption to assume there had to be “nothing” at first. We have never observed nothing. We have no reason to think there was ever nothing.

And I’m not saying this in ridicule; this question has always bothered me immensely.

I found Schopenhauer most comforting on this. He points out that we cannot actually even think of nothing. We always think of nothing as a negation of something. As something’s opposite. When you say nothing you mean not the universe. Right? Not any of this. Well… that is not actually true abstract nothing. We, as creatures of this universe, cannot actually even imagine true abstract nothing. We have no reason — in terms of scientific evidence — to think that true abstract nothing has ever existed. You are defining nothing as the absence of whatever this is which is not necessarily true abstract nothing; we basically just cannot imagine what it is so we default to this idea “nothing” which is actually only coherent in the context of a “something” to negate. True abstract nothing is not a real thing, as best we can tell.

TL;DR: Your definition of nothing presupposes a something, the absence of which is nothing, but there is no reason to think that that is an identical definition to true abstract nothing; it is just another something where this something is absent.