That’s all there really is to it. Why is there something, rather than nothing?
If any one thing exists, then the statement “no thing exists” is necessarily false.
Is that what you are asking?
If I grant that I exist (cogito ergo sum), then it follows that “no thing exists” is false.
It’s more of an origins to the universe question, but yes, that’s on the right track, I suppose.
We, as humans, take note that we are aware. We ask, well, where did I come from. I push that even further and ask, why did anything have to exist at all.
If there was never a universe, then there was a universe, that seems like a contradiction to me. Either it’s all universe all the time, or no universe never. And before we get into meta-verses giving rise to other-verses (turtles all the way down), I wonder, does the simple fact that something is here (regardless of the anthropic principle), mean that nothing* existing is impossible.
*To define nothing = I’m not talking about the non-existence of things like pink unicorns here, because for that to not exist, there has to be a universe for it to not exist in, in the first place. I’m defining nothing as just that. ABSOLUTE NOTHING.
One theory is that there’s an equivalent amount of something as anti-something so that in truth there is an aggregate total of nothing.
Sorry, just to clarify the Thread Title, it can be parsed as:
Does the fact that something in this universe exists mean that anything is possible.
That’s not at all what I meant.
It should read more like this:
Does that fact that the universe exists mean that it was impossible for it to not exist?
Hope that helps!
Nothing is sacred. Whether or not it is possible is of no consequence.
Sorry, I’m having trouble conceptualizing anti-something. Is there any way to elaborate on that thinking?
Care to… uh… elucidate? 
Are we saying that there isn’t anything that exists that is sacred, or that non-existence is sacred?
Besides, sacred denotes something with purpose. I know you were just trying to spin some language, but let’s be plain… I’m pretty dense as it is. 
If there is something, it *could *be anything. But if there is a thing, whether or not it is anything, it is still something. This paradox was a favorite subject for paranoid German bachelor philosophers, in the years before psychedelic drugs were widely available.
Right. I’m totally with you there, but that’s only the half of it.
So, assuming that much, does this mean, since there is something, anything (which happens to be the universe as we know it), mean that nothing couldn’t exist?
Absolute Nothing, is not something that exists. It is the direct opposite.
Great minds have pondered these questions for many years. Lesser minds, such as ours, laugh and go bowling.
You’re right, let’s just stop now. I gotta take a shit, anyway…
Right.
Fuck lesser and great minds. I wanna have a discussion. This is what I do on message boards. I laugh and go bowling when I’m at a bowling alley. I get enough inane, mundane discussion as it is.
The universe appears to be, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than energy. Matter is, itself, just energy that happens to be in a particular spectrum that humans interact with (similar to how there’s a visible range of light, or an audible range of sound.)
Energy is simply a differential. A weight has a certain energy potential so long as it is outside the center of the Earth’s gravitational pull. When it reaches the center, it ceases to have power. When I have a pressure differential between a canister and the outside air, I have usable energy up until the point where things equalize.
Now, if I look at the inside of a battery, it produces two chemical reactions. One draws electrons towards one piece of metal, and the other lets those electrons return, so it creates a surplus at one end and a vacuum on the other. But, there’s not such a thing as “energy” actually packed in there. I can take those same metal rods and chemicals and lie them out on a table (not touching one another) and they’ll just sit there not doing anything nor providing any energy. -They- aren’t energy, they provide a way to separate atomic bits that wants to recombine and return to neutral charge.
We call that neutral state entropy.
Since humans can only observe energy (in its various forms) once it has all returned to entropy, there is just nothing. It’s like the equalized canisters or the weight resting in the middle of the Earth, there’s just no energy there.
So whether the universe is the product of God-brand AAA batteries for His flashlight, who knows, but the human-observable part of it (i.e. the known universe) only exists so long as positive energy and negative energy, matter and anti-matter, and all this are still separated and thus creating a usable differential.
Thanks, Sage Rat. I’m familiar with most of what you’ve described. I understand the ideas of matter and energy are really the same thing. Positive and negative charge. Matter and Anti-matter, potential and kinetic energy; all these various dualities to nature, as the entropy of our universe continues to increase.
Yet, I’m still not sure how this addresses the idea of existence and anti-existence. I can only conclude that the universe has always existed (in whatever form): That there has always been something (rather than nothing). I can’t see how these can co-exist.
Also, the differentials you described… aren’t they fundamentally different than existence and non-existence?
If the universe were to one day blink out of existence… non-existence is useless at that point. There’s no differential, because nothing at all exists anymore.
Within an already existing universe, even a void is something that exists.
Sorry if my response above sounded curt… but I’ve always had a stick up my butt when people express a flippant attitude toward philosophy. It’s not about answers at all, but exploring the logic behind the questions. I know what’s being discussed has go 'round and 'round for eons, but not for me it hasn’t. Maybe as well for others here, too. I’m not trying to answer the deep questions of the universe, I’m trying to gain perspective on my thinking from learning about other people’s points of view on such topics.
So, I apologize.
As I see it, the question is:
“Given that something exists, is a situation in which nothing at all exists a possible alternative?”
Or
“The universe exists, but might it just as well never have existed? Is the universe contingent?”
The argument for a “no’ answer seems to be that the fact that a thing exists, means that some thing must exist (even if not necessarily the thing which does in fact exist).
Maybe I’m slow, but I don’t follow the argument at all. There seems to be a few steps missing, at least in the way I have set it out.
I recall that one speculation for the origin of the universe, or at least the underlying laws of physics is that “nothing” would be unstable. If there’s truly “nothing” - including no physical laws - then what is there to stop “something” from just appearing ?
Physical laws describe how material things behave. If there are no material things, by definition there are no physical laws, since there is no behaviour to describe. There is nothing, in this scenario, to prevent physical things from simply “winking” into existence. Equally, though, there is nothing to mean that they must wink into existence. Consequently this is not an argument against the possiblity of nothingness.
Which is in fact pretty much the way the Big Bang is something described: “In the beginning, there was Nothing; which exploded” 
More to the point, to narrow down your question, cmyk, I’d have to argue that it is clearly not possible for your question to arise (since it has to arise in some mind, which is a thing) ***if ***nothing at all exists… So in a way, if it were possible for Nothing to exist, it would mean your question wouldn’t exist, either.
Does this make sense? My head is hurting… :smack: