An excellent and worthwhile question IMO, even if this thread is removed.
One could counter with a rather terse “because there’s no such thing as nothing”, but a little more depth is helpful, I think. (For more, I recommend The Book of Nothing by John Barrow).
Where does our idea of “nothing” come from in the first place? Absence. That region of our visual field contains a rock, that one doesn’t - there is no rock there. It rained today, but not yesterday - there was no rain then. There’s things all over time and space, so I can imagine no things, not even time and space.
Ah, but can you really? Or are you just placing an imaginary NOT in front of everything and saying that this constitutes a possible state which this universe somehow avoided? Is this supposed ultra-nothing similar to, say, a dark vacuum? Because the Uncertainty Principle doesn’t allow so specific an energy (ie. zero) for all time, which is why particles appear and disappear in it continually. Also, such nothingness still has a shape which a massive object’s path would follow if introduced into it. And there are all kinds of different fields which still take on a value in “nothingness”, even if that value is zero.
Put like this, the “nothing” in the question actually assumes the role of a very specific state, and one is asking “why our state rather than that state”, as though it were some kind of logical default. But it is not such a default. Yes, we do still have a long way to go in explaining why our state is the case rather than another state, most promisingly the idea that we are in a region having “this state” while other regions have other states, even the ‘zeroes’ the question begs for (ie. ‘nothing’ and something exist simultaneously). But the ‘nothing’ option is just another option out of many, with no particular cosmological significance.
You misunderstand and it is a misunderstanding I myself had and asked about in this thread.
If you do not want to read that thread the upshot is when you see a quasar from earth you are looking back in time. You are seeing what was there millions of years ago…not what is there now. If you could magically pop yourself out there instantly you would not find a quasar as it would be long gone. What is more if you looked back towards earth you would likely see quasars in our area of the universe.
I hope this is in the spirit of, if not directly on, the topic.
Instead of a question as such, it’s more of a point of curiosity.
Since human beings who consider themselves intelligent and perhaps educated are amazed by what other human beings have thought of, written on, invented, discovered, imagined, created, (continue this list to include all those attributes that we like to praise and extol), why is it that we continue to be fooled? Why do we accept at any one time that we have a grasp on The Truth?
Just one example to focus the concern: Archeaology. We have a New Theory about what went on thousands or millions of years ago. It’s based on the Latest Dig. It rearranges or refutes all (or many) of the Old Theories. We know another dig will unearth (pun intended) new data that will force us to reconsider Old Theories (which will then include the latest New Theory) and a new great shuffling will take place.
Most of the educated and intelligent people will accept this Scientific Method approach to new knowledge as being the really praiseworthy use of our intellects and powers. Don’t we see how silly we are?
If we were to locate The Truth, could we handle it?
Ah yes, it’s so simple. I know that looking through a telescope is looking back in time (as is looking at anything) but I hadn’t thought through what that really means. Thanks.
Incidentally, “why is there something instead of nothing” serves as the springboard for a chapter of logic puzzles in Raymond Smullyan’s What is the Name of This Book?