Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

[Langbein]

Why is there anything than rather nothing ? - Why is there sometning than rather nothing ?

Why does anything exist at all ?

Why is it like that ?

I found I link that might or might not put some light on it - I don't know.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

 

[HallsofIvy]

If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question! That is basically the "anthropic principle"- it is, in fact, quite possible to imagine a universe in which there is nothing but in any universe in which there is someone to ask that question, there must exist something! I think that is a paraphrasing of what your website says.

 

[Mk]

There doesn't have to be a reason why there is something instead of nothing. If there was nothing, then there would just be nothing. If there was something, then there would just be something. That's how I see it.

 

[baywax]

It's only because of something that you can imagine nothing.

 

[Crosson]

A whimsical idea: if the relation determined by the axioms of the universe are aleph-nought categorical (countably infinite and unique up to isomorphism), then as per the Lowenheim Skolem theorem there is a model.

 

[Langbein]

Why is there sometning than rather nothing ?

Hmm .. I agree with the answers above.

"If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question!"

"It's only because of something that you can imagine nothing."

I thought this question should be a major difficult one, but the truth is that the only condition that is experieced ever is "existece" or "something".

On the other hand people might have experieced to observe other dead people that might not have "existence".

Possibly the anwer could be:

"Because something is the result of living"

or possibly

"Because existence is the result of life".

 

[baywax]

A whimsical idea: if the relation determined by the axioms of the universe are aleph-nought categorical (countably infinite and unique up to isomorphism), then as per the Lowenheim Skolem theorem there is a model.

That's "something" else!

 

[kant]

If there were "nothing", then you would not be here to ask the question! That is basically the "anthropic principle"- it is, in fact, quite possible to imagine a universe in which there is nothing but in any universe in which there is someone to ask that question, there must exist something! I think that is a paraphrasing of what your website says.

I think the anthropic principle would only push back the same question. If a intelligent being do indeed life in a universe (where there is something), then that intelligent being could ask why there is some universe that existenc, and some universe that don t exist.

 

[baywax]

I think the anthropic principle would only push back the same question. If a intelligent being do indeed life in a universe (where there is something), then that intelligent being could ask why there is some universe that existenc, and some universe that don t exist.

What would prompt an intelligent being to wonder why something did not exist?

Do you mean like where I'm sitting on my patio and wondering why I don't have a Hummer and a helecopter on my lawn?

(because the wife and kids have them out for the weekend!)

 

[kant]

What would prompt an intelligent being to wonder why something did not exist?

I wonder why the motivation of such a person is important. It is like asking why people like ice cream. The main point is that the question won t go away, because the answer is never satisfactory.

 

[Langbein]

I wonder why the motivation of such a person is important.

I think that in general - the motivations why questins are asked at all is a rather interesting part of it.

Could it be that questions are asked because of "the will to power" ?

Will this eventually be valid for all kind of questions and all kind of answers ?

Lets look at some of the stuff of Nietzsche as an example.

He says something like "God is dead" and so are all old "values", so there will be neaded new "values", new thinking etc.

Then there is this interesting little question direved from the first:

Why does Nietzche think that it is a problem that God is dead ? Does he think that there should be a God ? Why is is a problem for him at all that God is dead ?

Why does Nietzche think that there should be any values or any moral at all ?

Why does Nietzce think it is important or relevant to search for any meaning or any moral at all, and why does he se it as a point to design a new one ?

In general I think that the motive behind a question is an important part of the question.

In the case of Nietzche, when you analyze the logical structure in his arguments and try to read in the built in motivation behind the question, the philosophy of Fredrich Nietzche is a bit logical inconsistent.

Still, as I would see it, he is one of the very most important philosophers of our modern history. (And a key to understand our culture.)

If I should try to help Nietzche with some of his questions in "Ecche Homo",
"Why I am so wise, etc" I think I would say something like: "You mean why it is so important for you to feel wise, or to be looked at as wise ?"

It wouldn't be polite so I wouldn't say it, but I would think by myself: "Because you are among them who might like to performs smartness without wisdom".

A small divergence from the origal question, but still interesting I think.

Why ask question like this: "Why does anything exist than rather nothing". The motivation for asking the question at all will also be, as I would see it, a part of it.

 

[baywax]

I wonder why the motivation of such a person is important. It is like asking why people like ice cream. The main point is that the question won t go away, because the answer is never satisfactory.

You mean to ask "why is there a universe instead of no universe?"

A satisfactory answer is "because there is a universe".

 

[kant]

I think that in general - the motivations why questins are asked at all is a rather interesting part of it.

Could it be that questions are asked because of "the will to power" ?

Will this eventually be valid for all kind of questions and all kind of answers ?

Lets look at some of the stuff of Nietzsche as an example.

He says something like "God is dead" and so are all old "values", so there will be neaded new "values", new thinking etc.

Then there is this interesting little question direved from the first:

Why does Nietzche think that it is a problem that God is dead ? Does he think that there should be a God ? Why is is a problem for him at all that God is dead ?

Why does Nietzche think that there should be any values or any moral at all ?

Why does Nietzce think it is important or relevant to search for any meaning or any moral at all, and why does he se it as a point to design a new one ?

In general I think that the motive behind a question is an important part of the question.

In the case of Nietzche, when you analyze the logical structure in his arguments and try to read in the built in motivation behind the question, the philosophy of Fredrich Nietzche is a bit logical inconsistent.

Still, as I would see it, he is one of the very most important philosophers of our modern history. (And a key to understand our culture.)

If I should try to help Nietzche with some of his questions in "Ecche Homo",
"Why I am so wise, etc" I think I would say something like: "You mean why it is so important for you to feel wise, or to be looked at as wise ?"

It wouldn't be polite so I wouldn't say it, but I would think by myself: "Because you are among them who might like to performs smartness without wisdom".

A small divergence from the origal question, but still interesting I think.

Why ask question like this: "Why does anything exist than rather nothing". The motivation for asking the question at all will also be, as I would see it, a part of it.

I think this question is important in that it defines the limit of human understanding. It is said by paul davis( i think also wittgenstein) that the greatest mystery is the mystery of existence. I think this question expresses that idea. That is one possible motivation.

Another possible motivation i think might be to wonder if the causal structure of the world might be different, but that is another topic for another thread. This is perhaps my own motivation.

 

[kant]

You mean to ask "why is there a universe instead of no universe?"

A satisfactory answer is "because there is a universe".

You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating the question so that you might give the impression that you are being profound and deep.

 

[honestrosewater]

You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating it so that you give the impression to the other guy that you are being profound.

Tell us the rules that decide whether a proposition is an acceptable answer to the question then.

 

[baywax]

You are not really answering the question. All you are doing is begging the question, or by restating the question so that you might give the impression that you are being profound and deep.

No, that's what you're doing.

I am simply stating the obvious.

 

[kant]

Tell us the rules that decide whether a proposition is an acceptable answer to the question then.

Well, the way i see it. There is only two ways to reply.

1) the question is meaningless, because nothing is not a thing.

The question is meaningless because there is no answer, because any anwer would entail existial claims, but than such answer would be begging the question.


the question is meaningless because nothing is not something for all we know empirically exist, therefore, the question is meaningless.


2) The question is not answerable.

 

[Langbein]

You mean to ask "why is there a universe instead of no universe?"

A satisfactory answer is "because there is a universe".

But it is not that bad ! Who decides the rules for philosophic argumentation ?

If nature is our teacher of (rational) thinking and all human (rational) thinking reflects structures learned from nature, then a part of this "think training" has been to learn that there has allways been an universe.

Possibly its also like that without a universe there could be no life, and that to be allive will be to be to fullfill a role as "the creator of my world", so that the condition of a nonexistent will be meaningless.

 

[kant]

No, that's what you're doing.

I am simply stating the obvious.

I know you are stating the obvious, but i also know it is obvious to you only because you don t know.

 

[kant]

But it is not that bad ! Who decides the rules for philosophic argumentation ?

If nature is our teacher of (rational) thinking and all human (rational) thinking reflects structures learned from nature, then a part of this "think training" has been to learn that there has allways been an universe.

Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way. By induction, when we open our eyes, we always see a world, therefore, the world must exist. This is in fact not true, because it is not the case that there was always our physical space-time universe from what science tell us. You might "feel" that something is a priori true can be wrong.

Answering a question by restating the question does not solve anything. If you think this is right argumentation, then you are plain wrong.

Possibly its also like that without a universe there could be no life, and that to be allive will be to be to fullfill a role as "the creator of my world", so that the condition of a nonexistent will be meaningless.

You are pulling stuff , and ideas out of there context. The anthropic principle does not seek to answer the original question of this thread.

 

[Langbein]

"Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way."

I don't know allways what I'm saying, but what I actually believe is more something like the opposite. (Thinking will have to be learned from environment or "nature".)

 

[kant]

"Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way."

I don't know allways what I'm saying, but what I actually believe is more something like the opposite. (Thinking will have to be learned from environment or "nature".)[/QUOTE]

Whatever that means.

 

[baywax]

I know you are stating the obvious, but i also know it is obvious to you only because you don t know.

I "don't know" a lot of things. What is it that you know I don't know?

 

[baywax]

But it is not that bad ! Who decides the rules for philosophic argumentation ?

If nature is our teacher of (rational) thinking and all human (rational) thinking reflects structures learned from nature, then a part of this "think training" has been to learn that there has allways been an universe.

Possibly its also like that without a universe there could be no life, and that to be allive will be to be to fullfill a role as "the creator of my world", so that the condition of a nonexistent will be meaningless.

It's possible that we can learn without trying. We just open up our brains and the fact that our brain is part of the rest of nature means it already "knows" everything.

Its just that when it comes to communicating that knowledge we need to go to school or learn from people who know how to communicate knowledge.

When it comes to nonexistence, we can't really effectively communicate the condition because, as existing events, we are unable to experience a "non-event". In order to experience an "non-event" we have to "be" one (yet, "being" a non-event is impossible because "being" is about existing).

It is in this way that "nothing", by definition, does not exist.

 

[Moridin]

Why assume that 'nothing' is the default state and that 'something' must have been preceded by 'nothing'?

 

[kant]

I "don't know" a lot of things. What is it that you know I don't know?

frankly, i am bore talking to you. All you post so far has to be pin point some vague ideas.

 

[kant]

It's possible that we can learn without trying. We just open up our brains and the fact that our brain is part of the rest of nature means it already "knows" everything.

if anything, science tells us that our intuition is very fallable.

When it comes to nonexistence, we can't really effectively communicate the condition because, as existing events, we are unable to experience a "non-event".

are you saying we can t experience "nothing"? We can t experience jumping off a bridge, but i can imagine what would happen if some one do jump off a bridge. What is your point? The fact that we can t experience q doesn t imply that q does not exist. The word "experience" is itself vague.

In order to experience an "non-event" we have to "be" one (yet, "being" a non-event is impossible because "being" is about existing).

Be "one" with the universe?

 

[Langbein]

"Perhaps you are saying that our brain is high wired, a priori to think in a certain way."

I don't know allways what I'm saying, but what I actually believe is more something like the opposite.

Whatever that means.

This means standard basic learning theories, Piaget as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

 

[baywax]

frankly, i am bore talking to you. All you post so far has to be pin point some vague ideas.

That's a pretty vague statement in itself.

 

[kant]

This means standard basic learning theories, Piaget as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

That is smart of you. When i make a remark, you give me a link.

 

[kant]

That's a pretty vague statement in itself.

There is actually a golden rule, and one that i think you know very well. The rule is this. To trick people in believing that you are profound, is to actually say as little as possible.

 

[honestrosewater]

In what way do these seemingly snide remarks have anything to do with the topic or meet PF's standards? I like PF, and it makes me sad to see these things.

Is there any way that we could get back on topic (if there is one)?

 

[loseyourname]

Rosewater's right, guys. Clean it up and quit exchanging quips. It's obvious you all do have posts of value to contribute.

 

[baywax]

In what way do these seemingly snide remarks have anything to do with the topic or meet PF's standards? I like PF, and it makes me sad to see these things.

Is there any way that we could get back on topic (if there is one)?

Apologies to you honestrosewater and all. PF rocks

I'm answering the question as best I can under the curcumstances.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing?

It's a fundimental question that requires a fundimental answer.
The closest I've come with one is

• "because it does"

and

• "by its own (conceptual) nature, nothing does not exist "
(except as an abstract concept. It is arguable that "anything" exists only as an abstract concept as well but the question ascertains that one of the two conditions actually does exist ie: "anything".)

Edit; "anything" could also include "nothing". This would ensure that nothing exists (as contradictory as that sounds).

 

[kant]

• "because it does"

The problem i see with such answer is the utter useless nature in giving any insight to the question at all. Suppose a coin falls on a table with head facing toward you. When one ask why it is head? One can answer that it is head because it is head. It would tell us nothing at all. One could explain that there is as much chance for both head and tail, but it just so happens that it is a head at his trial. I think such explanation is much more meaningful.

• "by its own (conceptual) nature, nothing does not exist

What do you mean by "(conceptual) nature"? Surely, nothing is no a thing, but it does express an absense of a thing.

Let p be the statement that "the physical space-time observable universe exist".

There is not logical bases to favor p more than -p. We can answer by saying that the p is true no matter what, but what is your justification for that?

 

[baywax]

The problem i see with such answer is the utter useless nature in giving any insight to the question at all. Suppose a coin falls on a table with head facing toward you. When one ask why it is head? One can answer that it is head because it is head. It would tell us nothing at all. One could explain that there is as much chance for both head and tail, but it just so happens that it is a head at his trial. I think such explanation is much more meaningful.

What do you mean by "(conceptual) nature"? Surely, nothing is no a thing, but it does express an absense of a thing.

Exactly. "Nothing" is an expression of the absence of existence. There is no other way to express that other than conceptually. You can't show non-existence to exist other than by concept alone.
The OP does assume that "anything" exists and "nothing" does not. Perhaps whoever wrote it is wrong as is demonstrated in my 3rd answer which says "anything" can include "nothing" and therefore both "exist".

The basis of the question is "why does existence exist and not non-existence". But the answer becomes obvious in the meaning of the word "exist". Logically, non-existence does not exist because it is non-existent.

Let p be the statement that "the physical space-time observable universe exist".
There is not logical bases to favor p more than -p. We can answer by saying that the p is true no matter what, but what is your justification for that?

The question is not logical. This is because its asking why non-existence or "nothing" does not exist whereas "anything" or more precisely "existence" does. The answer is inherent in the question as I have already demonstrated a couple of times.

 

[kant]

which says "anything" can include "nothing" and therefore both "exist".

The notion of nothing is as you say "conceptual". That means the whole notion if nothing is depend on the existence of matter( something). Is this what you mean?

if so, then the corrallary is that if there is no matter, then nothing is a meaningless notion.

The basis of the question is "why does existence exist and not non-existence".

Do you mean why does existence exist, and non-existence do not exist?

Logically, non-existence does not exist because it is non-existent

It makes no sense. if the notion of non-existence is depended on the notion of existence( matter), and no the converse relationship. It makes no sense to me that any claim of non existence of matter is meaningful without the integration of something( matter) in the explanation.

If something existence, then nothing is a meaningful notion

let p= something existence, q = nothing is meaningful.

i claim that if p is false, then q is meaningless, because nothing is meaningless without the context of something ( matter).


Freakly, i don t really know why p is necessarily true

 

[honestrosewater]

Apologies to you honestrosewater and all. PF rocks

I don't understand the question as it's asked. If I see someone with a box and ask what's inside, and they reply that nothing is in the box, this makes perfect sense. And I can even ask why nothing is in the box and expect a sensible answer. I think the reason that there is possibly a sensible answer is that there exist things outside of the box, things that could provide some reason. (Some possible reasons: no one put anything in the box, someone took everything out of the box.) If there is nothing anywhere, what provides the reason for there being nothing?

Do you see what I mean? I could explain it more formally, but formality doesn't seem to go over well down here.

Or here is another question: where is this supposed reason?

You might be able to get away with not having to explain the context in which existence is distinguishable from nonexistence (or anything else), but if you also want to have something -- a reason is something -- then you need to say where it is and explain how things are setup so that you can have both nothing and a reason for things being that way.

 

[baywax]

I don't understand the question as it's asked. If I see someone with a box and ask what's inside, and they reply that nothing is in the box, this makes perfect sense. And I can even ask why nothing is in the box and expect a sensible answer. I think the reason that there is possibly a sensible answer is that there exist things outside of the box, things that could provide some reason. (Some possible reasons: no one put anything in the box, someone took everything out of the box.) If there is nothing anywhere, what provides the reason for there being nothing?

Do you see what I mean? I could explain it more formally, but formality doesn't seem to go over well down here.

Or here is another question: where is this supposed reason?

You might be able to get away with not having to explain the context in which existence is distinguishable from nonexistence (or anything else), but if you also want to have something -- a reason is something -- then you need to say where it is and explain how things are setup so that you can have both nothing and a reason for things being that way.

The box is full of air, pollen, dust, etc... you can't have a box "with nothing in it".

 

[honestrosewater]

The box is full of air, pollen, dust, etc... you can't have a box "with nothing in it".

Haha, how do you know? You are claiming that it's not possible to create a perfect vacuum? I was not making any claims about perfect vacuums. Since "nothing" wasn't explicitly defined to begin with, I was using it as it is already commonly used in normal conversation. English speakers can say that something contains nothing (or is empty) and be understood to mean simply that it is not the case that it contains anything worth noting. In this context, air is not worth noting. As part of the context, it is assumed to contain air.

(And, by the bye, if you want to dissect the language in that way, did you seriously mean that the box is full of those molecules, and perfectly full at that?)

I would love an explicit, precise definition of "nothing". The lack of such a definition is exactly what I think the main problem is. But I am starting to feel like a broken record asking people for definitions.

Anyway, I actually meant it as a thought experiment. I didn't have a real-world interpretation in mind. I don't think that complication is necessary. Perhaps the moral of the story is simply this: a reason is something.

 

[baywax]

Haha, how do you know? You are claiming that it's not possible to create a perfect vacuum? I was not making any claims about perfect vacuums. Since "nothing" wasn't explicitly defined to begin with, I was using it as it is already commonly used in normal conversation. English speakers can say that something contains nothing (or is empty) and be understood to mean simply that it is not the case that it contains anything worth noting. In this context, air is not worth noting. As part of the context, it is assumed to contain air.

(And, by the bye, if you want to dissect the language in that way, did you seriously mean that the box is full of those molecules, and perfectly full at that?)

I would love an explicit, precise definition of "nothing". The lack of such a definition is exactly what I think the main problem is. But I am starting to feel like a broken record asking people for definitions.

Anyway, I actually meant it as a thought experiment. I didn't have a real-world interpretation in mind. I don't think that complication is necessary.

I see, so, in common language you asked why does anything exist and not nothing.

This is certainly not a common question to begin with. A common answer might be that "they do both exist" under in terms of common language.

My personal exclaimation mark is the realization that nothing does not exist simply because that's what it implies.

Nothing describes the lack of a thing. As common language goes, a "thing" can be any concept, object, feeling (as in I've got this "thing" for ice cream).

Since "nothing" is a concept that describes a state of no thing being present, it quantifiably exists in this manner.

In neurological terms, "nothing" exists as a specific electromagnetic wave that's exciting a few neurons. But, this is only defined by physiological terms or "thingyological" existence.

You may be referring to the Chinese philosophy that points out the empty glass, the full glass and the half full/empty glass and our attitude toward the condition. Is it half empty or half full?

Could the glass be full without emptiness?
Could the glass be empty without fullness?

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I am saying that if the "nothingness" that the original question refers to is meant to be absolute in some way (which is another confusing concept), then it defeats itself in asking for a reason, since a reason is something and contradicts the presumption of absolute nothingness.

To paraphrase one interpretation of the original question: why is absolute nothingness not the case? Answer: if you assume that there is a reason for the way that things are, absolute nothingness is not an option. It is logically impossible. If nothing exists, then no reasons exist either. So assuming that there is a reason leaves "something" as the only option (as others have already said).

But (as others have already asked) why assume that there is a reason? And, as I asked before, what kind of reason might this be? Is this a first-mover question? Are you assuming that there is something outside of the observable universe, so that it possibly could be empty?

 

[baywax]

I am saying that if the "nothingness" that the original question refers to is meant to be absolute in some way (which is another confusing concept), then it defeats itself in asking for a reason, since a reason is something and contradicts the presumption of absolute nothingness.

That's almost what I realized except I stopped at the idea that nothing, by definition, does not exist in the first place.

To paraphrase one interpretation of the original question: why is absolute nothingness not the case? Answer: if you assume that there is a reason for the way that things are, absolute nothingness is not an option. It is logically impossible. If nothing exists, then no reasons exist either. So assuming that there is a reason leaves "something" as the only option (as others have already said).

By looking at the Zen(ish) way of seeing empty and full as compliments one has to arrive at the conclusion that both something and nothing need each other to be realized through comparitive analysis (and brain activity).

But (as others have already asked) why assume that there is a reason? And, as I asked before, what kind of reason might this be? Is this a first-mover question? Are you assuming that there is something outside of the observable universe, so that it possibly could be empty?

I am saying that, according to complimentary princibles, emptiness can only be emptiness when compared to fullness and fullness only fullness when its compared to emptiness. Therefore, conceptually, both everything and nothing must exist (edit; at least conceptually) to complete our perception of the universe.

 

[paledim]

i haven't had time to read through all the posts about this subject, but taking form the original question, in my opinion, since know one knows the answer or will ever know the answer, unless we were there at the creation of the fabric of the universe.

abstractly, in simple terms, the concept of nothing is something. a null value in a computer system is something, it holds a palce value. so if, say, at one point in time in the universe, there was nothingness, well, it basically contradicted itself. the 'why' question is impossible to answer. because matter etc... does not require a motive for its existence. but if 'nothing' had a motive, it would be because it's jealous of whatever might come after. and if 'something' has a motive, it is obviously to give something for free and unconditionally, because let's face it, its kinda hard to pay back the universe, "so how will you be paying?", "is mastercard ok?", "sure, just swipe it facing the 8th moon of saturn."

lol, don't know. all i can think of, as corny as it is, the motive of something is love.

ciao

 

[kant]

If we start with the absolute postulate of nothing; i don t see how we can get anywhere. A mathematical model of nothing would be a blank piece of paper. There is simply nothing. No space-time, matter or energy. I don t see how a mathematical model of a physical universe can pop into being on the blank piece of paper

 

[kant]

I am saying that, according to complimentary princibles, emptiness can only be emptiness when compared to fullness and fullness only fullness when its compared to emptiness. Therefore, conceptually, both everything and nothing must exist (edit; at least conceptually) to complete our perception of the universe

You keep on saying that nothing is complement to something, but is not true. There is no absolute nothing. Even in the most empties region of space, there are fields. It seems to be me that we are at the liberty to doubt that nothing even exist within our space-time universe.

 

[baywax]

It seems to be me that we are at the liberty to doubt that nothing even exist within our space-time universe.

You seem to doubt your conviction. You are "at liberty to doubt" anything you want. But what do you believe? Does "nothing" exist? Can it exist at the same time as everything? Would you recognize the concept of "nothing" if you had never known "something"? Would you recognize fullness or emptiness without either? Do either anything or nothing exist without a brain being present?

 

[kant]

You seem to doubt your conviction. You are "at liberty to doubt" anything you want. But what do you believe? Does "nothing" exist? Can it exist at the same time as everything? Would you recognize the concept of "nothing" if you had never known "something"? Would you recognize fullness or emptiness without either? Do either anything or nothing exist without a brain being present?

I don t really try to answer the question, because it is not very interesting. For me, i try to think in terms of a mathematical model of nothing. The simpliest possible model would be one without space-time, or laws of nature as it basic postulates. what logical conclusion can one draw? nothing. nothing in the sense that we don t know what to do or think since i content that no one knows what this all mean.

 

[baywax]

I don t really try to answer the question, because it is not very interesting. For me, i try to think in terms of a mathematical model of nothing. The simpliest possible model would be one without space-time, or laws of nature as it basic postulates. what logical conclusion can one draw? nothing. nothing in the sense that we don t know what to do or think since i content that no one knows what this all mean.

Agreed! Not very interesting.

 

[kant]

Agreed! Not very interesting.

Not so fast. Obviously, if we start with a mathematical model of nothing. The a priori postulate in such model is that it is void of space-time, matter, energy, real numbers, and the laws of nature. The mathematical model would be in some sense a blank piece of paper. I am interested in the causal( or perhaps something else) relationship between such blank state model v.s a mathematical model of our physically self-contained universe. In such case, i am not really taking about nothing or something.