Ethan, you write as if there is a total vacuum in the ''nothingness'' you describe. You could not be further from the truth regarding this ''nothingness''
Since only about 5%+- of the ''weight'' of the Universe is describable to humans as either matter or energy, then it is certain, not inconceivable, that the remaining 95%+- of the weight of the Universe is occupied by ''something'', that humankind does not have the scientific instruments and/or has not developed the kinds of scientific experiments which would provide appropriate answers.
It is not for lack of trying, though.
What exists in the Universe which, until currently, have not been discovered or described are what I call ''energenities'', particle/wave-type entities which operate at faster-than-the-speed-of light speeds, maybe even instantaneously [which is much faster than the speed of light, on par with the instantaneity of entanglement between particle/waves which have been discerned by humankind].
These ''energenities'' could easily stand in for the Dark Matter/Dark Energy that scientists currently are using to describe the remaining 95%+- of the ''weight of the Universe.
These ''energenities'' are essentially data nodes, passing data along their nodal networks to the points where the information is needed to create new or revised entities which are discernable by humankind, oh, and all other living entities too.
Imagine then, an incredibly massive and interconnected nodal network, operating at the speed of light, or faster, which can instantaneously manufacture anything and everything that humans, and all other living entities, see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and intuit regarding the processes observed within the Universe.
I read quite a number of your articles and I find that each one only deals with humanly discernable particle/waves, all seeming to only be travelling through the Universe at lower than the speed of light, and never speculates, at least in my not totally comprehensive study of your articles, on particle/waves which might, just might, exist at speeds not discernable by any equipment developed by humans.
I’d agree, IF the definition of “God” were the unknown. The, as of yet, human intelligence capabilities to conceptually describe that “unknown” into either scientific properties, or possibilities. Until such time as mankind can use rigorous science to scientifically prove the “unknown”, be it the origins of humans or the existence of a supreme being, the jury is out. But our fellow humans most brilliant minds, continue to search for these, and other answers tirelessly. My sentiment is we’ll likely strive unsuccessfully. Not because the answer lies in mysticism. But because for as intellectually adroit a species we are among known species, the physical world is simply too complex for us to solve. Progress, yes. Final enlightened solution, doubtful. Godspeed.
This is where I come to stretch my mind. Thank you. My brain is gobbling energy and radiating entropy trying to keep up. That whole process happens locally in my little office on this speck of wet dust. Why would we imagine we can answer such questions?
I am guessing this 'why something rather than nothing' idea is one of the unanswerable questions. Unanswerable because answers are abstractions ignoring what seems irrelevant (almost everything), constructed of nested metaphors and plausible stories built on other stories, and more precise language refined from less precise poetry.
Rereading the list of cognitive biases grounds me in my ignorance.
As always, your acumen and insights are informative, entertaining, plainly understood and greatly appreciated, Ethan! On your podcast (and I listen to many astronomy, physics, and cosmology ones), your guests' audio is often too low to hear compelling me to stop and go elsewhere. Can you have someone investigate and correct? Thanks, and happy holidays!
So where did life come from? Stephen C. Meyer, in his book "Signature In The Cell" states that the odds of a single DNA molecule self-assembling...say one containing 300 amino acids (whereas a complicated DNA molecule might contain 1500!) as a result of random chance outweighs the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. This means that if every planet in the universe was trying its best to generate THE SIMPLEST DNA MOLECULE it would never happen. The only explanation for this is a Creator God.
Simple! If nothing existed you could not ask this question. Therefore, obviously, the universe and all that is in it exists so that we can ask this question.
12-24-25
Ethan, you write as if there is a total vacuum in the ''nothingness'' you describe. You could not be further from the truth regarding this ''nothingness''
Since only about 5%+- of the ''weight'' of the Universe is describable to humans as either matter or energy, then it is certain, not inconceivable, that the remaining 95%+- of the weight of the Universe is occupied by ''something'', that humankind does not have the scientific instruments and/or has not developed the kinds of scientific experiments which would provide appropriate answers.
It is not for lack of trying, though.
What exists in the Universe which, until currently, have not been discovered or described are what I call ''energenities'', particle/wave-type entities which operate at faster-than-the-speed-of light speeds, maybe even instantaneously [which is much faster than the speed of light, on par with the instantaneity of entanglement between particle/waves which have been discerned by humankind].
These ''energenities'' could easily stand in for the Dark Matter/Dark Energy that scientists currently are using to describe the remaining 95%+- of the ''weight of the Universe.
These ''energenities'' are essentially data nodes, passing data along their nodal networks to the points where the information is needed to create new or revised entities which are discernable by humankind, oh, and all other living entities too.
Imagine then, an incredibly massive and interconnected nodal network, operating at the speed of light, or faster, which can instantaneously manufacture anything and everything that humans, and all other living entities, see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and intuit regarding the processes observed within the Universe.
I read quite a number of your articles and I find that each one only deals with humanly discernable particle/waves, all seeming to only be travelling through the Universe at lower than the speed of light, and never speculates, at least in my not totally comprehensive study of your articles, on particle/waves which might, just might, exist at speeds not discernable by any equipment developed by humans.
Stephen Kirby
12-24-2025 11:34 am pst
© 2025 Stephen Kirby. All rights reserved
I find "Nothing" to be an odd word. It means many different things depending upon the context.
Mathematically it simply represents the contents of the empty set but still the empty set itself exists.
If I have an empty cardboard box and ask what's inside it, I will get the reply "Nothing" even though there is air and space inside it.
"Nothing" can not exist, therefore there must be "Something" rather than nothing.
I’d agree, IF the definition of “God” were the unknown. The, as of yet, human intelligence capabilities to conceptually describe that “unknown” into either scientific properties, or possibilities. Until such time as mankind can use rigorous science to scientifically prove the “unknown”, be it the origins of humans or the existence of a supreme being, the jury is out. But our fellow humans most brilliant minds, continue to search for these, and other answers tirelessly. My sentiment is we’ll likely strive unsuccessfully. Not because the answer lies in mysticism. But because for as intellectually adroit a species we are among known species, the physical world is simply too complex for us to solve. Progress, yes. Final enlightened solution, doubtful. Godspeed.
This is where I come to stretch my mind. Thank you. My brain is gobbling energy and radiating entropy trying to keep up. That whole process happens locally in my little office on this speck of wet dust. Why would we imagine we can answer such questions?
I am guessing this 'why something rather than nothing' idea is one of the unanswerable questions. Unanswerable because answers are abstractions ignoring what seems irrelevant (almost everything), constructed of nested metaphors and plausible stories built on other stories, and more precise language refined from less precise poetry.
Rereading the list of cognitive biases grounds me in my ignorance.
Yet thinking is good exercise.
Wonderful incisive and informative article. Thank you
As always, your acumen and insights are informative, entertaining, plainly understood and greatly appreciated, Ethan! On your podcast (and I listen to many astronomy, physics, and cosmology ones), your guests' audio is often too low to hear compelling me to stop and go elsewhere. Can you have someone investigate and correct? Thanks, and happy holidays!
IMO, THE ONLY VALID QUESTION IS:
WHY ASK WHY?
GET A GRIP!! WHAT IS SIMPLY IS!!
REALITY-->THAT'S A-L-L...
END. OF. STORY!!
So where did life come from? Stephen C. Meyer, in his book "Signature In The Cell" states that the odds of a single DNA molecule self-assembling...say one containing 300 amino acids (whereas a complicated DNA molecule might contain 1500!) as a result of random chance outweighs the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. This means that if every planet in the universe was trying its best to generate THE SIMPLEST DNA MOLECULE it would never happen. The only explanation for this is a Creator God.
in the beginning was the Word.
Simple! If nothing existed you could not ask this question. Therefore, obviously, the universe and all that is in it exists so that we can ask this question.