I love the end of it, just a big circle of random static noise. Looking at stuff like this always brings up the question of why does anything exist at all?
The counterpoint to that thought is why we should think non-existence is even possible. There doesn't seem to be any indication that nothing could exist other than our capacity to imagine it being so.
It's what's so annoying with people arguing about "something from nothing."
Even a vacuum has zero point energy. The idea that there could even be 'nothing' at any point in time is arguably a bigger leap of faith than the notion of some deity for whose sake it is being argued as a presupposition.
"Something from nothing" is a flawed argument, I agree. It's just like saying everything came from , because 'nothing' doesn't represent anything at all.
However, the idea that "'nothing' is impossible" still doesn't make sense to me. If the reality allows for infinite possibilities then one of the possibilities must be of 'nothingness'. This is what Buddhists argue, that reality is śūnya or 0/null/void, and that we exist only momentarily in this nothingness somehow but you can see how that argument is flawed too.
Then comes sāṁkhya that says there are 2 entities: The observer and the thing which is being observed. The observer (individual consciousness or puruṣa) is eternal, has no point of origin and no end. Similarly, prakṛti or nature also exists at the same time because the observer needs an observation but prakṛti's nature is to change all the time, it manifests and unmanifests (just like our bodies or everything else in this universe made of dead matter). However, even though prakṛti keeps this constant of change, the observer or puruṣa himself is unchanging (just like how our bodies and every single cell in it keep changing but the sense of 'I' remains the same somehow). On top of that, it says the prakṛti and puruṣa are mutually exclusive. They do not mix like oil and water but remain in contact at the same time, just like how we have material bodies that keep changing but the 'I' or the observer inside it is not made of prakṛti and hence remains detached from it. It is only the false-ego (or false-'I') of puruṣa that forces it to identify itself with prakṛti (like I'm a male, I have this job, this is my family, I have this body and face, etc.).
The issue is that even in your framing “…’nothing’ at any point in time…” is at odds with the Big Bang theory which says time had a beginning. How do you conceive what was there ‘before’ the universe came to existence? (In the absence of matter, space, time and energy)
It doesn't matter which 'serious issues' exist, no one has any explanation for why the future points to a high entropy version while the past point to a low entropy version. You can have issue with any particular issue of the big bang theory, but no matter what you put forth you have to answer the very hard question of 'why was entropy low', being that we know of no way in our current universe to reset entropy.
People don't spend much time on those theories because they are inherently of little practical consequence. What includes that they are also not clearly testable.
Even physics has limits because our physical reality and approach has limits. Not everything can be a controlled experiment, especially things that are way beyond what our senses allow.
So in the end, everybody's theory holds 'almost' the same weight. We're all clueless, yay!
What kind of answer could even possibly answer that question?
Any answer is subject to the follow-up question, well why does that thing exist? Why did that happen?
If a question cannot be answered, there's no point in asking it I think.
Other questions about the physical laws governing the big bang or inflation or black holes can be answered, although they might be very difficult to answer.
The question is the launch off point for exploration. Just because a question is philosophical in nature does not mean it cannot be answered or that there’s no point in asking.
I believe it's valuable to think of this question in terms of how our physical reality really can't answer it. It's a tacit acknowledgement that the rules of the physical world we exist in are not universal; We live with causality, but for existence to begin it must not be a universal requirement.
Eastern philosophy understood it quite early, you can only go so far with cause and effect.
Brahman, Prime mover, are great explanations as to why there must be a causeless entity, something that is not ruled by material nature in order to be the causeless source of it. The cause of all causes that is causeless itself.
It can certainly answer it, but whether it can answer it accurately is another matter.
To make it even trickier: it isn't only religious people who are affected by faith, though clever word play, cultural norms, etc can make it appear otherwise.
The moment we ask why, it has to have a reason. However Vedānta for example, would argue that brahman or the entity that is the cause of all causes, is causeless in itself. There can be no other explanation.
If something has a cause then it's ruled by cause and effect. If something is causeless, it not only does not need a reason to exist but is also the entity that puts forth cause and effect in motion. Kinda similar to Aristotle's concept of the prime mover.
This particular question cannot be answered definitively because any answer is subject to the same question - why does that thing exist rather than nothing?
