The paradox of nothingness

Suppose that nothing exists rather than something as per Occam’s Razor. Why should something begin to exist rather than staying in the, prima facie, current logically parsimonious state of nothingness? Let’s tackle this by means of deductive logic.

1. Nothingness is a concept (self-evident)
2. Concepts can be contemplated (self-evident)
3. Therefore, nothingness can be contemplated (inference, from 1 and 2)
4. Nothing cannot be contemplated (definition)
5. Therefore, nothingness is not nothing (inference, from 3 and 4)
6. Thus, something must exist rather than nothing (excluded middle, from 5)

So we can see that there is no such state in which nothing exists. In fact, the very statement nothing exists is illogical. This begs the question, what is the something which first exists?

To see or not to see

Playing in the sandbox

Sandbox universes: surely most children have tinkered around in their own mental universe. I’ve done this many times myself. One such type of sandbox universe is, what I call, the blanka rosa universe. It’s a universe with nothing in it. There are many reasons that we think about this kind of thing, but the question that ties these questions together is “What is nothing like?”. So, we attempt to imagine nothingness. Really though, the blanka rosa universe concept is changed inversely according to the concept of substance, for nothing is the antithesis of substance.