View source for Why there is anything at all

{{short description|Metaphysical question}}
[[Image:Sanzio 01 Parmenides.jpg|thumb|upright|This question has been written about by philosophers since at least the ancient Parmenides (c. 515 BC)<ref>{{cite web|title=Poem of Parmenides : on nature|url=http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenidesunicode.htm|website=philoctetes.free.fr|access-date=2 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Parmenides|url=https://www.worldhistory.org/Parmenides/|website=World History Encyclopedia|access-date=2 May 2017}}</ref>]]

"'''Why is there anything at all?'''" or "'''why is there something rather than nothing?'''" is a question about the reason for basic [[Philosophy:Existence|existence]] which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including [[Biography:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]],<ref>[https://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor00leibuoft "Principles of Nature and Grace"], 1714, [https://archive.org/stream/philosophicalwor00leibuoft#page/212/mode/2up/search/209 Article 7].</ref> [[Biography:Ludwig Wittgenstein|Ludwig Wittgenstein]],<ref>[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf "Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is"], ''[[Philosophy:Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus|Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]]'' 6.44</ref> and [[Biography:Martin Heidegger|Martin Heidegger]],<ref>"Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing? That is the question." What is Metaphysics? (1929), p. 110, Heidegger.</ref> who called it "the fundamental question of [[Philosophy:Metaphysics|metaphysics]]".<ref>Martin Heidegger, ''Introduction to Metaphysics'', Yale University Press, New Haven and London (1959), pp. 7–8.</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Fundamental Question|url=https://www.hedweb.com/witherall/existence.htm|website=www.hedweb.com|access-date=26 April 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Geier|first1=Manfred|title=Wittgenstein und Heidegger: Die letzten Philosophen|publisher=Rowohlt Verlag|isbn=978-3644045118|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JUiFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PP166|page=166|language=de|date=2017}}</ref>

==Introductory points==

===There is something===
No experiment could support the hypothesis 'There is nothing' because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.<ref name="auto1">{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/nothingness/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first=Roy|last=Sorensen|chapter=Nothingness |editor-first1=Edward N.|editor-last1=Zalta|editor-first2=Uri|editor-last2=Nodelman|date=November 28, 2023|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

===Defining the question===
The question is usually taken as concerning practical causality (rather than a moral reason for), and posed totally and comprehensively, rather than concerning the existence of anything specific, such as the universe or [[Physics:Multiverse|multiverse]], the [[Astronomy:Big Bang|Big Bang]], [[Religion:God|God]], [[Mathematics|mathematical]] and [[Physical law|physical law]]s, [[Time|time]] or [[Philosophy:Consciousness|consciousness]]. It can be seen as an open metaphysical question, rather than a search for an exact answer.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Metaphysics special: Why is there something rather than nothing?|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130890-400-metaphysics-special-why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/|magazine=New Scientist|access-date=26 April 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last1=Sorensen|first1=Roy|title=Nothingness|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=26 April 2017|date= 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Dascal|first1=Marcelo|title=Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist?|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1402086687|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Da_oP3sJs1oC&pg=PA452|page=452|language=en|date=2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Goldschmidt|first1=Tyron|title=The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1136249228|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3XDMAgAAQBAJ|language=en|date=2014}}</ref> 
[[File:Monad.svg|thumb|The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being and the metaphysical life, the [[Philosophy:Monad|Monad]] or the Absolute.]]

===On timescales===
The question does not include the timing of when anything came to exist.

Some have suggested the possibility of an [[Infinite regress|infinite regress]], where, if an entity can't come from [[Philosophy:Nothing|nothing]] and this concept is [[Mutual exclusivity|mutually exclusive]] from ''something'', there must have always been ''something'' that caused the previous effect, with this causal chain (either [[Determinism|deterministic]] or [[Probabilistic causation|probabilistic]]) extending infinitely back in [[Time|time]].<ref>{{Citation |last=Brown |first=Patterson |title=Infinite Causal Regression |date=1969 |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15356-5_9 |work=Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays |pages=214–236 |editor-last=Kenny |editor-first=Anthony |access-date=2023-10-22 |series=Modern Studies in Philosophy |place=London |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-349-15356-5_9 |isbn=978-1-349-15356-5}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Cameron |first=Ross |title=Infinite Regress Arguments |date=2022 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/infinite-regress/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-10-22 |edition=Fall 2022 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brown |first=Patterson |date=1966 |title=Infinite Causal Regression |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183226 |journal=The Philosophical Review |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=510–525 |doi=10.2307/2183226 |jstor=2183226 |issn=0031-8108}}</ref>

==Arguments against attempting to answer the question==

===The question is outside our experience===
Philosopher [[Biography:Stephen Law|Stephen Law]] has said the question may not need answering, as it is attempting to answer a question that is outside a [[Spatial–temporal reasoning|spatio-temporal]] setting, from within a spatio-temporal setting. He compares the question to asking "what is north of the [[Earth:North Pole|North Pole]]?"<ref>{{Cite web |title=WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL? (PART 3) |url=https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-there-anything-all-part-3#video-2595 |website=Closer to Truth}}</ref>

===Causation may not apply===
The ancient Greek philosopher [[Biography:Aristotle|Aristotle]] argued that everything in the universe must have a cause, culminating in an ultimate uncaused cause. (See [[Philosophy:Four causes|Four causes]])

However [[Biography:David Hume|David Hume]] argued that a cause may not be necessary in the case of the formation of the universe. Whilst we demand that everything have a cause because of our experience of the [[Philosophy:Metaphysical necessity|necessity]] of causes, the formation of the universe is outside our experience and may be subject to different rules.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gutting|first1=Gary|title=Talking God: Philosophers on Belief|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|isbn=978-0393352825|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O96aCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT55|language=en|date=2016}}{{page needed|date=December 2017}}</ref><ref>
[[Biography:David Hume|David Hume]] argues that our demand that things have causes "is not from knowledge or any scientific reasoning," but from "observation and experience". Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, Part III, Section III, "Why a cause is always necessary", p. 82. It may be that what we observe in our own experience may not apply in some other situations.</ref>

===The brute fact approach===
In philosophy the [[Philosophy:Brute fact|brute fact]] approach proposes that some facts cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more "fundamental" fact.<ref>Ludwig Fahrbach. "Understanding brute facts," ''Synthese'' 145 (3):449 - 466 (2005).</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/facts/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first1=Kevin|last1=Mulligan|first2=Fabrice|last2=Correia|chapter=Facts |editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|date=November 28, 2021|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>
It is in opposition to the [[Philosophy:Principle of sufficient reason|principle of sufficient reason]] approach.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/sufficient-reason/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first1=Yitzhak Y.|last1=Melamed|first2=Martin|last2=Lin|chapter=Principle of Sufficient Reason |editor-first1=Edward N.|editor-last1=Zalta|editor-first2=Uri|editor-last2=Nodelman|date=November 28, 2023|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

On this question [[Biography:Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell]] took a brute fact position when he said, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://strangenotions.com/5-reasons-why-the-universe-cant-be-merely-a-brute-fact/|title=5 Reasons Why the Universe Can't Be Merely a Brute Fact : Strange Notions|date=12 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm|title=Transcript of the Russell/Copleston radio debate |work=Philosophy of Religion }}</ref> Sean Carroll similarly concluded that "any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."<ref name="auto">{{Cite arXiv|last=Carroll|first=Sean M.|date=2018-02-06|title=Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?|class=physics.hist-ph|eprint=1802.02231v2|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Holt" />{{rp|25}}

===The question may be impossible to answer===
Roy Sorensen has discussed that the question may have an impossible explanatory demand, if there are no existential premises.<ref> Sorensen writes in the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'' that to many philosophers the question is intrinsically impossible to answer, like [[Squaring the circle|squaring a circle]], and even God does not sufficiently answer it: 
 
{{Blockquote| "To explain why something exists, we standardly appeal to the existence of something else... For instance, if we answer 'There is something because the Universal Designer wanted there to be something', then our explanation takes for granted the existence of the Universal Designer. Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Universal Designer as a starting point. If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible. Some philosophers conclude 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is unanswerable. They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely, 'Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises'. Logicians should feel no more ashamed of their inability to perform this deduction than geometers should feel ashamed at being unable to square the circle."}} {{cite web |last1=Sorensen |first1=Roy |title=Nothingness |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#TheExpFraForQue |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford |access-date=20 April 2019}}</ref>

==Explanations==

===Something may exist necessarily===

Philosopher [[Biography:Brian Leftow|Brian Leftow]] has argued that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause) or a [[Philosophy:Contingency|contingent]] explanation (as the factors giving the contingency must pre-exist), and that if there is an answer it must be something that exists necessarily (i.e., something that just exists, rather than is caused).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-there-something-rather-nothing|title=Brian Leftow – Closer To Truth}}</ref>

====Natural laws may necessarily exist, and may enable the emergence of matter====

Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-there-something-rather-nothing|title=Dean Rickles – Closer To Truth}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-there-something-rather-nothing|title=Michael Kuhn (to Christopher Ishaam) – Closer To Truth}}</ref> If we accept that [[Philosophy:Logicism|mathematics is an extension of logic]], as philosophers such as [[Biography:Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell]] and [[Biography:Alfred North Whitehead|Alfred North Whitehead]] did, then mathematical structures like [[Number|numbers]] and [[Geometric shape|shapes]] must be ''[[Logical truth|necessarily true propositions]]'' in all [[Philosophy:Possible world|possible worlds]].<ref>{{Citation |last=Tennant |first=Neil |title=Logicism and Neologicism |date=2017 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/logicism/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-10-22 |edition=Winter 2017 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Logicism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/logicism/v-1 |access-date=2023-10-22 |website=www.rep.routledge.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>Physicist [[Biography:Max Tegmark|Max Tegmark]]'s speculative [[Physics:Mathematical universe hypothesis|mathematical universe hypothesis]] states that all mathematical structures exist physically, and the physical universe is one of these structures. {{Cite journal |arxiv = 0704.0646|doi = 10.1007/s10701-007-9186-9|title = The Mathematical Universe|year = 2008|last1 = Tegmark|first1 = Max|journal = Foundations of Physics|volume = 38|issue = 2|pages = 101–150|bibcode = 2008FoPh...38..101T|s2cid = 9890455}}</ref>

Physicists such as [[Biography:Stephen Hawking|Stephen Hawking]] and [[Biography:Lawrence Krauss|Lawrence Krauss]] have offered explanations (of at least the first particle coming into existence aspect of [[Astronomy:Cosmogony|cosmogony]]) that rely on [[Physics:Quantum mechanics|quantum mechanics]], saying that in a quantum vacuum state, virtual particles and [[Astronomy:Quantum foam|spacetime bubbles]] will spontaneously come into existence. <ref>Theories of the events at the earliest stages of universes existence continue to develop, including the big bang, [[Astronomy:Initial singularity|initial singularity]], big bounce and associated possible distortions of cessations of time. {{Cite web|url=https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/what-was-before-big-bang|title=What was there before the Big Bang?|website=www.skyatnightmagazine.com}}</ref>

====A necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself====
[[Biography:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] attributed to [[Religion:God|God]] as being the necessary [[Philosophy:Principle of sufficient reason|sufficient reason]] for everything that exists (see: [[Philosophy:Cosmological argument|Cosmological argument]]). He wrote:<blockquote>"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason... is found in a substance which... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."<ref>''Monadologie'' (1714). [[Biography:Nicholas Rescher|Nicholas Rescher]], trans., 1991. ''The Monadology: An Edition for Students''. Uni. of Pittsburgh Press. [http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmon.pdf Jonathan Bennett's translation.] [http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm Latta's translation.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117200947/http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm|date=2015-11-17}}</ref></blockquote>

===A state of nothing may be impossible===
The pre-Socratic philosopher [[Biography:Parmenides|Parmenides]] was one of the first [[Philosophy:Western philosophy|Western thinkers]] to question the possibility of nothing, and commentary on this has continued.<ref name="auto1"/> Some have argued that by definition, nothingness is the absence of any [[Philosophy:Potentiality and actuality|property or possibility]], thus it would be a [[Contradiction|logical contradiction]] for something to be created from the lack of [[Philosophy:Possible world|possibility]] of creation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Nothingness {{!}} philosophy {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/nothingness |access-date=2023-10-22 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Parmenides - Nothing comes from nothing |url=https://www.parmenides.me/nothing-comes-from-nothing |access-date=2023-10-22 |website=www.parmenides.me |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Sorensen |first=Roy |title=Nothingness |date=2023 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/nothingness/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-10-22 |edition=Spring 2023 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref><ref>Roy Sorensen has argued that curiosity about the impossibility of nothingness is valid, even if it is the case. He has said that curiosity is possible "even when the proposition is known to be a necessary truth." For instance, a "''[[Philosophy:Reductio ad absurdum|reductio ad absurdum]]'' proof that 1 − 1/3 + 1/5 − 1/7 + … converges to [[Pi|π/4]]" demonstrates that not converging to π/4 is impossible. However, it provides no insight into ''why'' not converging to π/4 is impossible. Similarly, it's legitimate to ask why non-existence or "nothingness" is impossible, even if that is the case. {{cite encyclopedia |title=Nothingness |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/nothingness/ |access-date=2020-09-07 |last=Sorensen |first=Roy |date=2020 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Spring 2020}}</ref><ref>Bede Rundle ({{cite news|last1=Kanterian|first1=Edward|title=Bede Rundle obituary|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/31/bede-rundle|work=The Guardian|date=31 October 2011}}) and others have questioned whether [[Philosophy:Nothing|nothing]] is an impossibility, but in the context of there already being an existence, such as God."{{cite web |title=Bede Rundle |url=https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-there-something-rather-nothing |website=Closer to Truth |access-date=16 December 2019 |format=Video}} {{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2013/05/14/why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/|title=Why there's something rather than nothing|newspaper=Washington Post}} {{Cite web|url=https://www.closertotruth.com/articles/levels-nothing-robert-lawrence-kuhn|title=Levels of Nothing by Robert Lawrence Kuhn – Closer To Truth}}</ref>

===A state of nothing may be unstable===
Nobel Laureate [[Biography:Frank Wilczek|Frank Wilczek]] is credited with the aphorism that "nothing is unstable." Physicist [[Biography:Sean M. Carroll|Sean Carroll]] argues that this accounts merely for the existence of matter, but not the existence of [[Physics:Quantum state|quantum state]]s, [[Physics:Space-time|space-time]], or the universe as a whole.<ref name="auto"/><ref name="Holt" />{{rp|25}}

===Other explanations ===
[[Biography:Robert Nozick|Robert Nozick]] proposed some possible explanations.<ref>Nozick outlined several possible answers to the question:{{cite book |title=Philosophical Explanations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&pg=PA115|last=Nozick|first=Robert|publisher=Harvard University Press|language=en|date=1981|access-date=2022-06-07|isbn=978-0-674-66479-1}} 

# ''Self-Subsumption'': "a law that applies to itself, and hence explains its own truth."
# ''The Nothingness Force'': "the nothingness force acts on itself, it sucks nothingness into nothingness and produces something."
"Imagine this force as a vacuum force, sucking things into nonexistence
or keeping them there. If this force acts upon itself,
it sucks nothingness into nothingness, producing something or,
perhaps, everything, every possibility. If we introduced the verb
“to nothing” to denote what this nothingness force does to
things as it makes or keeps them nonexistent, then (we would
say) the nothingness nothings itself."
Philosophical Explanations,
Robert Nozick
# ''[[Principle of indifference|The Principle of Indifference]]'': establishes that nothing is a possibility among the n possibilities of having something. Then "the probability that there is something is n/(n +1) if n is finite and 1 if n is infinite."
# ''Fecundity'': "Every possibility—including the possibility that there is nothing—exists in its own independent noninteracting realm."

Also discussed here; {{cite journal|last=Berker|date=February 28, 2019|first=Selim|periodical=Harvard University|title=Phil. 169: Nozick's Philosophical Explanations. Meeting 4: Chapter 2 (Nozick on Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing)|url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sberker/files/phil169-meeting4.pdf}}<!-- auto-translated by Module:CS1 translator --></ref>

==Humour==
Philosophical wit [[Biography:Sidney Morgenbesser|Sidney Morgenbesser]] answered the question with an apothegm: "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining!",<ref>''There are two errors in the {{not a typo|the}} title of this book: A sourcebook of philosophical puzzles, paradoxes and problems'', Robert M. Martin, p. 4, {{ISBN|1-55111-493-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Goldstein |first1=Rebecca |title=36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction |year=2011 |publisher=Vintage Contemporaries |isbn=978-0307456717 |page=349 |quote= The Cosmological Argument, like The Argument from the Big Bang and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, is an expression of our cosmic befuddlement at the question, why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher [[Biography:Sidney Morgenbesser|Sidney Morgenbesser]] had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"}}</ref> or "Even if there was nothing, you still wouldn't be satisfied!"<ref name="Holt">{{Cite book |last=Holt |first=Jim | author-link=Jim Holt (philosopher)|title=Why Does The World Exist |publisher=Liveright |year=2012 |isbn=978-0-87140-409-1 |location=New York}}</ref>{{rp|17}}

==See also==
{{columns-list|colwidth=20em|
* [[Philosophy:Being|Being]]
* [[Causality]]
* [[Astronomy:Cosmogony|Cosmogony]]
* [[Philosophy:Cosmological argument#What caused the first cause?|First Cause]]
* [[Astronomy:Creatio ex nihilo|Creatio ex nihilo]]
* [[Astronomy:Nothing comes from nothing|Nothing comes from nothing]]
* [[Philosophy:Problem of universals|Problem of universals]]
* [[Philosophy:Something (concept)|Something (concept)]]
}}

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book |last1=Sorensen |first1=Roy |editor-first1=Edward N.| editor-last1=Zalta|title=Nothingness |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ |website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|year=2020 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University }}
* {{cite book|last1=Kuhn|first1=Robert Lawrence| editor1-last=Leslie|editor1-first=John| editor1-link =John A. Leslie|title=The mystery of existence : why is there anything at all?|date=2013|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|location=Chichester [England]|isbn=978-0-470-67355-3}}
* {{cite book|last1=Holt|first1=Jim| title=Why does the world exist?: an existential detective story|date=2012|publisher=Liveright Pub. Corp.|location=New York|isbn=978-0871404091|edition=1st|title-link=Why Does the World Exist?}}

==External links==
* [https://www.closertotruth.com/topics/cosmos/mystery-existence/why-anything-all Why Anything at All?], ''Closer to Truth''
* [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatThaNot Why is there something rather than nothing?], [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]
*[https://www.hilmar-alquiros.de/NPB.htm ''Nothingness and Being'' "Potentialities of Ontological Evolution"] by Dr. Hilmar Alquiros
{{Philosophy topics|state=collapsed}}
{{Metaphysics|state=collapsed}}
{{Philosophy of religion|state=collapsed}}


[[Category:Cosmogony|*]]
[[Category:Metaphysical theories]]
[[Category:Philosophical problems]]
[[Category:Thought experiments]]

{{Sourceattribution|Why there is anything at all}}