Hello Laura,
If "being" cannot be it's opposite of non-being, does not that prove that there was always being?
If am ok with the mystery or wonder aspect of why. Did you see my blog post? I wrote about a slightly different perspective but along similar lines.

Can we catch reality in a logical trap? Does logic structure the universe, or merely describe it? If logic, the logical division of reality between 'is' and 'is not', were hermetic in that division there could be no subjunctive. If 'if' is, then there is no 'if' about it, if 'if' is not, then it's all pretty iffy. Or, if there is a meaningful subjunctive, then logic, the mutual exclusion of being and non-being, is not the whole story. And so, we have to become a lot more convincing than school-boy (or girl!) appeals to logical consequences. This is no antinomy. There is something in being real that defies its antecedence and the laws of logical extension. Being is not a logical extension. We cannot find a locus of its becoming because it is not beat the trap of logical extension by fiat. The unity and units (extension) of reality cannot be counted in the same universe. But a universe in which what would otherwise be anomalous to it, but that, by the very receding from it of that anomaly, offers the rest some small gesture towards beating the count, then it is not anomaly at all, it is time. Time is that which asserts itself in departure, in being departed. Being is that departure. By changing everything, or offering everything a way of being that change, it is. And yet, it is by not being at all. Neither school logic nor 'that old time religion' can hold a candle to it, even if you light it at both ends.

Gary,
I can see from your response that my comment was unclear. I did not mean to suggest that an idea is the cause of there being something. My intention was to agree with the position that "there is no explanation" and explain that position. I do believe that because there is something, logically there must be something. However, that is not a statement about causality, or a statement about science or religion.
你正确地指出，我的立场部分是基于语言上的矛盾。当我们比较某种类型的对立面时，逻辑和语言会出现矛盾，这正是我在关于神秘的博客文章中所提出的观点。他们认为，无法调和这些矛盾是我们模型的一个问题。
The claim is that using language and logic that presume objects (quantity) is contradictory when describing a concept that is not quantifiable (nothing, infinity, being). My only other claim is that "being cannot be it's opposite of non-being".
This has nothing to do with becoming, change, time or why there are things. RESPECTFULLY!

What you are claiming is that the "law of contradiction" is embodied in the hermetic division between being and non-being, without reference to a quantifier. If you read Kant carefully, you will see that only referencing the quantifier renders this "law" valid a priori. And that being and non-being are contraries, not contradictories. The effect is to view all that is dynamic as static. This, in order to 'claim' a logical 'entail' by extension. The rejection of temporality is typical of this mentality.

The subject of models has been mentioned. In my opinion, models are at the heart of the matter. Pardon the pun. Nearly at the heart, anyway. But I think the actual heart of the matter is how the human mind operates. In my view it is a reality modeler. The mind continually imagines and re-imagines what it is experiencing (perceiving).
I have been living for awhile now among people whose minds are disintegrating due to failure of their memory process. Their ability to invent, use and re-use their models of reality is leaving them. Older models have been with their owners much longer. These older models/memories have been longer developing and they take longer to disappear. But they do eventually succumb.
In summary, the mind develops as a collection of models/representations or stored impressions including imagined explanations for experience. It is this collection of models that comprises the self. It is this self that asks questions consistent with its collection of models. If the process of storage fails, the ability of a mind to exist and operate will fail. The ability to frame questions about reality also fails.
我认为像“事物为什么存在?”这样的问题来自于大脑的模型集合。思维模拟现实，并不断测试他们的模型的内在一致性。我认为这样的问题是心理问题，而不是现实问题。No mind = no questions.
When this question was originally framed for discussion the moderator wondered if it might well be a "silly" question. In some sense it is. But the question might also be quite useful if it gets us to think about the nature of the minds/beings asking it.

如果什么都不存在，那又何必质疑呢?
"just is" =

I agree with "just is" and with Dwells when says the questions tells "about the nature of the minds". Gary may also be correct about the rejection of temporality based on my mentality. Questions like time travel could also be considered silly but scientists like Einstein have claimed that time travel is possible. What would in mean about reality if he were right? For time travel to be "travel" every possible combination of every event would have to exist at the same time. In order to travel somewhere that place has to be there. So either the description and concept are wrong are we are forced into a conclusion where time is dimensional for lack of a better term.
Thanks for mentioning the "law of contradiction", very helpful. When Kant discusses quantifiers is he talking about logical contradictions? I don't think he sees much wiggle room for logical opposites. You may need to point me at what you are reading.

EXISTENCE: IT DOESN?T EXIST
在节目上，我听说??科学和哲学的交叉??现在，有什么东西没有?t存在。?交集需要共性，如果说我想在这个论坛上表达什么的话，那就是，根本就没有这种交集共性，它只是一种非理性的信仰?一种解释的信仰?这促使人们在哲学上强加一层科学谈话。例如，谈论存在的魔鬼?解释的驱动力是提出一个科学的，自我证明的定义就足够了，或者更确切地说，将满足。像我们的主持人这样的两个实践者，当科学显得如此不可能的时候(爱因斯坦说:“看起来不可能的东西，很可能是?”)，不得不在他们的轨道上死死站住，这一事实表明，只有哲学才是进行讨论的途径。世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区客人说:“想想100年后我们对现实的概念是什么?”现实是不变的，它永远不会改变; it is the ?we? that will be different because we will have different beliefs to try to ?explain? reality.
Philosophers shouldn?t look for scientific evidence or proof; we should not look for explanations, but for illumination. And always ask yourself, first, why do I seem to need an explanation?
I like the wording ?believe in the Big Bang.? Searching for an implausible explanation for some physical realities, grasping at belief for a somehow satisfying non-rational answer, is probably more social than anything else. Hence, religion.
要做哲学的再存在:就像主持人说的那样，做一项类似于“凝视(并理性地反思)存在的奇迹”的活动。好奇是研究哲学的完美动力。Wonder.

Mr. Cooper,
康德的对立方在这一点上是“形象地”清楚的。但同样明显的是，如果以一种探究的态度来考察主词与谓词之间的关系，就会发现它并不真正服从逻辑学家所要求的严格的形式规则，甚至连最粗略的质疑也永远得不到满足。如果存在是一种分离，并且这种分离和被分离者的规定性，在其他的时间里，正好反映出它与数的形式主义和逻辑的不同之处的真实性，那么，存在和非存在彼此之间的本质关系，就像主体的真性之于它的规定性一样。因此，时间是与封闭的形式主义的一种分歧，这种分歧就是为什么有而非无。简单地说，这样更好。时间只不过是一种离开的行为，被认为是那次离开的价值，而那次离开的价值与那次离开的价值一样微不足道。

这是浑浊的水。但是，哲学问题通常都很模糊。德维尔斯在强调模特的作用时，碰到了一个很大的问题。库珀和其他人提出了现实和物质的其他方面，这有助于理解的途径。有与无是人类经验中固有的二元论的一个例子:好/坏;只/不公正;(我没有把恶与善配对，因为即使某件事不好，它也不是天生的恶)宇宙学，作为科学探索的一个分支，在很大程度上是某人(或某事，如上帝)对宇宙学事实有一定程度认识的能力的一种功能。我们可以问这只鸡过马路的问题，甚至可以同意这只鸡“想”过马路，尽管这种欲望的“原因”可能永远是一个谜。因此，我们偶然发现了意识现象。比我们的朋友鸡的意识要复杂得多。 For to recognize that there are "somethings" in the world is a priori meaningful and precursive to a realization that there could be, somewhere, somewhen, an alternate state where there are "no things". Or, perhaps more probably, merely no conscious beings to notice the somethings that do exist. Well, this is a posteriori speculative. But the something/nothing question has been asked for as long as there have been minds well-developed enough realize that it could be asked. Probably for nearly as long as questions about chickens crossing roads. It might just be that after the lion and the elephant, there are turtles---turtles all the way down. Metaphysics
Something and nothing need each other. Why should we think so? Because if Einstein was right about the potential for time travel, we are in for a long ride---no, not you or I, but possibly our children's children's children. Models and patterns, and yes, memes as well. Science fiction evolves into science---more and more everyday.

Richard Feynman, the inventer of quantum mechanics, used to ask his physics classes a question:
If on the surface of the earth we are in a gravity well, and so time is slowed, how far and how fast would you have to go from it to return at an earlier time?
The answer puts the kybosh on time travel. Einstein made a lot of dumb remarks. "Einstein says" is not the gold standard.
如果平衡只有在被打破的时候才变得有意义，那么它恢复平衡的持续趋势，以及这种持续的条件和原因，可能是一个比打破它的原因更不有趣的解释。

If there is a speed that would return you to an earlier time, how does that render the conclusion that time travel is impossible? I am not sure if you are claiming that we cannot achieve the speed or that there is a speed limit somewhere. Also, if the model fails could the error be in the model?

思考遗失?要让我们走得足够远，然后在“离开之前”再回来，所需的速度是如此之快，以至于时间变慢了。结果:没有回头路!

The unremarkable thing about the instant replay is that it does not change the past. And the more it does not change the past the more it proves there is no going back.
John Nash was driven mad by his ability to see patterns. Physics is being driven mad by its need to see patterns in the most complete randomness, such as Hawking's 'strings'. But maybe the story is some sense in which the anomaly is more real than the pattern, and more about what the law of being is, and more the reason there is something rather than nothing. Life, they say, is mutation conducing to 'survival'. But that mutation amounts to nothing if the living organism does not utilize it in some new paradigm of being. And even at the most minute randomness there must be some material response through which the pattern is more meaningful thrown off-kilter than sustained for our meager mentality of only recognizing patterns. The departed deserve better of us.
Mike,
A vivid imagination is no substitute for careful reasoning.

Something & nothing: further reflections (QuasiMechanics 101)
If you recall, Kant posited several questions, while forming and refining his philosophy:
1. What can I know?; 2. What must I do?; 3.What may I expect?; and, 4. What is man?
These are as seminal and relevant for our collective enlightenment as they were for his individual quest. Consciousness remains key to unlocking what we can know; peppered of course with a certain amount of luck. We know more than those humans of Kant's era. How much can we know? It depends. What must we do and what may we expect? Discovery and innovation are manageable limits. Physics presents both problems and opportunities, So, we may expect most anything but must be ready for it. Somehow.
男人是什么?作为一个实际的问题，撇开形而上学的，空灵的和超自然的表象，我们是人。我们出生、发展、生存、生产、繁殖、衰老，最终死亡。它是这样工作的。我们对其中任何一个都有有限的控制，尽管控制的问题在许多方面都有所改善。我们至少有那么聪明。
Graham Martin wrote a book some years ago, asking if any of this matters. We kind of have to think so. Purposive delusion is better than no delusion at all. The "somethings" that drive purposiveness would seem to outweigh the nothingness about which we mostly only speculate and philosophize. Or we might (some of us) become cosmologists, devoting studious lives to making something out of nothing at all. Don't let it get you down.
Neuman.

Equilibrium Gary, now you are talking like me! =
As for time travel::
A Time Machine
想象你自己在另一个维度，一个时间上的平行宇宙。你正在看一场足球比赛，坐在旧沙发上，吃着热狗，想着他们是否还会再出现在啦啦队员面前。
Suddenly, without notice, a loud whistle brings your mind back to the game. There's something happening, wait a minute, the refs have stopped the clock. Wow, they stopped the clock! The men in black and white move to some kind of machine, what could it be? Then BAM! you have traveled back in time. The screen in front of you is showing the history of past events, the game from multiple perceptions. Could it be? How is it possible that we have a time machine but no one knows it? You see the players playing football in the past as real as the present. Well certainly this time machine can not alter the past, you must be imagining things as you are.
你认为时间机器不存在，但如果它们存在，那就有一个测试。如果这真的是一台时间机器，它可以改变过去，但到目前为止，这还没有发生。就在这时，你正在看的屏幕回到了裁判和现在，呼，时间旅行结束了，不管怎样，我受够了。你又咬了狗一口，与此同时，屏幕上的官员宣布:“经过进一步审查，我们正在更改呼叫。”你差点把奥斯卡从嘴里吐出来。他说过他们在改变过去吗。你还没来得及充分理解刚才发生的一切，还没来得及亲眼目睹一台真实存在的时间机器，裁判们又一次挥动手臂开始计时。With a huge sigh of relief you are back to the couch, back from the changed past, back to the now..
Stunned but coherent you look down at you watch and wonder if they can do it, why can't I!
=
MJA

"Here?s why the question we started off with is so tricky. If you start off with absolutely nothing?no space, no time, no God, no initial conditions?then how does something magically come into existence from nothing?"
我认为遵循这句话的推理是关键，至少对我来说是这样。如果你从“绝对的虚无”开始，那么“虚无”中就没有创造我们现在所看到的“某些东西”的机制。所以，唯一可能的解释是，我们所认为的“绝对没有”并不是缺少所有的“某些东西”。不知怎么的，它是一个“东西”。如果你以“nothing”开头，我认为没有其他选择。这怎么可能呢?我的观点是寻找一个原因，而不是一个有目的的原因，我认为一种方法是首先思考为什么任何“正常”的东西(如一本书、一辆车等)存在，然后看看它存在的原因是否也可以应用于我们之前想象的“绝对没有”。首先，我认为我之前对“绝对无”的可视化是缺乏所有的能量、物质、体积、空间、时间、思想、概念、数学真理、物理定律等;以及缺乏所有的头脑来思考这个假设?绝对缺乏一切?
我认为一个事物的存在，如果它是一组定义包含什么(例如，一本书的表面，包含什么元素在一组的定义，称为爱的概念的心理/神经构念定义它包含什么其他的心理构念，等等)。这种分组相当于赋予事物实体和存在的边缘或边界。试着想象一本书没有一个表面来定义里面包含的内容。通过这种方式，如果有一个定义包含内容的分组，那么这个分组就是一个存在的实体。现在，把这个应用到"为什么有而不是无"这个问题上，如果我们考虑一下我们传统上认为的"一无所有"(没有能量、物质、体积、空间、时间、思想、概念、数学真理等;而没有头脑去思考这个问题?绝对的一无所有?)，而不是我们头脑中的概念——绝对的一无所有?，这个“绝对缺乏一切”将是所有现存事物的全部或全部数量。这是它;这就是一切;没有什么别的; it would be everything that is present. It is the all. An entirety, whole amount or an "all" is a grouping defining what is contained within and is therefore an existent entity. In other words, because the absolute lack-of-all is the entirety of all that is present, it functions as both what is contained within and the grouping defining what is contained within. It defines itself and is, therefore, the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. The grouping/edge of the absolute lack-of-all is not some separate thing; it is just the "entirety", "the all" relationship, inherent in this absolute lack-of-all, that defines what is contained within.

A couple of things I've run up against in thinking about this are:

1.) It's very easy to confuse the mind's conception of "non-existence" with "non-existence" itself, in which neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of "non-existence" is dependent on existence; that is, we must define "non-existence" as the lack of existence (this is why, to the mind, non-existence just looks like nothing at all). But, "non-existence" itself, and not our mind's conception of "non-existence", does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. "Non-existence" is on its own and, on its own, completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus an existent entity;
2.) Some might say that in the above, just by using the word "nothing", I'm reifying, or giving existence to, something that's not there at all. But, this ignores the point about our mind's conception of "nothing" (and therefore the use of the word "nothing") being different than "nothing" itself in which no minds are present. It also ignores the fact that in order to even discuss the topic, we have have to talk about "nothing" as if it's a thing. It's okay to do this; our talking about it won't affect whether or not "nothing" itself, and not our mind's conception of "nothing", exists. That is, we're not reifying "nothing" itself by talking about it because our talking wouldn't even be there in the case of "nothing" itself.
这一切有什么好处?就像所有针对“为什么有而非无”这个问题提出的解决方案一样，我永远无法证明上述问题，因为我永远无法真正地直接看到“绝对无”是否是一个存在的实体，但我能做的是利用上述思维建立一个宇宙模型，并最终做出可检验的预测。这个论断是基于这样一种思考:因为这里提出的假设是关于存在的最基本的实体，因为宇宙存在并且似乎是由存在的实体组成的，因为物理学是研究宇宙如何运作的，那么物理和宇宙的定律应该可以从这里提出的基本存在的实体的属性中推导出来。我把这种类型的思考称为形而上学到物理的方法或哲学工程。我相信，使用这种思维方式，物理学家和哲学家将能够取得更快的进展，对宇宙有更深入的理解，而不是使用他们目前使用的自上而下的方法。这种方法似乎也是一种融合物理学和哲学两大阵营的方法。
If anyone's actually read this far, I've got more at my websites at:
https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/
(4 page summary)

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
(click on 3rd link. This one is longer and has more philosophical stuff)

谢谢聆听!
Roger

我将永远只是一个一无所有的东西?

Nothing is?
'Edge and boundary'? Is being a Venn diagram? A category? A spatial inclusion? No exit? What happens to the subjunctive? You might do well to take a look at Plato's Parmenides, or Heidegger's Intro to Metaphysics.
Harry, are you referring to The Architecture of Experience?

Congratulations on the Templeton. I'd say that counts for something, which, in this and most cases means much more than nothing. Don't let anyone tell you different.
Neuman.

谢谢,纽曼!

我正在听播客"为什么有东西而不是没有"
I see that John is fond of the Fugs--not the first time I've heard the Fugs on a Philosophy Talk podcast.
有一种似曾相识的感觉，所以请原谅我之前提到过，但Fugs乐队唱的歌曲“Nothing”是基于一个古老的意第绪语歌曲“土豆”(Bulbes)——(周日，土豆，周一，土豆;星期二、星期三土豆等)。这是对饮食缺乏多样性的滑稽哀叹。图里·库普弗伯格将副歌改成了“Nothing”，这与原曲的曲调和性格非常吻合。
我一直都是Fugs的粉丝，所以总是很高兴看到和听到他们的引用，特别是在哲学语境中!

Bored with spuds? Never!
当我们说“是”的时候，我们是在区分，就像我们是在统一一样。对于命题的意义来说，主词与谓词的区别与谓词的归属同样重要。但是，这种差别给我们根据这个命题作为前提所作的推论蒙上了一层阴影。那东西什么都不是吗?虚无是什么吗?海德格尔，尽管他的个人属性和政治观点很恶劣，但当他声称理性的问题是“存在”的意义的问题时，他是非常正确的。如果每一个命题在每一个推论中都有一个不同的意义，那么忽略这个问题，不问它，就会使理性成为虚无，虚无主义。但这个问题需要一种行动，需要我们放弃那种自以为知道它意味着什么的自负。这一行为使一种回应从自负中解放出来。但是，我们没有一个人能够独自做到既行动又回应。 Asking the meaning of being is motivated by the need each of us is of that freedom enabled through that act of loss completed as that freedom that is not its own. It is the drama of this act and response that is the genesis of language. It is how we can know what we mean and persist in the conceit that we have a right to be understood in our own terms, in ignoring the question of the meaning of being. We are psychologically bound to such ignorance, but we are biologically committed to the question, in recognition that nothing is our end. But if that end enables the rest of time to be freed of that conceit of untroubled being and facile discourse, and is that freedom in that character of loss each of us is of it, then the character of each person, and the characterology of that drama of act and response, is far from nothing. It is why there is something rather than nothing. Or, at least, why there is something human and personal, rather than dead matter. But even beyond quarks and whatever it is Hawking means by 'strings' [really just the implacable ignorance of their meaning of being that ceaselessly erects frameworks and patterns, geometry and laws around what is freer than that, like the gambling addict that convinces himself he is on a streak and will not be talked out of it, though the facts show that such 'patterns' are wishful thinking] there is something more real than the relentless need we have to impose limits on it. No, it is not nothing. But it is nothing alone. It is the act of loss that what responds freed in the character of the loss of it is completed in that character, and so is what being is. Facile or conventional terms do not suffice.

Thanks for that funny tidbit, Rachel! I'll pass it on to John.

不错的分享。我认为你的网站写我的文章应该出现在搜索结果比它现在显示?

Something, anything, nothing, these are not being, they are logical quantifiers. The perplexity of being is not a nicety of logic, it is the mystery of agency. But no god can answer it, because the agency required is absence, absence that enables the rest of time to play out fully the character, and worth, of that loss. But if we look to gods or quantifiers for the answer we will miss the moment of it. The meaning of being is that moment, and that is why being is better than nothing.

Gary:

The Architecture of Experience? I am not familiar with what that is. Is it a work of physics; a notion of symmetry/structure; a philosophical treatise (either old or new); or something else? Many (if not most) of the things I offer in comments on this blog are either original ideas of mine or intents to expound or expand upon ideas/tenets/notions I have encountered since becoming interested in philosophy; physics; and other interconnected facets of human endeavors. There is much I have read---much I have yet to learn, and less time than I would like to pursue it all. Well, why don't I just Google it? Sure, and yes I will. Thanks!
Neuman.

oops. The Google search proved daunting. 593,000,000 results in 0.68 seconds (or thereabouts). Well, the piece from the Harvard Gazette? Was that what you meant? Interesting and informative-probably worthwhile from a developmental standpoint, but not necessarily germane to the something/nothing duality. Sounds more along the lines of the memetics discussion we have been discussing on that PT post, hmmm? Or perhaps you are alluding to something entirely different? Now you've got me wondering. Please advise.
Neuman.

Harry,
You brought up a text by Graham Martin. I was asking if the book I mentioned was the one you were referring to. I was throwing an olive branch, actually, not assigning you homework. But when I do recommend a text it is intended to be pertinent, not to waste other people's time. I didn't google Graham Martin, I did a search at ABE Books, a great resource for readers on a limited budget.

They say be careful what you ask. This is doubly true of philosophers. On closer inspection, you say that Martin, not you, is asking if any of this matters, at which you say, "we kind of have to think so". Is this the kind of have to Kant meant? I kind of think not, but I don't dare ask, because I don't know what you're saying. Does matter matter? Does it have to? We must be careful what we say, it might just matter. But, other than a venal rat with a love of slop and fortunate in his friends, what is a Templeton?

Sartre said we are "a useless passion". Said better, I think. We have a passion for boundaries definitions and delineations, as if needed to clarify the chaos that reality is. This may be helpful to keep us thinking we are getting somewhere, but if we really are going somewhere we have never been before, it is indeed useless. Unless, of course, its only meaning is to help us recognize we are not where we thought we'd be. Being is a disciplined differing. The discipline is the passion for purpose boundary and constancy of thought. But if differing is the end, its only use is to help us recognize discontinuity. And if that discontinuity is the final term of the discipline of continuity, it must be more real. It is what alters the condition of being real that is the engine of what is. From quarks to quirks.
Harry,
I understand how you feel when you suppose I am ignoring your own ideas by referencing them to other texts. Half a century ago I almost came to blows with an instructor on this point. But if you think you are being original, or just want to keep the discussion to the views you are expressing, you have some responsibility to scour the literature to see if you are being as original as you suppose. Otherwise it becomes ambiguous whether you are asserting a passion for ideas or for self[expression]. Ideas are shared to help us set each other free, not to bind us in agreement with each other. And if not borne of our needing each other free we are a useless passion indeed!

Please read this website, it might explain why there is something rather than nothing:

https://sites.google.com/view/whatisconsciousness/

一个恰当的问题应该有合理的依据。
It is not clear to me that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing," has a legitimate basis.

I am of the opinion that any question is a request for information, and that if the questioner does not have a clear idea of what would count as a satisfactory answer, his or her question should be dismissed as illegitimate.

At a very tender age, I discovered the power of asking "Why?" My father put a high value on education, which led him to encourage me to ask why something was so. He very much enjoyed explaining what he had learned about geography, biology, meteorology, and other subjects he had studied in college. At that point in my childhood, I was still an only child; my sister would not arrive for another few years. I loved my father's attention, and I learned I could usually get it by asking "Why?"

但最终我父亲发现，有时我问这个问题是出于对信息的真诚渴望，有时我问这个问题只是为了让他继续说下去。在他彻底解释了事情的原因之后，我还是会问:“为什么?”最后他学会了停止讨论。“为什么是猫?”他会问。我不知道这个以问题的形式回答的意思是什么，我只知道他已经谈完了，到了那个时候会开始无视我不合法地问“为什么?”"

在"为什么有而不是无"的情况下我总有一种坚定的印象，那就是那些问这个问题的人(在专业哲学的范畴之外，这样的问题并不多)并不清楚什么样的答案能让他们满意。对我来说，这表明这个问题是不合理的。
I could give a clever answer: "So that you could annoy people with that question." But so far, I have refrained, because obviously they would let me know that my answer didn't satisfy them. Nobody's answer satisfies them. That's another thing that makes the question seem illegitimate to me. No answer would bring them satisfaction, because their satisfaction comes from making others try to come up with an answer, then rejecting it as unsatisfactory.

但为了严肃而直接地解决这个问题，我建议“nothing”是一个没有定义内容的词。它不像“鸟”、“山”或“星球”那样是内容的指示器。“Nothing”是对所有内容的否定。但要有这样的否定，首先必须有否定者，如果否定者存在，那么很明显有东西存在。因此，从语言学的角度来说，“nothing”(以及它在其他语言中的所有同义词)的功能本身就要求某物的存在。只有因为有东西存在，我们才会发明“没有”这个词，这就使我们至少可以尝试想象，如果什么都不存在，它会带来什么不同。我们不能，真的，但至少这个术语给了我们一个尝试的正式借口，通过问这个问题:“为什么有而不是没有?”

Driving the point home, "Nothing exists" is internally at odds with itself, not only logically, but semantically. If the "nothing" in "Nothing exists," had any content at all, then it would follow that something--namely, that content--existed. The so-called proposition "Nothing exists" is therefore self-contradictory and devoid of content. It is, in short, only a pseudo-proposition. And that is why something--not much, but something--has to exist rather than nothing: It has to exist for the term "nothing" to have a function, let alone a meaning.