People have asked the question, "Why have something when it is more simple to have nothing"? The interesting thing here is that this assumes that nothing really is the nature of our reality, that nothing is more common that something - or that nothing is the starting point and something is built upon nothing. BUT, the more I research reality the more it seems like something is much more prevalent than nothing. Furthermore, nothing is never really nothing but just different forms of something.
Most people will look at something like space and say that it is just vast emptiness. Or they will look at an atom and see that it is 99% empty. What is this empty space? Are we just not able to decode these "empty" spaces or are they really empty?
I find it a much more interesting angle to look at it from the view that reality is everything, and that these "spaces" of nothing are simply things that we don't understand or can't decode. I think this works the same way we can't hear radio waves until we hook up a sound device. Or the same way we can't connect to the Internet until our router connects to the wireless signal. These signals sure aren't "nothing" are they?
It just doesn't seem accurate to say there is such a thing as nothing anymore. It seems to me that everything is connected and that there are just different forms and perceptions which make certain things real and not real. If you change the perception nothing can become something and something nothing.
I don't think things come from nothing. I think things are formed out of an all encompassing everything, or "God", and different experiences are created from this. Although I don't like the idea of thinking of it as a "thing" or a "God". I don't like the idea of thinking about it as anything. I see this as reality itself.
So the next time you ask yourself how something comes from nothing perhaps the more proper question is can nothing come from everything?
Filed under:Science, Reality