The Impossibility of Making Nothing

I Had An Idea:

To make something about: ‘The impossibility of making nothing’ because:

“One of the attractions of this idea is that it can supply an answer to the question” Why is there something rather than nothing?”

We build our ‘Something’ and view its wholeness, its 3d-ness, as a stand-alone object surrounded by ‘Nothing’. And when we swish our hands through the air we feel ‘nothing’ and so assume its non-existence.

In the sub atomic world the state of ‘nothing’ quickly becomes one of ‘something’, yet ‘nothing’ is in itself not considered to exist as an entity.
This is not surprising when we surmise what possibly occurred at the moment preceding the big bang, in that unknowable moment when the infinite compression of matter and antimatter, of something and nothing, must have been an infinitely undefended and defended, unwaged and waged, battle for supremacy.

But something must have mattered just that impossibly small amount more than nothing and the universe of matter surged into what we know as existence.

“The randomness inherent in quantum mechanics means that quantum information-and by extension, a universe-can spontaneously come into being.”

Can it be possible that a state of nothing does not actually exist?

Is it a state that matter vanquished at the singularity of the big bang that caused space, time, something, nothing, matter and anti matter to expand in an endless co-existence?

And so causes the small particle of matter that is something, to instantly reappear within what appears to be ‘nothing’, to claim its space in perpetuity, reminding us of matters ‘more’ than the ‘less’ of ‘no matter’.
Or are they equal foes fighting for dominance, with matter only the temporary vanquisher of nothing?

I have chosen to investigate this idea of the impossibility of nothing, through a common human experience that occurs within the boundaries of our own minds, prior to the making of any physically manifested object.

This is the change in our cognition between describing feeling ‘nothing’, ie, a neutral state that has no description and the fast escalation of a feeling that we acknowledge as a ‘something’.

These two uncertain states no doubt arise from our physical being but have the qualities of mathematical objects in the way they appear in our minds, structured but formless, known but not seen and only recognised by their reflection in the objects in front of us.
“’Indeed mathematical structures, don’t seem to require a physical origin at all. A dodecahedron was never created’, says Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ‘To be created something first has to not exist in space or time and then exist.’  A dodecahedron doesn’t exist in space or time at all he says-it exists independently of them. ‘Space and time are themselves contained within larger mathematical structures’, he adds. These structures just exist, they can’t be created or destroyed.”  

The dualities within the dualities of love and no love, anger and no anger are the pressing forces that have driven our particular particles to produce words and music and visual arts throughout the eons of human intelligence and so are suitable benign states to put into an observational vacuum.

“Something may be the more natural state than nothingness. A vacuum of nothingness quickly fills with positive and negative quarks.”

Within our beings when we encounter another who causes us to feel, we can experience a sensation of transferring from our neutral state of ‘being’ (if the non-ego is feeling ‘nothing’) and our state can be radically altered to a feeling of ‘something’.

This comes about through the activation of our ego, grappling with the idea of an external something (often in the guise of ‘someone’).
We can rapidly escalate within the amorphous non- locatable area, where we internally keep our sense of ‘self’ to the generation of a feeling of ‘Something’.

The positive quark has been agitated in its vacuum.

I wonder whether ‘nothing ’had been happy with its previous non- existence before being aggravated to co-exist with a something…

And I wonder is it love or is it anger that is the catalyst for the change to this ‘somethingness’ that would no longer allow ‘nothingness’ to exist contentedly in its state of non-ego?

Creationists describe the world as being created by God’s love, not anger.

We know love as languid, egoless, dual not singular.

Nothing and something could coexist in a state of love.

So how could love have the energy to fight for itself and to rise above its contented co-existence and become the dominant, ‘something’?

It is when love splits from its reflection, when love is riled, that it recreates itself through the passionate, energetic force of anger, into tumultuous, roiling, abrupt, and decisive action.

It becomes a singular spitting spasm, ejected outwards.

The poet Baudelaire maintained, that the true pleasure of love was:

“The certainty of doing evil”. Something that “both men and women know, from birth, that nowhere but in evil do they find gratification.”  

Or in the words of Nick Cave:
“People they just ain’t no good.”

Perhaps matter evolved love for its own purposes. Matter arrived with what we have worded as ‘mathematics’ encoded within its particular particle.

The mathematical sequence of splitting and reforming into two groups and then from two to four, and so on is inherent in our cell division and in our growth.

We are an encoded mathematical sequence.

When far flung groups of cells bump into others they form a new cluster and then again.

The cooperation of these clusters to group could be called ‘love’, they seem to recognize something in each other and there is mutual advantage to the compounding.

In the computer game ‘The Game Of Life”, there is a type of ‘recognition’ between number groups that makes them inclined to reform into new shapes, in many respects the code breeds new hybrid shapes, but at a later stage of regrouping, a specific shape begins to aggressively dominate and subsume smaller groups of the forms still in the developing stage.

Perhaps love encoded in the math is at this point, lost.