Roger Granet

I'm a retired biochemist with a long-time interest in the questions "Why does a thing exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (WSRTN). In order to answer the WSRTN question without leaving a "something" (God, laws of physics/logic/math, values, possible worlds, etc.) unexplained, I think the only way is to start with absolute metaphysical "nothing" (absolute metaphysical "nothing" is what you get when all matter/energy, time, volume, laws of nature/logic/physics, consciousness, counteracting energies, possible worlds, and your mind are gone). Otherwise, there's always a "something" left unexplained. However, we've always ruled out starting with "nothing" because of the ex nihilo nihil fit idea. But, I think there’s a way to start with nothing and not violate this principle. If we start with nothing and end up with something, and because you can’t change nothing into something, the only way this could be is if that “nothing” was somehow actually a “something” in disguise. Another way to say this is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.

Building on this, a worthwhile next step is to apply an answer to the "Why does a thing, like a book, exist?" question to this absolute "nothing" to see if it is actually an existent entity.  I use an old hylomorphism-related answer to the "Why does a thing exist?" question - that a thing exists if it's a grouping, or what others call a unity or a one - to show that absolute metaphysical “nothing” (a situation in which everything including the mind of the thinker is gone) would be the complete definition of the situation.  It would be the entirety, the all.  A completely defined situation, entirety and all are just other words for a grouping.  Therefore, the situation we used to think of as “nothing” is itself an existent entity.  

For now, and without evidence, this is just one possible solution among many to the WSRTN question.  To provide evidence for it, I’m using it along with some ideas on the physical nature of a surface to build a simple model of the early universe (remember - the universe is made of "something").  If this model matches observations and can make testable predictions that also match observations, this is the scientific method and can provide evidence for the solution to the WSRTN question.  I think this kind of metaphysics-to-physics approach is of value both for making progress in physics and in establishing metaphysics as an equal partner to physics.  

One related idea is that of a builder rule.  How do you go from one fundamental entity to many?   Philosophers speak of fundamental entities, which presumably would be physically existent entities that exist although nothing else yet exists, including a bigger outside space for these entities to exist in.  All physically existent entities have surfaces, and surfaces are interfaces with outside spaces according to both common sense and the philosophical literature, so how can these entities have a surface if there is no outside space?  I think they create one?  This relates to the builder rule.  Please see the article on surfaces for more on this.

The "a thing exists if it's a grouping" idea can also provide a novel solution to  Russell's Paradox, the Liar Sentence, etc.  I also have side interests in the role of infinities and infinite sets in physics.  Thanks for visiting!