I put this under "Science", but I'm not claiming this is science. I'm just speculating about an age old question, because I had a bit of an odd thought this morning about how something (the universe) can come from nothing. It's not like the question never occurs to anyone. We all ponder it from time to time, and we often hear someone suggest that maybe the universe didn't come from nothing. And that's the odd thought I had this morning, but in one of those new ways where an old thought seems entirely new:
There seems to be a common assumption that "nothing" is some kind of default state. Like if the universe didn't exist, it would fall back to a default state of rest and just be nothing. But why should we automatically assume "nothing" is the default that changes it's state to "something" from time to time, or maybe just once? Perhaps the default state is "something." I mean if it has to be one or the other, it's just as likely that "something" is the default, rather than "nothing." Why would nothing have to exist before something? It's not like we are putting words in alphabetical order.
Parallel to that notion is the recognition that we only seem to ask, "How does something come from nothing?" But wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the reverse, "How does nothing come from something?" If "something" is the default, asking the reverse question is no more or less imponderable that asking how "something" can come from nothing.
I assume that most likely, both are the wrong questions, and the answer we are looking for has to do with something else entirely, but humans tend to fall for the fallacy of "either/or" or "excluded middle," and often distract ourselves from the real questions we should be asking.
By the way, what ever happened to JosephPalazzio? Haven't seen him for a while, and I don't remember him saying "goodbye."