Because then life would not be possible and we would not be around to observe such a universe.
On the most basic level, how would atoms form if protons pass through each other? If you say that atoms can form, then how do atoms join together to create molecules? Attraction and repulsion must exist for matter to create anything complex.
There is no answer to why things are the way they are, just how they are the way they are. Why implies a purpose. If there is a purpose there is a creator, or design. If that is the case, ask the creator or designer. If there is no creator or designer then there is no answer to why things are the way they are.
Typical Humanist Secular mindset, “WE can’t figure it out, so it doesn’t exist”. 
As I alluded to, the question “how” would provide you a reason. “Why” it is the way it is seems to be beyond the laws of physics at least for this thread.
Reason’s, for a question this all encompassing could only lead to a purpose ultimately.
For individual questions, such as what is the reason (or why) that gravity works that would be applicable, but that doesn’t seem to be what this thread is about, as it is about the bigger picture. If there is a reason as to why existence exists or why it is the way it is, it would only entail more but this question parallels the question of “Why does existence exist at all?”
This is irrelevant to being secular, I already stated a creator or god as a factor and what that would entail as to why things are the way they are.
Platonic wonderings of whether God did x because x was good, or if x was “good” because God did x.
It can’t be both.
Does nature do x because it’s the law…or is x the law because nature does x?
It can’t be both.
Human ignorance is boundless. The fun part is what we decide to do with the information we seem to have.
It gets especially fun when people invent religions, such as Scientology or Christianity.
It’s also fun to see people play the game of deciding what to do without religion. That’s probably what philosophy is.
Of course, deciding what to do first requires knowing more or less what “is,” and that’s science, which is also fun.
The whole process is quite slow, but maybe it will speed up exponentially and we can watch the future’s end game gush into the present from our living rooms.
Of course to get back to your question, surfaces are never totally solid. And the distinction between “water,” and “neutrinos,” is trivial, they are close cousins in different moods.
Neutrinos don’t require a hole. But I like your unintentional typo “whole.” Does something require a whole to pass through another something? I would say that’s probably a lot closer to the truth and something I will be slowly meditating about for days.
it is like limits…but i take it farther and say that it may be possible for smaller infinites to add up to a larger infinite…it is almost a new concept. Like I said above to james: What if you take a infinite step. or 4 steps that are 1/4th of the infinite…For example we ourselves might be infinite, and yet recognize our selfs as being finite simply because we can’t sense that we can keep dividing things, or because we think that when we keep dividing things even though we may be composed of infinitely small particles we are still finite. If a being was an infinite, that was capable of being smaller relative to other larger infinites around it then it might still sense that it was simply finite because it was capable of seeing things… or because it thought that what it was made of…the smallest particle was just infinitely small relative to its size…
I’m looking for “there is no answer” because even if there was a seeming answer one could still ask why is it that way instead of another…so as to show that we probably can’t ever know everything, and most things we do could be wrong…i guess to point out as well that saying that God caused it or created the universe isn’t much different than any other assertion…
Why can’t it be such that said law isn’t necessary for things to work?
Close… again with what James is trying it would seem to me that any reason given can still be asked as to why that reason rather than another…
My point is to point out that any rationalization as to why thing are as they are is no different than any other, and as such simply saying that something cannot be proven is by no means a good argument but rather one should just go about seeing what aspects add up such as to lead to belief in said cause…as it would seem that nothing can be sure to be proven in the first place until it can be known why things are the way they are, rather we can only assume a thing is the case so as to continue with life, or recognize that saying a thing seems likely is about all we can do…
But why is it not possible for things to still form or things to work and be possible and still have such as being possible?
To say there is no answer would be an answer to the question. And consider the question with regards to how as well. How is it that the universe is the way it is and not functioning in some otherwise completely seemingly illogical way?
The fact one can ask badly-formed and meaningless questions is not a sign of any great metaphysical truth, so much as an illustration of the versatility of language. No question has an unequivocal answer irrespective of context.
Indeed, it has no special status exempting it from requiring evidence or argument in its favour.
It does function in an illogical way, there is no logic to it, as there is no reason for it to function the way it does. I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking though if your question is different from “why”, as they can be used synonymously.
It would seem to me that everything is of the mind and an invention, perhaps some things are in line with what is actually correct or not, if there is a ultimate correct or not.Even those things that work now may not work in the future…How can it be known that anything is “right”, it can’t be, but some things do seem more logical than others…i guess that’s all we have to go on…it seems to just be a matter of choosing your system of belief…and hoping what logic you use is aligned if needs be.
I agree badly formed and meaningless questions don’t assert much. but if what is purported to show the truth can’t anwser why it is the truth then how can it be known to be the truth? or if it can’t be said as to how it is the truth…
That is because the only difference between how and why is the implication of a personified cause. We ask how when we think it was caused by another inanimate thing, and why when we think an animate thing caused it. We might ask how though and discover that it was by a human and then begin to ask why, either way the purpose of the questions are to find the cause, of the thing.
So why is like asking “what was the thinking that caused”, how is like simply asking “what was that caused” yet they are really used interchangeably and not so much as to implicate thought being involved sometimes…so even what I say here is not always the case. my point is is that we try to find the cause but we can always ask the cause to that…Even if someone asserts that there is an endless stream of causes you can ask why…or what caused the endless stream of causes…you would think that is an assertion that there is not cause to it because it has simply always been. but what made it always be. And how is that any different than saying something like god has always been and then made it (although that may be hard to take in if you are asserting that time was also caused by god or something)…so it would seem no seemingly final answer is definitive and to be sure of any other answer don’t we need to know the base answer first…to say that the glass broke because bob hit it with a rod is not really a finalistic answer. there are many more reasons involved like because pipies coming into contact with glass lead to breaking of the bonds between the molecules…etc, many more possibilities.
Your entire line of reasoning seems to be based on asking why something can’t be its opposite at the same time.
Why can’t there be structure in an unstructured universe?
Why can’t A be not A?
Why can’t it rain when it’s not raining?
Does this kind of questioning make sense to you?
I would think it probably wouldn’t make any sense to those who are used to the idea that there can’t be another possible solution because they have always seen that it is the case that say A is A. While this seemes most logical and asking why seems silly we don’t really know the answer…as given by your post it seems all we can do is attack the silliness of the question. because again it would of course seem silly to question what is most obvious and most commonly accepted. And what seems to have no alternative…not to say i know an alternative…I mean you can attempt answers like God made it that way, or Because that is just the way it is, just because…etc, but then how much of an answer are those, and even they can be questioned…
How could one infinity be larger than another infinity? How can the infinities have “being”? Isn’t infinity just going somewhere at a certain rate without end? Doesn’t saying that one infinity is larger than another infinity mean that for any given time it will gotten larger, farther, etc. in ratio to the other infinity? Doesn’t saying that an infinity has ‘being’ make it finite? If it does then aren’t we adding finite numbers rather than infinities?
Well I;m suggesting that infniites of such would opperate like finites. but then relative to a finite thing any infinite would still be infinitely larger…it is more a matter of relativity. While to a finite thing something infinite is boundless, that may not be the case relative to an infinite thing.It is hard to say in so far as we havn’t observed such. unless as i said we actually are finite…All though I would ask how is it if we live in a finite world that a person can say go through a door an infinite number of angles…90.1,90.11,90.111,90.1111…