Forgive the title. I wanted to do something interesting and figured how better to represent that good will than with the best line from Roadhouse? That’s right, no better way. Onward we go.
Nothing ain’t something, my friends. Something ain’t nothing. I see questions of this sort all the time, and so much of the focus is misplaced in metaphysics (speculation) that we lose sight of what the problem even is. Does nothing exist? Wait… gasp - does existence exist?! Well yes, and no. Concepts can be said to exist, albeit not in the same way objects can be said to exist. Does this reveal a duality or an issue with the language we are using?
At some point, some scientists speculated the Big Bang occurred from a singularity. Well, what was before that singularity? Well, nothing, but only in manner of speaking. If you are doing nothing, are you doing something? Yes, but not because of some code-breaking secret, but because what is technically the case is not necessarily relevant to the question being asked, considering context. If someone accuses you of doing nothing, you’ll probably get a sense of what they mean or where that might apply in your life. However, you are comprised of a myriad of continuous processes taking place at all times. To do something, to take action, is to assert and demonstrate one’s existence. To talk about a thing or event, we assume its existence - and this is the sort of exploit metaphysics likes to toy with. However, in common parlance, you probably wouldn’t bother to explain that you are constantly doing things even when it seems you aren’t. You’d try to get a grasp on where their statement could apply, if at all. Similarly, with questions like “What came before the singularity?”, we can only communicate things we are aware of and capable of describing. So, yeah, “nothing” (but maybe some stuff…). Does existence exist? The question is incoherent. Why would existence be subject to itself? Does action act? Does a chair …chair? These questions arise from misunderstandings in language and the categories to which we refer. Ask a scientist if anything may have existed that we can’t describe before the singularity and you might get a more interesting answer, but ultimately we can only speak of that which we know and are even capable of describing. Do concepts exist? In the strict sense, no. Concepts aren’t ‘things’ we can wield about, but we can describe them in great detail. We can describe them well enough to paint a picture in someone else’s mind - except they are holding the brush. We can create pictures real enough that they seem to exist, yet can only ever refer to properties we’ve experienced, like dreams. Dreams are a phenomena that exist, albeit abstractly. Maybe we require a keener sense of the abstract, and levels thereof? Maybe we can be more specific in how we refer to ‘things’? Again, these are all language problems that must be addressed before we can even begin to speculate about metaphysics.
