As I had stated above the whole of the Scientific Framework from its essence is grounded and conditioned by an ASSUMPTION,
…There is something rather than nothing.
There is no way Science will work if Science do not include the above assumption as a fundamental condition.
Given the above condition, there is no way Science, as its default, will ever want to prove,
There is something [ultimate] rather than nothing.
Note that ‘something’ refers to the ultimate thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself, the substance, essence, οὐσία ousia, and other names,
Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
One thing we are certain is there are humans [some, most?] who are desperate to want to be sure “there is something rather than nothing.”
I believe Science and Philosophy can find answers to the above to deal with the related cognitive dissonance.
For most humans, there must be a cause to every effect, but Hume disagreed that such a principle is ultimate but rather the underlying factor to ‘a cause for an effect’ is actually psychological, i.e. grounded on the minds of human[s] individually and collectively.
It is the same for the desperation to ground something to a substance [thing], we should ignore such desperation and instead focus on the psychology of the question of ‘there must be something [ultimate] instead of nothing’.
Btw, it is the same desperate psychology of why you are stuck in a deep shit hole you have dug for yourself.