The Cradle of Everything

Thanks to the scientific method, we can make numerous assertions about the nature of our universe. For instance, we can discuss the origins of the universe through theories like the Big Bang, estimate its age at about 13,8 billion years, and measure its vast size, which continues to expand even now. I won’t entertain these discussions here, but rather assume that the physicists are largely correct in their findings, and use this as a foundation to explore deeper philosophical questions about reality and our place within it. Three particularly intriguing questions capture my interest—questions that science has yet to fully address. These include: (i) what, if anything, occurred before the Big Bang, (ii) where, if anywhere, did the Big Bang occur, and (iii) how many Big Bangs, or similar events, have happened?

Regarding point (i), some physicists assert that nothing occurred before the Big Bang, as it marked the beginning of time—the point at which movement, and therefore change, became possible. This assumption leads to one of two possibilities: either our universe always existed in a static, unchanged state until it began to evolve, or it emerged spontaneously from absolute nothingness. To avoid concluding that the universe either existed forever in stasis or emerged from nothing, one must challenge the prevailing notion of this era that nothing could have occurred before the Big Bang, since it is considered the starting point of time itself. I don’t see any particularly compelling reason to doubt modern physicists on this issue, mainly because there seems to be no empirical evidence supporting an alternative perspective. However, for the sake of the argument I am about to present, I will mention two alternative views. The first is a timeless belief, as popular today as it was in past eras, that our universe was created by a conscious, intelligent being—namely, God. The second view is the speculative scientific theory that our universe might have been spawned by an event in another universe, such as a collision or a bubble universe forming from a multiverse.

I won’t dwell on these two ideas further, except to say that even if we accept them as true—and this leads to the conclusion of my forthcoming argument—it does not relieve us of the dilemma of choosing between something eternally causally inactive and something arising from nothing. Some might find comfort in the idea of an eternal God and be perfectly content with such a concept. However, one could question the utility of a God who remained eternally inactive only to suddenly create the universe following an arbitrary trigger beyond His control. After all, logic compels us to dismiss any notion of something retroactively initiating itself, as this defies temporal causality and creates an endless loop without any true beginning—the very concept that motivated a rejection of an eternal universe. In this light, those who propose such ideas must confront the irony that they are endorsing the kind of perpetual state—a state without a proper cause—they invoked God to avoid. In any case, we are left with choosing between something existing eternally in a timeless state or something appearing out of nowhere because the alternative—the idea that causality has no beginning—leads to an infinite regress.

Logic suggests that an infinite regress is unsatisfactory, as it fails to provide a definitive origin or explanation, merely pushing the question of ”why” or ”how” further back without resolution. Therefore, it seems highly improbable that such eternal chains of events could exist, and they are indeed doomed as explanations, leaving us empty-handed in our quest for an ultimate understanding of the universe's origins. No matter what initial cause or prime mover one proposes prior to our universe—or prior to what one believes preceded our universe—it must itself exist without a cause. It would either have been forever inert before its first action or not existed at all to begin with. Thus, if the idea of an eternally static state or something emerging from nowhere leads one to challenge the assertion by modern physicists that nothing existed before the Big Bang, one inevitably circles back to the same conclusion. Admittedly, there is one additional alternative to an endless regress: the idea that at some point in the causal chain, it circles back to the beginning, forming a self-contained loop. However, as noted earlier in the context of God, this proposed alternative is just as unhelpful as an endless regress, since it too defies fundamental logic. Causation presupposes existence by necessity, as it hinges on the existence of something to act upon or be acted upon by something else. Ergo, a thing cannot precede its own cause, and therefore, a self-contained loop fails to offer a genuine solution to the problem of causal origin.

The issues with infinite regresses and circular reasoning pertains not only to time but also to space. This brings us to point (ii): namely, the question of where our universe exists. Just as every sequence of asking “why” must ultimately conclude with the answer “because of nothing,” so too must every inquiry into “where” end with “nowhere.” This aligns with what modern physicists assert about our universe: it encompasses “everywhere.” According to them, the universe doesn’t expand into space; rather, it is space itself that is expanding. Thus, in a sense, the universe exists and expands within nothing—nowhere. This is, undoubtedly, difficult to imagine. One might be tempted to envision an empty room devoid of content, but this would be a mistake—we are discussing the absence of the room itself. The key to accurately imagining it is to not imagine anything at all.

Not everyone agrees with the assertion that there’s nothing outside our universe. Some theories, alluded to above, propose that our universe is just one of many within a vast multiverse. According to these theories, our universe might exist as a bubble among countless others, each with its own laws of physics and unique properties. This multiverse concept suggests that what lies beyond our universe is not total emptiness, but a potentially infinite expanse filled with diverse universes. Still, following the same logic as above, this wouldn't eliminate the preceding nothingness but merely extend it further out—either to the edges of this multiverse or to some conceivable outer layer of multiverses. At some point, to avoid an infinite regress, we would have to say that there’s no further expanse beyond—that ultimately, even the multiverse or its theoretical extensions must exist within a boundary of non-existence, where the concept of “beyond” ceases to have any meaning. Consequently, our universe must be anchored in the same nothingness, much like how Mackinac Island in Lake Huron can be said to be surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. Each layer, seemingly distinct, is fundamentally surrounded by the same boundless nothingness. Thus, if pushed to its logical extreme, we must concede that the universe exists nowhere, regardless of how many layers of universes there may be.

It’s interesting to note that even if we accept the possibility of an endless regress or circular causation, it wouldn’t necessarily change the fact that our universe exists nowhere and without a cause. The endless chain of causes and the infinite chain of spaces would still, as a whole, exist without a defined location or origin. One could always ask how the infinite sequence of causes came into being, or where the entirety of this infinite expanse of spaces actually exists. And any answer other than that it came from nowhere and exists within nothing would only push the unavoidable conclusion further out—that the totality of existence cannot have a cause or medium, as both would themselves be part of the totality of existence.

We've arrived at two conclusions, neither of which should be considered particularly original: first, that ultimately nothing caused or created existence, as any entity capable of creating something else would presuppose the existence of existence itself; and second, that the universe must exist nowhere, meaning within nothing. These conclusions have profound implications for several theological worldviews, partly because they imply that the creator must be an arbitrary being—an entity with no explanation or purpose—and partly due to another reason that my forthcoming argument will reveal.

From this position, point (iii) becomes particularly intriguing to consider. Fundamentally, when asking oneself how many creations akin to our universe are likely in existence, the question is: how does one calculate probability from zero? Whether the universe—or whatever one decides came before it—came into existence out of nowhere or has always existed in some form shouldn’t matter. As long as something exists without a prior cause within nothing—which logic seems to demand—the question of how many such phenomena exist remains relevant.

Since we’re venturing beyond the realm of science and what is empirically accessible to us, we must rely solely on reason—a surprisingly adequate compass for these questions. As established earlier, logic compels us to accept that nothingness is both the mother of everything and its cradle. To calculate how many children this mother could have birthed, we must examine all possible prior conditions. It quickly becomes clear that the number of such conditions—whether restrictions, limitations, or allowances—must be zero. If there were any such precursors, we wouldn’t be dealing with nothingness at all; these conditions would, by necessity, be something. They would themselves have to be born out of and within nothing, without any prior conditions of their own. This would, in turn, justify asking how many realms of conditions—capable of determining the number and nature of universes—might exist. Whatever constitutes the most fundamental form of existence, we must accept that there can be no laws governing how many such forms of existence there can be, nor how different they can appear from one another.

Without such laws, the number and types of independent universes must fall somewhere between one and infinity, with only random chance determining the outcome. Given the lack of time outside out universe, or between universes, there could not have been any moment, or moments, of creation—there were never the equivalent of a dice with an infinite amount of sides being rolled and that could have been rolled several times. However, even in a timeless context, it is still true that the probability for any number to be true—given a lack of pre-existing conditions—would be , essentially zero. Remarkably, this means that it’s infinitely unlikely that there’s only one universe—just as it is infinitely unlikely for any other specific number of universes to exist.

Two views can be derived from this conclusion, both with their own strength and weaknesses. Below, both views are stipulated.

The Infinite Existence Principle

This principle asserts that in the absence of any laws or constraints limiting existence, all possible universes are realized. Since nothing restricts the number or kinds of universes, an infinite number of them exist, encompassing every conceivable variation of reality. The Infinite Existence Principle holds that every possible form of existence manifests because there are no conditions to prevent their actualization.

The Finite Existence Principle

This principle proposes that even without laws or constraints governing existence, only a finite number of universes come into being. The number and types of these universes are determined by random chance rather than by any limiting laws. According to the Finite Existence Principle, the absence of restrictions does not necessarily result in an infinite multitude; instead, randomness leads to a finite, albeit potentially vast, collection of universes.

The first view is compelling for several reasons. Firstly, it’s appears consistent with the absence of constraints. If there are truly no laws or prior conditions limiting existence, it doesn’t seem immediately illogical that all possibilities would be realized. An infinite number of existences and kinds of existences accommodates every conceivable existence without arbitrary limitations. This view also avoids any potential problems with arbitrary limits. The Finite Existence Principle might introduce an unexplained cutoff and without laws to impose this limit, it could be argued that it is unclear why only a finite number would exist. There is also the advantage of philosophical simplicity. The Infinite Existence Principle aligns with the principle of sufficient reason, suggesting that in the absence of constraints, all that can exist will exist. Finally, mathematical and physical models aren’t in conflict with this view. Albeit based on different premises, some interpretations of quantum mechanics and cosmology, such as the Many-Worlds Interpretation, naturally lead to the idea of an infinite number of universes. This view wouldn’t be any different in regard of strangeness.

Even though intuition might support the first view, the second view—the Finite Existence Principle—could still be favorable. While a lack of constraints certainly suggests that everything would come into existence, much like open floodgates release all the water they once held back until the reservoir is emptied, it doesn't necessarily follow by necessity. After all, existence cannot be satisfactorily compared to a volume of water either being held back or released—there is no reservoir of “non-existent existence” waiting to flow into being. If such a reservoir existed, its contents would already exist, negating the need for them to come into existence. Non-existence is purely potential—it is not something standing in line, waiting at the gates of creation. Thus, a lack of constraints does not necessarily imply that everything must exist. In fact, it could be argued that the guarantee of everything existing simply because it can would, in itself, constitute a preexisting condition. In that case, an arbitrary, random cutoff would be more reasonable, as no prior conditions could fundamentally exist.

Another argument against the Infinite Existence Principle is the fact that our universe exists undisturbed. Nothingness—out of which everything must have emerged in its most fundamental form, if this essay's premise holds true—is not something that simply exists outside our universe or between universes. It exists everywhere, at all times, including here and now. Even though our universe has laws that dictate what can come into being, the fundamental absence of laws against completely random existence is still in effect. If every conceivable universe were to exist, it stands to reason that they might have emerged not only outside of our universe but within it as well. And since our universe isn't overlaid or superimposed by an infinite number of other universes, we might have reason to conclude that there aren’t an infinite number of universes—suggesting that the Infinite Existence Principle is false.

An important point to note is that even if the Infinite Existence Principle is false, it does not necessarily mean that the number of universes must be finite. This principle is only concerned with fundamental existence—existence without cause or medium. Nothing prohibits infinity from existing somewhere within the finite number of existences. Space within nothingness, separated from everything else that exists in the same ocean of nothingness, could very well be infinite—it still wouldn't encroach upon the existence of other universes.

Generally, the view presented in this essay subjects us to cosmological uncertainty regarding every contingent prospect of our universe—such as gods (although, within this framework, a monotheistic God must remain unreal), an afterlife, dualism, idealism and so forth. Given the near certainty of infinities—between or within existences—there are bound to be universes identical to our own where the answers to those philosophical questions differ vastly. Such unavoidable uncertainty—even when faced with seemingly undeniable evidence for one position or another within our own universe—can drive a person mad. However, it can also foster philosophical humility and inspire epistemological stoicism. Additionally, there is the interplay of hope and despair: within a framework of infinity, hope remains true in the most despairing situations, and despair persists even in the most hopeful ones.