2 Answers

  1. One of the first answers to this question was given by Parmenides in the fifth century BC.

    1. Apart from Being, there is nothing. In the same way, thinking and what is thought[15] are Being, for one cannot think of anything.
    2. Being is not generated by anyone and nothing; otherwise it would have to admit that it came from nothing.Nothingness, but there is no Nothingness.
    3. Being is not subject to corruption and destruction; otherwise it would become Non-being, but Non-being does not exist;
    4. Being has neither a past nor a future. Being is the pure present. It is stationary, uniform, perfect and limited; it has the shape of a sphere[16].

    Thesis: “Being is, but non-being is not.” There is no non-existence, since it is impossible to think about it (since such a thought would be contradictory; since it would boil down to: “there is something that does not exist” [7]).

  2. Because nature does not tolerate emptiness. And all that is is an entity that has an entity, even if it is an imaginary object. Like Schrodinger's cat. But maybe you are confusing “nothing” and “nothing”, which is just a logical term that doesn't really make sense, since “nothing” doesn't exist in nature, and is used as an image, hyperbole. Such an interesting aporia – if nothing existed, it would refute itself, since nothing is the negation of the existence of something… Something like that.

Leave a Reply

Categories