Been getting very interested in philosophy, physics and consciousness.

I want to start up a discussion here on these things. Dive in!

**Edit: I’ve done some more thinking on this. Found a bunch of holes in my thinking, realised a bunch of misconceptions, and realised I had crossed some wired between unrelated things. Below is a reformulation of my thoughts. You can find my original post (basically a load of waffle) in the post directly below this one.**

I wanted to re-formulate the idea, if it is even still valid, now that I’ve absorbed the details and thought it through more clearly. Or, at least I think I have. I guess we’ll find out!

Also, I’ve been doing some more research. Turns out Lawrence Krauss has said some similar things before. I’m going to keep looking into that to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

In a few words: there is something rather than nothing because nothing is *necessarily* impossible

**Before I get into it, I’ll put these two open questions I cannot answer:**

- Is reality necessarily computation/logic?
- Even if reality is necessarily computation/logic,
**does it matter for the question of the paradox of nothing?**In other words, is nothingness still paradoxical in context with a non-computable reality? Am I unnecessarily crossing wires between unrelated things?

Anyway, with that out of the way… I’ll continue on with the reformulation and simplification by removal of unrelated lines of thought.

So, the basic argument is as follows (I’ll expand on my reasoning for each premise):

- The necessary and fundamental nature of reality is computation
- Absolute nothing is not a possible computation, as it implies the lack of computation, which we have said is a necessary feature of reality (perhaps only in light of a fundamentally computable reality)
- Therefore, existence is necessary

I’ll now explain the reasoning behind each premise.

**1. The necessary and fundamental nature of reality is computation**

There are two primary candidates (possibly the only candidates) for the fundamental nature of reality and the universe:

- Reality is computational, therefore the universe is some kind of discreet cellular automaton, only integers exist, and there are sets of rules that govern the nature of the underlying computations. Maybe different rules lead to different universes with different physics.
- Reality is not computational, and instead is instead continuous, where relationships are expressed in terms of equations, with real numbers and perfect curves, and the observed discreet elements of nature are emergent properties of a fundamentally continuous form.

Now, the question is, if reality is computational, *is it necessarily so?*

I’m not sure. I guess you could say that if reality is computational, then the chances are that it is necessarily so, due to a non-computational system not being actualisable,

I don’t know enough about mathematics to really answer this question.

We have a system of formulae and equations that describe the universe and treat space as continuous. But those equations cannot be calculated without computation inside of the universe. Because of that, the true real-number values of the results of those equations can only be computed to a limited resolution. In order to calculate a truly continuous space you would require an infinite number of computations.

But I can’t fine a thread that would make a computational universe necessary.

**2. Absolute nothing is not a possible computation**

If reality is necessarily computational, then it could not exist in any other way. In this way, computation is self-causal.

This raises a side question: If existence is necessary, then why is the universe the way it is? It seems so arbitrary. This leads to the idea that whatever is computable, and can exist, does exist.

However, there’s potential problem here: if everything that can exist, does exist, this means that there are an infinite number of possible existences, which would imply that there is an infinitely large universe, out there. However, this isn’t the case. There is no infinitely large universe or reality, there just isn’t any end to how many extra particles you can fit into one universe, so you’ll just keep finding one more finite universe, never ever reaching an infinitely large universe, therefore always remaining computational and actualisable.

This logical point would seem to assist in the weight of this premise.

If reality is computational, and indeed every possible existence is out there, then all universes are cellular automata, every possible state of every possible one exists.

This would seem to lead to the idea that in each state we constantly have the illusion that we are living now, moving through time. But really, each moment is just a possible state of existence that is permanently living out and experiencing that one state.

Maybe there’s no real fundamental distinction at the lowest levels between the universe and any actualisable system. In the same way, one state of a universe is the same thing as any one possible state of any actualisable system in the most fundamental sense. Imagine an artificial consciousness that, if you were to take a snapshot of every possible state of the neural network, the data in each snapshot is permanently experiencing that one state eternally.

**3. Therefore, existence is necessary**

So, if the premises are true, then existence is indeed necessary.