On the Question Why There Exists Something Rather Than Nothing

TL;DR

This paper discusses a proposed explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, critiques its empirical validity, and explores its implications for understanding the laws of nature and physical facts.

Contribution

It offers an outline of a specific explanation for the existence of the universe, critically assesses its empirical predictions, and discusses its philosophical implications.

Findings

The explanation predicts absence of qualia, which is empirically incorrect.

It suggests a theoretical route to derive physical laws from first principles.

The critique highlights the limitations of the proposed explanation.

Abstract

In my opinion, nothing useful has ever been written on the question in the title, and small is the contribution that I have to offer. I outline an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, an explanation which, however, I believe is incorrect because it makes a certain empirical prediction (absence of qualia) that is incorrect. Nevertheless, it may be interesting to discuss this reasoning. It allows, in principle though not in practice, to derive the laws of nature and all physical facts about the universe. Then I elucidate which objections to this explanation are, in my opinion, valid and which are not.