Option 1 doesn’t seem to be an explanation. It tells you more about what exists (“all universes that can be defined mathematically exist”) but it doesn’t say why they exist.
Option 2 is also problematic, because how can you have a “fluctuation” without something already existing, which does the fluctuating?
They are not full explanations, but as far as, I at leat can get.
>tells you more about what exists
It’s still more satisfying, because a state of ~ everything existing is more ‘stable’ than a state of a specific something existing, in exactly the same way as to why I even think nothing makes more sense as a default state than something to be asking the queston. Nothing existing, and everything existing just require less explanation than a specific something existing. It doesn’t mean it necesserily requires 0 explanation.
And, if everything mathemetically describable and consistent/computable exists, I can wrap my head around it not requiring an orgin more easily, in a similar way why I don’t require an orgin for actual mathematical objects, but without it seeming like necesserily a Type error (though that’s the counterargument I most consider here) like with most explanations.
>because how can you have a “fluctuation” without something already existing, which does the fluctuating
That’s at least somewhat more satisfying to me because we already know about virtual particles and fluctuations from Quantum Mechanics, so it’s at least a recognized low-level mechanism that does cause something to exist even while the state is zero energy (nothing).
It still leaves us with nothing existing over something overall in at least one way (zero energy), is already demonstratable with fields, which are at the lowest level of what we already know of how the universe works and which can be examined and thought about furtther.
Option 1 doesn’t seem to be an explanation. It tells you more about what exists (“all universes that can be defined mathematically exist”) but it doesn’t say why they exist.
Option 2 is also problematic, because how can you have a “fluctuation” without something already existing, which does the fluctuating?
They are not full explanations, but as far as, I at leat can get.
>tells you more about what exists
It’s still more satisfying, because a state of ~ everything existing is more ‘stable’ than a state of a specific something existing, in exactly the same way as to why I even think nothing makes more sense as a default state than something to be asking the queston. Nothing existing, and everything existing just require less explanation than a specific something existing. It doesn’t mean it necesserily requires 0 explanation.
And, if everything mathemetically describable and consistent/computable exists, I can wrap my head around it not requiring an orgin more easily, in a similar way why I don’t require an orgin for actual mathematical objects, but without it seeming like necesserily a Type error (though that’s the counterargument I most consider here) like with most explanations.
>because how can you have a “fluctuation” without something already existing, which does the fluctuating
That’s at least somewhat more satisfying to me because we already know about virtual particles and fluctuations from Quantum Mechanics, so it’s at least a recognized low-level mechanism that does cause something to exist even while the state is zero energy (nothing).
It still leaves us with nothing existing over something overall in at least one way (zero energy), is already demonstratable with fields, which are at the lowest level of what we already know of how the universe works and which can be examined and thought about furtther.