No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer
The existence of something has the burden of proof
→ existence comes with the price of trying to always prove said existence - questioning the truth
If we start from nothing, we lack the bearings needed to navigate forward → Do we lose time developing? → starting from the beginning is harder than starting from the middle - having a base you can then build upon is easier than starting with no base → cornerstone ("The lightning struck heart" by TJ Klune)
If there is only one empty world and many populated worlds, then a random selection would lead us to expect a populated world → probability theory
Objects have powers that collectively explain the order of the universe → the big picture → the collective is needed for the universe to exist → Ying and yang → even if an existence is only singular and doesn't need anything else, something else might need that singularity - connection
The more a thing competes with other things, the more likely is that there will be something that stops it from becoming real
<aside> 💡 The little bit that is not, tells us about all that there is.
</aside>
Leibniz’s worry requires a limbo between being and non-being. If the things in this limbo state do not really exist, how could they prevent anything else from existing?
If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible