Introduction

If there had ever been nothing, there would be nothing now.

To see why, we must be strict about what "nothing" means. Not empty space, not a quiet vacuum waiting to be filled, but no space, no time, no laws, no properties, no numbers, no logic, no possibilities at all. From such a condition there is no time in which a change could occur, no structure that could fluctuate, no rule that could be used or broken. There are no alternatives for reality to "jump" into.

From that, no universe can begin. Yet something exists. So that conception of ‘nothing’ is logically ruled out. There must be at least one basic structural fact about how things can be that was never absent.

We can try to work out what such a basic fact must involve, using only minimal assumptions and strict logic.

1. Absolute Nothingness Defined Precisely

By absolute nothingness we mean:

• No space or spatial relations.
• No time or temporal ordering.
• No laws, no properties, no fields, no particles.
• No mathematics or logic in operation.
• No possibilities, no alternative states, no "there" for anything to be in.

This is not an empty universe. It is the denial of any framework in which events, objects, or even alternatives make sense.

If we insist that even basic logic cannot fail, then this "absolute nothingness" is already impossible. In what follows, logic is not treated as something outside reality, but as part of the basic framework itself: the fact that some ways for things to be fit together without contradiction.

Strictly speaking, calling nothingness a "state" is already too much, because "state" presumes a background against which different states are possible. The term is kept only as a label for the idea.

This gives us a simple test.

If someone says, "Reality came from nothing," ask: for how long did this nothing exist before something appeared?

There is no coherent answer. Without time there is no "before," no duration, no waiting. Without laws or possibilities there is no event that could mark a transition. If absolute nothingness had ever been, it would be timelessly and unchangeably nothing. From that, something cannot arise.

If the condition of nothingness had ever been, nothing could exist now, because no transition out of it is definable. Something exists now. Therefore that condition has never been.

Let's call this something that exists the substrate.

2. What the Substrate Must Be

The substrate is whatever makes it false that there was ever absolute nothingness. To be meaningful, it needs clear, concrete features.

2.1 Basic Character

The substrate is:

• Necessary: it does not begin, end, or depend on anything else.
• Non-temporal: time is not something it sits inside. Time, where it appears, is a feature of particular configurations allowed by it.
• Structural: it consists in constraints, relations, and possibilities, not in a specific cloud of particles or a particular spacetime, but a simple set of basic conditions that shape what can and cannot happen.

It is not "eternal" as a thing lasting through time. It is non-temporal, the condition that must hold for time and any temporal process to exist at all.

"Substrate" here is not an extra layer of stuff. It is a name for the minimal structural facts that must hold if absolute nothingness is impossible.

2.2 Structural Properties

The substrate has the following features, simply by being a necessary, consistent structure rather than nothing:

• A set of ways things could be: at least some distinct possible configurations.
• Relational constraints: at least some combinations rule others out. If every arrangement were equally allowed with no pattern, there would be no basis for stable, describable laws or regularities.
• Internal consistency: no built-in contradictions. The framework cannot both allow and forbid the same basic option; if it did, nothing would be clearly possible or impossible, and there would be no determinate structure at all.
• Non-trivial possibilities: at least one consistent way for things to be must exist. If there were no such possibilities, then nothing at all could be described or distinguished, and the idea of "possibility" would collapse back into the same incoherent nothingness already ruled out.
• Compositional structure: smaller parts can combine into larger patterns. Without this, nothing more complex than the simplest relations could ever appear, and no structured universe could form.

2.3 Structural Consequences

That gives us a few clear consequences.

• Absolute nothingness is excluded: there is never a total absence of structure or possibility.
• Universes become possible: concrete, law-governed physical realities can exist as particular configurations allowed by the substrate.
• Time can emerge: in configurations where ordered change is defined, what we call time appears as a parameter tracking that change.
• Information is conserved against nothingness: patterns arise and disappear only against an existing framework. They are not created from or lost into absolute nothingness.

None of this requires speculation about specific physics. It follows from denying that reality ever was, or could be, literally nothing.

3. Universes as Contingent Configurations

Look at the universe we observe:

• The strengths of forces.
• Particle masses and charges.
• The effective number of dimensions.
• The detailed initial conditions.

These look contingent. We can coherently describe alternative sets of values and laws that would still form structured, law-like worlds. So our universe is not the only logically possible configuration. We can even sketch alternatives: a universe where gravity is slightly stronger and stars burn out quickly, or one where no stable atoms ever form.

If multiple coherent universes are possible in principle, there must be a more general structure they all fit within. That structure is simply a set of possible configurations constrained by consistent rules.

That is the substrate. It is the minimal, general framework in which any universe, including ours, can exist.

4. Information Over Matter

Information, understood as the pattern of allowed and disallowed states and transitions, matters more than the specific material that happens to carry it.

Here are three simple facts:

1. Same pattern, different carriers. The same number, theorem, or algorithm can be written on paper, stored in silicon, or represented in neurons. What is preserved is structure, not substance.
2. Laws as structural facts. Physical laws describe what transitions are allowed. They behave like constraints on patterns, not like extra pieces of material sitting inside the universe.
3. Simple patterns behind many events. Physics uses small, simple equations to describe enormous numbers of observations. This only works because there is real, underlying order in how things behave. Without such order, those equations would never match the world.

The natural conclusion is that what is fundamental is a system of constraints and possibilities, that is, informational structure. The particular particles and fields we see are one way that structure is instantiated.

The substrate, on this view, is not "stuff". It is the fact that there is a stable pattern of what is and is not allowed at all, rather than none.

5. Why There Cannot Be Future Nothingness

If strict nothingness was never "before" anything, it also cannot be "after" anything. To get a future of absolute nothingness, the basic framework itself would have to stop existing.

But stopping is a change in time. It presumes:

1. A "before" in which the framework exists.
2. An "after" in which it does not.
3. A wider background in which this change can take place.

The substrate is defined as non-temporal and basic. Time is something that appears only inside particular configurations it allows. There is no larger time outside it in which it could change or end, and no deeper background it could collapse into.

We can still talk about physical endings. A universe might run down into a thin, cold, almost featureless state, if a heat-death picture is right. But that is still a very specific, law-governed configuration: a late chapter in a story, not the erasure of the language it is written in.

So the impossibility of strict nothingness is not just about the past. There is no coherent sense in which reality, at its most basic level, could switch off and leave behind a total absence of structure. Whatever happens to particular universes, the underlying framework does not end.

6. Conclusion

You can boil the whole argument down to this:

1. Define absolute nothingness strictly: no space, no time, no laws, no properties, no logic, no possibilities.
2. Note its consequence: from such a condition no change, event, or transition is definable. There is no "before and after", no chance, no mechanism, and no alternative state to move into.
3. Apply it: if that condition had ever been, nothing could exist now. There is no route out of it.
4. Confront the fact: something exists now.
5. Conclude: that strict form of nothingness has never existed and is not a coherent option.
6. Extend it to the future: the same logic blocks a collapse from something into nothing. Ending, ceasing, or disappearing are changes in time, and time itself only makes sense within a substrate that exists outside time, and that allows time as a possible configuration.

The logical conclusion is:

Strict nothingness is impossible, as a beginning or an end.

There is a basic, immutable framework of consistent possibilities and constraints that is never absent, cannot be switched off, and does not depend on anything deeper. Every physical story, every law, every universe, and every end-state is a way that framework shows up as a world. It is not another thing within reality; it is the condition for any reality at all.

There has never been nothing. There will never be nothing.

Author's note

I have been turning this question over in my head for most of my life, in the background, like a puzzle I never quite put down. Over the last few months I finally tried to sit with it properly and see if I could make the argument clean, simple, and strict, without relying on physics or mysticism or anything hand-wavy. Just definitions, logic, and the bare minimum assumptions.

This is the best version I have managed to write. I am new to posting on LessWrong so please be gentle, but I am very open to constructive criticism. I am sure people will disagree with parts of it or have alternative framings, and I would genuinely like to hear those. In particular, if you think I have made an assumption I have not acknowledged, or that a step needs tightening, that would be very helpful.

My aim here is not to claim any grand final answer but to put forward a clear argument for one position, and see where others think it holds or breaks.