Why is there Something rather than Nothing?
Act 1 Scene 1
Narrator: This is the story of Ernestina, a middle aged Counsellor therapist on a
quest for personal and academic development.
Having been set a philosophical challenge to answer the Question: Why is there
something rather than Nothing?, she set to researching philosophers views on the
question. Being completely mesmerised by the literature, the extensive language
and the variations of interpretation of this question Ernestina contemplated what her
investigation could possibly offer this Philosophical field and indeed how she was
going to apply any of her understanding to her humble work place. Exploring the
expansion within the question Ernestina began a quest to understand ‘how we have
any knowledge of the world or of anything?
Ernestina sat quietly and patiently with pen and paper waiting for inspiration to land,
Nothing happened! Her head throbbed as she considered the question, digested the
language she was trying to read and failing to have a starting point, her palms
became clammy. Sitting in the library late on a Thursday evening was surprisingly
peaceful and quiet. Despairing of her ability to tackle this issue she began to curse
the possibility that her comfortable ‘common sense realistic ‘position was about to
be challenged and may require modification or even change! ( Warburton 92)
Ernestina: Why should I have to discommode my position of comfort to question
whether or not anything else exists other than me? What’s this got to do with me
anyway?
Narrator: As she ranted she failed to see the tall dark man come alongside her until
he spoke in a thick french accent;
R. D.: Excusez moi, Madame, I cannot help but overhear your questions and I am
wondering if I can be of service?
Ernestina: Oh, sorry I wasn’t aware my rant was out loud.
R.D.: Do not apologise, I am wondering if I can help?
Ernestina: Well I have signed onto a course in Psychotherapy and I am struggling
with the philosophy module. I have no interest in this philosophical ‘mumbo jumbo’
and I care less for cyclical, illogical brain draining verbal debates and concepts and
propositions I cannot understand.
Narrator: The stranger's eyes twinkled and the edges of his moustache twitched as
he listened intently to the distressed Madame.
R.D.: It seems to me the question is whether there is anyway at all, we humans can
get to know anything for certain.
Ernestina: Maybe yes, my brain hurts when I even have to contemplate such things.
Why can’t we leave well enough alone? Who cares if there is something or nothing.
We’re all going the same way….rapidly towards death!
R.D.: Eh hah, Oui Madame, D'accord. You speak of your struggle to hold the
position of the sceptic.
Ernestina: The what?
R.D.: The sceptic ……Scepticism is the tendency to always look for grounds to
doubt, to have an ongoing drive to find ways to prove views unreliable.
Ernestina: Yes, What's the point in being so negative and undermining. Who cares
anyway?
R.D.: You know where I come from it was a commonly held view that things exist
because our senses tell us they do. However the sceptics argued we can never
know anything for certain and caused many philosophers to try to think of things in
different ways.
Ernestina: So?
R.D.: So urged by the sceptics to find a way to prove we could know things for
certain, I focused on creating a reliable way of gaining knowledge.
Ernestia: So you are one of those too? Do you know Professor Big? Have you any
idea what he speaks about?
R.D.: No I don’t know him, but no doubt he may know who I am. Let me tell you what
I learned….
Ernestina: Ok, but you better hurry, the library closes in 10 mins.
R.D.: Taking the position of the sceptics I rigorously considered methods of
information collection regarding two separate entities. Certainty and truth. What can
we know for certain? What is the truth?
Ernestina: I am struggling not to dissociate here!
R.D.: Okay suffice to say, adopting their doubting point position not only assisted in a
systematic method of enquiry but also allowed me to produce my best work.
Something you might want to consider in your current position.
Ernestina: Excuse me?
R.D.: Pardon, considering their strong verification that nothing in the sensual world
could be validated because of such exceptions such as illusions and dream states
and consciousness, I approached the issue in three stages:
Stage1: Required the letting go of thoughts based on ordinary Common-sensical
Grounds
Ernestina: That's me gone.
R.D.: Stage2: I doubted any given moment I was awake and perceiving.
Ernestina: How is that even possible?
R.D.: Stage 3: Difficult yes, and then I imagined a malicious demon and considered
if there was anything he could mislead me about.
Ernestina: Yep I think it is time for me to go, this is all getting too weird! Mr?
R.D.: Rene , enchantez! No don’t go until I tell you what I found……..
Ernestina: Ok but I’m out of here in 3 mins.
R.D. : Using this technique as a form of intellectual critique I winnowed out my
personal beliefs and explored if some were more certain than others.
Ernestina: Well what did you discover?
R.D.: Suddenly all doubt stopped when I discovered that I was engaged in thinking,
and that the malicious demon can deceive me but he cannot make me believe that I
am thinking when I am not.
Ernestina: Hey Rene, it’s late and you are speaking of demons, deception and
thinking. Ever heard of ‘game of thrones? I think I need to go.
R.D. Wait You didn’t hear the best bit….
Ernestina: There is one?
R.D. Yes I concluded… I am thinking therefore I exist. This is the first thing of
certainty. I wrote about it, perhaps you have read it? Cognito Ergo Sum.
Ernestina: I have heard of it but I am struggling to see how this can help me to
understand this philosophy question….
R.D.: Well…. I am consciously aware therefore I know I exist, however I cannot
immediately infer the actual world from my experience.
Ernestina: What a bummer……
R.D.: So in order to understand the world I construct it entirely from the contents of
my consciousness.
Ernestina: How do you know your construction is accurate and correct?
R.D.: I believe it is from God. The mere fact this idea came to me proves that there
really is a God. Based on the Principle ‘ the lesser cannot give rise to or be the
cause of the greater’, I as a finite creature could not possibly have given rise to such
an idea, it was ‘implanted’ only by God himself.
Ernestina: So you are certain of the existence of an external world from your belief
in God’s existence?
R.D.: Yes….. not only that I believe I have done everything in my power to make
sure my beliefs are not founded on error and God will make sure that I am not
fundamentally and systematically mistaken.
Ernestina: Well ok, I respect your beliefs but I don’t think Prof Big will accept the
answer: There is something rather than nothing because of God!
R.D. I’m not so sure…..
Ernestina: I’m off….
R.D.: Oh Ernestina, I believe the fundamental properties of the world and mind can
be discovered by reflection. I don’t believe that everything is derived from experience
and experiments are necessary to distinguish between some ways of explaining
nature and others. I believe we can develop different models of the world and
experiment is what is needed to discover which truly represents nature. But most
importantly Ernestina You need to know the right questions to ask.
Ernestina: Ok Rene, I hear you. You want me to be more critical in my enquiry and
to focus on the right questions.
R.D.: Yes, All you have to do is think of the right questions, God has arranged things
so that nature will give you the answers.
Ernestia: And if I do not believe in God?
R.D.: For me God has assisted in arriving at the method of Inquiry, but once you
possess the method you don’t have to be a believer in God to use it.
Ernestina: Right, got it.
R.D.: Last word Ernestina, rather than question What is there, or How’s the world,
what can we know or even what we can know…. Ask yourself ‘WHAT CAN I
KNOW?’ Focus on the egocentric question in your quest, stay with the first person
and the epistemological emphasis and GOOD LUCK.
Narrator: Hurriedly, Ernestina leaves the library as the final librarian notices her
muttering to herself as she flees down the stairs and out the security barrier with two
philosophy tomes under her arms.
She reflected: Confused about this man's findings…… Surely it is more appropriate
to say there are thoughts rather than I think, if truly adopting a sceptical approach.
By using the terms ‘I THINK’, he was making an assumption that if there were
thoughts there must have been a thinker, is this not open to doubt under the
sceptical approach? As she wandered back to her accommodation she found herself
amused at the notion some philosophical thoughts were beginning to develop!
Act 2
Scene 1
Narrator: Poor Ernestina… she questioned… What is wrong with a life of
undisturbed routine ( Robinson &Groves 98). This philosophical world is made up of
‘awkward and irritating individuals with time on their hands asking deceptively
simple questions which never seem to have simple answers’.
Ernestina: At this stage in my life, why has this become my ‘something’. At my age,
how can I adapt and learn to be anything other than who I am?’
Narrator: From her peripheral vision she noted a well dressed man walking
purposefully across the university park accompanied by what looked like his
assistant. The stranger became engaged once Ernestina mentioned her age out
loud.
I.K.: Age? Don’t be limited by it. I believe I have produced my best work from 52-70
years!
Ernestina: Oh Yea? Under her breath she muttered not another one of those nut
jobs.
I.K.: Yes.
Ernestina: I guess from your accent you are not from around here.
I.K. No Prussia but I am well known in a lot of places. You can call me Immanuel.
Word has it you are struggling with the question Why something rather than nothing?
Ernestina: Oh Yea? Is it out on the weirdo web?
I.K.: Welcome to my world!. Now I have heard you spent time studying Hume and
Locke and their views that what exists can only be based on the observable and
detectable. Their disregard for aspects that are subjective ignited me in my thinking
and woke me from my ‘dogmatic rationalistic slumbers’.
Ernestina: Nice way of putting it.
I.K.: That is the truth.
I rejected the view that how we see things is indoctrinated by our past experiences.
Ernestina: So what do you think?
I.K.: Well how I see it is: We humans don’t just gain knowledge of the world by how
we see it based on causation but also as a result of how we constituted it.
Ernestina: Stop, can you say that a little clearer please.
I.K.: Apologies, my communication style has been widely criticised, partly for the use
of the uniquely German academic literary style. Let me try to awaken you also from
your philosophical slumber…..
Ernestina: Good luck with that Buddy, I’d be lucky if I could get to sleep. This stuff
has my head wrecked and my anxiety regarding this assignment is depriving me of
any sleep.
I.K.: Well your attitude is probably not helping either and here’s where my work may
be relevant.
Ernestina: WOW
I.K.: To begin with you have entered the ‘chaotic battlefield’ of the philosophical
world. To date philosophers have tried to account for the world and its existence
based on the general view of two types of propositions: a) Truths of reason:
analytical propositions which are a priori depending on experience and are
reasonably true eg a square has 4 sides ( empiricism) and b) Substantial
Informative non trivial propositions( based on experience and observation)
(rationalists)
Ernestina: So let me guess you had a different view?
I.K. : Yes I believed that neither view was quite right. I proposed in order for us to
have experience of an object we required sensory, intellectual and conceptual
capacities. I called this ‘Sensible Intuition’. So in order for us to perceive we cannot
but bring certain predispositions to bear and only what fits in with those
predispositions can be experienced. This experienced data or ‘impressions’ are
necessary conditions of the possibility of experience.
Ernestina: So in order to know there is something, anything, I need to have sensible
intuition and these impressions allow the experience to be possible. So could that
then influence what I see or indeed if I can perceive anything at all?
I.K.: Yes and to be more specific these propositions are ‘synthetic A Priori’. These
world propositions are yet not validatable by experience. The first are ‘Forms of
sensibility’ and include space and time. Space and time are inescapable modes of
experience for us and only in those dimensions can we experience the world. They
cannot exist independently of us and of our experience.
Ernestina: So I cannot perceive something independent of space or time?
I.K.: Correct. The second of the synthetic A Priori Propositions are ‘forms of
Understanding. These are forms of thought. These involve the application of
fundamental principles of physical science in relation to forms of understanding.
Ernestina: So how can we have an understanding of things as they are?
I.K.: Well in my view we can't. Things are impacted by our forms of sensibility and
forms of understanding.
Ernestina: So we cannot directly access things, if they are there?
I.K.: Yes
Ernestina: And what about God?
I.K. ; Well I don’t think it is possible to know if God exists. However personally I
believe he does. These beliefs are a matter of unsecured faith, not of possible
knowledge.
Ernestina: So is this beyond your philosophical theory?
I.K.: Well no not really. I believe we are all entitled to moral convictions and religious
convictions, in fact I believe we all have them in some form or other and I believe
they also influence us.
Ernestina; So do you see them as separate?
I.K.: Yes. All we can ever experience is the phenomenal world which may not be at
all like the noumenal world( real). Human Science deals with the Phenomenal world (
things as they appear) and religious remains in the unknown noumenal one ( things
as they really are). So science and religion need not conflict with each other.
Ernestina: But if all we can experience is the phenomenal world how can you be
confident of a noumenal one?
I.K.: Go Ernestina, you are awakening your philosophical mind!.
I can't be sure.
However I believe we must have free will if we are to choose to be moral beings. To
be virtuous we must use reason and this allows us to discover our duty and act on
principles that respond to universal law. Religion enables ordinary people to make
sense of a world that seems immoral.
Ernestina; So your ‘something’ is influenced by the presence of sensible intuition,
synthetic a priori propositions, along with free will, religious and moral convictions
and common law principle embedded in rationality?
I.K.: I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Ernestina: No Kidding….. I’m off. I am beginning to see how this discipline throws
up more questions than answers!
Narrator: Ernestina was exhausted at this stage and returned to her humble
lodgings to rest.
Act 3:
Scene 1:
Narrator: As her head hit the pillow Ernestina tumbled into a world of religious and
mythological iconology. As she tumbled like Alice through the looking glass, down
the rabbit hole she heard the following words:
N: ‘ One repays a teacher badly if one remains nothing but a pupil’
Narrator: She reflected on the teachings of Professor Big and as she did a large
marble statue came crashing through the air and almost hit her as it shattered and
the head rolled beyond her feet.
Ernestina: I know who is coming next….
N: Who might that be?
Ernestina: It’s you Nietzsche. I suppose you will contribute your tuppence worth to
my plight also.
N: What do you think?
Ernestina: Well maybe not actually.
N.: You’ve been studying well Ernestina! You’re right I want you to become
something more.
Ernestina: Something rather than nothing maybe?
N: Well, I've been hearing all this conversation, reflection and consultation with
others regarding why something rather than nothing. Why does it matter what
anyone else thinks? You are relying too much on the ‘herd’ mentality.
Ernestina: What do you mean?
N: Think for yourself woman! Truth is a relative matter, there are no facts only
interpretations. Find your truth. You need to be individually creative and find ‘your will
to power’.
Ernestina: So really ‘why something rather than nothing’ relies on my interpretation
and I should answer this as I see fit based on my perceptions and experiences.
N: Yep find your own way….
Ernestina: And I dare not mention the G word to YOU.
N.: Well you have now! All there is , is now. Time is cyclical and the only way to
judge the value of one's life is by the concept of ‘eternal recurrence’ .
Ernestina: Eternal What?
N.: Eternal Recurrence: ie whether or not you would be happy to repeat it again.
Ernestina: Well maybe I’d give this assignment a skip!
N.: You have a choice now how you live and what you do.
As for God… Christianity reduces human nature to traditional notions of good and
evil. It endorses group think and prevents the notion of will to power and personal
autonomy.
Ernestina: I hear what you are saying, the importance of finding one's own ‘will to
power’ and autonomy.
N.: Precisely. You have heard me say: He who has a why to live for can bear almost
any how’. Do I need to say any more? Ernestina: No
Narrator: And with that Ernestina woke with a start to the sound of her alarm.
Act 4
Scene 1:
Narrator: Sitting by the window Ernestina noted the little plump bird sitting on the
branch outside. She reflected on its carefree life of freedom and joy and wondered
what it’s ‘something’ might be. Disturbed by a loud knock she rose and went to the
door. Weary of the calibre of characters she had recently encountered she called out
to check who was there.
Ernestina: Who is there?
V.F.: It’s only me.
Narrator: Ernestina immediately recognised the voice as that of an old friend and
threw open the door to greet him.
V.F.: I heard you were in a bit of a ‘flap’ in relation to this philosophy question you
have been asking others about.
Ernestina: I didn’t know there was C.C.T.V. on campus!
V.F.: I’m here to remind you of your roots and to encourage you to draw on the
knowledge you hold of something and nothing from an existential perspective and
the many people you have observed in your practice.
You know my observations relate to individuals in the most adverse of situations and
I can categorically propose there is ‘something and it is most definitely preferable to
nothing’.
Ernestina: And your definition of something is?
V.F.: The meaning man has put on life. This is real and concrete. I believe the
salvation of man is love and in love.
Ernestina: So there is ‘something‘ because man needs a meaning to live and it’s
love?
V.F.: Yes. Ernestina, the last of human freedoms is to choose one’s attitude to any
given set of circumstances. I have noticed your attitude in this whole process and at
times it has been a little sharp and disrespectful.
Ernestina: Really?
V.F.: Yes, it is all our responsibility to focus on life and find the answer to life's
problems and fulfil the tasks set for each individual. In observing your recent
frustrations I believe you are experiencing an ‘existential frustration’.
Ernestina: I am? But I am not in adversity.
V.F.: Existential Frustration exists when man struggles to find meaning in 1)
Existence itself, i.e. the specifically human mode of being, 2) the meaning of
existence and 3) the striving to find a concrete meaning in personal existence, that is
the will to meaning. The task is to ‘unmask’ the pseudo values causing the existential
tension. All this negativity you exude in relation to philosophy just does not seem
authentic. Could it be the ‘lady doth protest too much?’
Ernestina: So you think my existential frustration relates to a frustration to find my
meaning of existence?
V.F.: Maybe…..
Ernestina: Maybe you think my frustration relates to some hidden desire to be a
philosopher?
V.F. : Yes, maybe more than that… I believe you are a philosopher and are choosing
not to engage it to maintain a less complicated life.
Ernestina: Oh, Since when did all this become about me?
V.F.: It has always been about you and me and everyone. This is the essence of the
meaning of life. The knowledge that there is a meaning in One's life is what makes
the difference to us all. I believe that where there is a gap between what we are and
what we should become is what causes a Noogenic neurosis. It is important we are
not afraid to create a sound amount of tension with those we work with
therapeutically to re orient them toward the meaning of their lives.
Ernestina: You are a psychotherapist?
V.F.: Yes and the approach I use is based on finding ‘ a will to meaning’. This
approach focuses on healing the soul by finding meaning. It acknowledges the
uniqueness of individuals and how they are able to live and die for the sake of their
beliefs and values.
Ernestina: Healing through finding meaning….. Finding ‘something’
V.F.: Yes. Observing individuals in the most adverse of situations I noted that all
they had to choose was their attitude and behaviours. All of us have the potential to
be ‘swine or saints’, which one is actualised depends on decisions we make, not on
the conditions we are in.
Ernestina: So you believe we always have a choice?
V.F. : Yes and it is up to each individual to decide their own ‘responsibleness ‘.
Ernestina: Can you tell me more please?
V.F.: Well I am proposing there is something and not nothing and it relates to, and is
the essence of human existence and that is ‘responsibleness’. Each of us has to
decide whether we are responsible to society or our own conscience. The meaning
of Life or ‘something’ is not discovered in the closed system of our own psyches.
The more one forgets himself by giving himself to a cause to serve, or another
person, or to love, the more he is and the more he actualises himself.
Ernestina: So the more responsible we are to our convictions and values the more
we develop our humanity and become more actualised?
V.F.: Yes…. and there is also the importance of finding something in suffering. To
bear witness is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph. Suffering Ceases to
be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning.
Ernestina: So even in our deepest suffering finding meaning or something can help
us to endure further.
V.F. : Precisely.
Ernestina: But what about those who in suffering take the view everything is
meaningless?
V.F.: That stance of ‘Nihilism’ concerns me. It reduces man to a ‘nothingness’ and
fails to consider him any more than the result of biological, psychological and social
conditions or the product of hereditary and environment, which I guess is something
but is reductionist. It fails to appreciate that man is free and does not account for the
unexpected capabilities of defying and braving even the worst conditions
conceivable.
Ernestina: So it is our meanings, or somethings that determine whether we give into
the conditions or stand up to them.
V.F.: Yes and also it seems Man has the capacity to maintain a ‘cold curiosity’ and
detach his mind from those surroundings and engage in those meanings. Humour is
also one of the souls' weapons in the fight for self preservation.
Ernestina: So, meaning, the ability to engage it , freedom and responsibleness and
humour are all ‘somethings’ that keep man resilient.
V.F.: And conscience and values.
One other thing.. I hear you looking for the meaning of Life or Somethings, but I think
we are being questioned by life.
Ernestina: Well now I’m lost…
V.F.: We can only answer to life by answering for our own lives. What matters is not
the meaning of life in general but the specific meaning of a person's life at a given
moment. Cease searching for abstract meanings and focus more on specific
vocations and missions in life.
Ernestina: So meanings or somethings need to be individual, specific and personal.
V.F.: Start to find meanings. Those who fail to do so exist in an ‘existential vacuum’.
They will have enough to live but nothing to live for.
Ernestina: How do I find this meaning?
V.F.: Ernestina do I detect a fledgling existentialism in the making?
Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first
time as wrongly as you are about to act now.
Ernestina: Wow, in other words reflection now to prevent future regret.
Narrator: And with that the bird flew from the branch and as Ernestina turned to
close the window, when she turned around he was gone.
She sat quietly and thought about the question, her philosophical learnings and her
practice. She listed all she had learned about why there is something rather than
nothing.
Act 5
Narrator: As Ernestina boarded the train she considered her favourite book and
reflected on the wisdom of her favourite Characters:
“We all need a reason to keep going’ said the Horse, “What’s yours?”
“ you three” said the fox.
‘getting home,” said the boy.
‘Cake,” said the mole
(Mackesy 21)
Narrator: And as the train sped through the Countryside and brought Ernestina
closer to her ‘somethings’ she listened to one of her favourite 80s pop singers….
Annie Lennox…. ‘sweet dreams’ and reflected on how ‘every body is looking for
something’.
The End
Please note: No Philosophers were intentionally harmed in the production of
this little play. However it cannot be guaranteed that their theories were not
oversimplified due to the Authors inexperience.
This post was submitted by Evelyn Waters a Counsellor therapist with the National Counselling
service within the H.S.E. who provides counselling and psychotherapy to
adult clients who have experienced childhood abuse, trauma, and neglect. Evelyn has been a part of the
service since it’s foundation in 2000 and holds professional accredited qualifications
in Supervision and Psychosexual therapy. Evelyn recently embarked on the part time
Doctoral programme in Psychotherapy at D.C.U.
References and Bibliography:
Osborne, R. (1982). Philosophy for beginners. Pub. Writer& Readers New York.
Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. Pub.
Penguin Random House, New York
Robinson, D.& Groves, J.(1998). Introducing Philosophy. Pub. Icon Books U.K.
Nagel, T. (1987) What does t all mean? A short Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Davidson, M. (2021) Knowledge and Reality in Nine Questions: A first book of
Philosophy. Bloomsbury Academic London.
Magee, B. (Ed). (1987). The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western
Philosophy. Oxford University Press, U.K.
Warnock, G. Cited in: Magee, B. (Ed). (1987). The Great Philosophers: An
Introduction to Western Philosophy. Oxford University Press, U.K.
Williams, B. Cited in: Magee, B. (Ed). (1987). The Great Philosophers: An
Introduction to Western Philosophy. Oxford University Press, U.K.
Bilimoria, P. (2012). Why Is There Nothing Rather Than Something? Sophia , 51(4),
509–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-012-0348-7
Brenner, A. (2022). Explaining Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.
Erkenntnis, 87(4), 1831–1847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00277-6
D’Souza, M. (2016). Something Rather Than Nothing: Human Living and the
Christian Philosophy of History. Heythrop Journal, 57(3), 584–598.
https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.12299
Imaguire, G. (2022). Something Rather Than Nothing. Philosophy, 97(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819121000371
Mulhall, S. (2009). Why is There Something Called Philosophy Rather than Nothing?
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 65, 257–273.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246109990130
Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2018). Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? A
Probabilistic Answer Examined. Philosophy, 93(4), 505–521.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819118000189
Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2018). Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? A
Probabilistic Answer Examined. Philosophy, 93(4), 505–521.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819118000189
Shand, J. (2016). WHY THERE IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING. Think,
15(43), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175616000063
Sommers, F. (1966). Why Is There Something and Not Nothing? Analysis, 26(6),
177–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/3326762
Mackesy, C.( 2019 ). The boy, the mole, the fox and the Horse. Ebury Publishing.
U.K.
Secondary References:
Hempel, C. (2001). Science Unlimited? In J.H. Fetzer (Ed.), The Philosophy of Carl
G. Hempel:
Studies in Science, explanations, and rationality. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Lange, M. (2013). Are somethings naturally necessary? In T. Goldschmidt (Ed.), The
puzzle of
Existence: Why is there something rather than nothing? (pp.235-251). New York:
Routledge
Leslie, J.(2001) Infinite Minds: A philosophical Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Brenner, A.(2016). What do we mean when we ask “Why is there something rather
than nothing?”
Comments